Results of the Survey of PODAG Members

Greg Hunolt, December 11, 2001

The purpose of this paperlet is to report the results of the informal survey taken of PODAG members a month or so ago. Members were requested to respond to the question and comments on the survey itself, a prototype of a survey that may be given to all DAAC UWG members. Ten (including mine) responses were received from PODAG members, out of fifteen possible; thanks to those who took the time to take the survey.

This report will proceed in three sections: first, one by one, the results of the multiple choice questions, second the responses to the ‘essay’ question, and finally the comments received on the survey itself. This report will not associate the responses with their owners, so the report will be anonymous although the survey, with response by email, was not anonymous.

Multiple Choice Questions

1. Do you believe the time you give to the PODAG is well spent?

 Yes, PODAG is active and being a member of PODAG is well worth my time.

 No, being on PODAG is not a very good use of my time.

All ten responding PODAGers answered ‘yes’ to this question.

2. Do you have a clear understanding of what the role of the PODAG is?

 Yes, the role of PODAG and its relation to the DAAC, ESDIS Project, and project

and program scientists is clear.

 Partially - the role of PODAG in relation to the DAAC is clear, but its relation to the

ESDIS Project or project and program scientists is not at all clear.

 No, the PODAG seems to function in an ad hoc manner.

Five PODAGers answered ‘yes’, five answered ‘partially’.

3. Is the PODAG's advice sought and valued by the NISDC DAAC?

 Yes, the NSIDC DAAC asks for and clearly values the PODAG's advice.

 The NSIDC DAAC mostly tolerates the PODAG as a required activity.

 No, the NSIDC DAAC simply goes through the motions with no real regard for the

PODAG's advice.

Eight PODAGers answered ‘yes’, one chose the middle response, one preferred an intermediate response between them.

4. Was the PODAG provided an opportunity to review the NSIDC DAAC's annual work plan prior to its submission to ESDIS?

 A draft of the plan was provided for review prior to its submission to ESDIS.

 The activities covered by the plan were presented to the PODAG prior to its

submission to ESDIS.

 No, the plan or activities in it were not provided until after submission of the work

plan to ESDIS.

 Not at all.

Four PODAGers chose the second response, the other six did not answer the question.

5. Do you feel you have sufficient understanding of NASA's priorities for the NSIDC DAAC's activities?

 Yes, the mission and priorities given to the NSIDC DAAC by NASA are clear.

 No, I have only a rough idea of the NSIDC DAAC's mission and priorities.

 No.

Seven PODAGers answered ‘yes’, two chose the middle response, and one did not answer the question.

6. Do you feel that you have sufficient understanding of resource constraints and tradeoff

when you are asked for advice on, or priorities for, NSIDC DAAC activities?

 Yes, the NSIDC DAAC makes its resource constraints clear.

 No, we are asked for advice and priorities without consideration of resource

constraints.

Eight PODAGers answered ‘yes’, one answered ‘no’, one did not answer.

7. Do you feel the NSIDC DAAC is well prepared for PODAG meetings?

 Yes, the NSIDC DAAC is always prepared, provides material to the PODAG in

advance of the meetings to facilitate progress at the meetings.

 NSIDC DAAC preparation seems perfunctory, or to be mostly rushed at the last

minute.

 The NSIDC DAAC is not prepared, meetings are not well organized, needed

information or people are often unavailable.

All ten PODAGers responding answered ‘yes’.

8. Does the NSIDC DAAC report on actions taken in response to the PODAG's advice, and answers to questions posed by PODAG?

 Yes, reports or answers are provided in most or all cases.

 Sometimes or in some cases.

 No, or very seldom - our advice or questions mostly disappear.

Nine PODAGers answered yes, one did not answer.

9. Does the ESDIS Project or the NASA program office respond to PODAG recommendations or answer questions posed by PODAG?

 Yes, responses or answers are provided in most or all cases.

 Sometimes or in some cases.

 No, or very seldom - our recommendations or questions mostly disappear.

Four PODAGers answered ‘sometimes’, three answered ‘yes’, and three did not answer the question.

Essay Question Responses

In this section I will list the responses to the essay question, except for any comments on the survey itself which I will report in the next section. Eight PODAGers provided an answer, one of which I felt was more a comment on the survey itself.

The question was: Do you have any suggestions on how the PODAG process could be improved, or any steps that the NSIDC DAAC or ESDIS could take to make the PODAG more effective?

The responses:

1. “The NSIDC DAAC is reasonably prepared, and provides material to the PODAG in advance of the meetings to facilitate progress at the meetings. But their responses to action items sometimes appear to be addressed late and inadequately.”

2. “Didn't answer 4, because I am not sure of sequence although I feel WPlan is provided in timely manner with opportunity to comment. I was positive about questions on resource info and constraints because I asked for more info on this and NSIDC responded with briefings on fund sources and manpower assignments at mtgs. I think this was helpful for members to see the bigger picture of NSIDC support and offset some detailed nit-picking about what NSIDC is doing. This should be continued.”

3. “Especially for newer members, some clear presentation of the relationships and history of the DAAC and its development/funding would be most helpful. If this is available now, I don't think it was when I started.”

4. “I have only been to one PoDAG meeting as Program Manager, so it is a bit hard for me to judge on the follow-up of actions from previous meetings. I suspect members who have attended more meetings will have more insight as to the effectiveness of the process. However, as program manager, I can say that I feel the communication flow from PoDAG to NSIDC to me (and hopefully in the other direction) is good.”

5. “There should be a stronger link from PODAG to the GSFC EOS science office, and to other DAAC UWGs. Attendance by Mike King and Skip Reber at a recent meeting was a start only.”

6. “I would like to see a better articulation of how the NSIDC DAAC supports applicable ESE science objectives, that can be extended to flag data sets, especially 'Version 0' that should be high priority because they best support those objectives.”

7. “My prime concern about DAACs and ESDIS is that metrics for success appear non existent or totally unrelated to "research productivity" for the investment. ESDIS has become an end in itself, and some hard thinking is needed to overhaul completely the approach to data storage, product derivation, and delivery to users. this must include an ongoing assessment of success in terms of applications of products to research etc. A good start would be an in depth assessment of ASF: start by stating objective of ASF (acquiring and storing lots of data is not an adequate objective in my opinion). Then assess how well this was met. And cost it all out to see, for instance, what major science advances have been made with ASF data. Doing this across the board is likely to show where the "meat" is in the data business. It cannot be done from within ESDIS, which appears to have metrics little related to what I think of as research productivity.”

8. “I wish I could be more helpful with my comments and responses, but I have only been a PODAG member for one meeting. It was my impression that NSIDC respected the advice from PODAG.”

9. “More interaction among UWGs from other DAACs -- often the same issues are discussed separately by each UWG. Some coordination would save time and allow a response to ESDIS with a more unified voice. Each UWG should have at least one member who is also a member of another UWG. A knowledgeable representative from ESDIS should attend each UWG meeting (usually this is true). More communication between the DAAC personnel and scientists who use the data should be encouraged -- perhaps through a seminar series (could be part of UWG meeting, as is done at Langley DAAC). This helps DAAC personnel understand what scientists need in the way of data access and services, as well as helping them understand how the data they work on every day are used in research.”

10. “The PoDAG members should be involved more actively in advising NSIDC DAAC priorities so that they feel their time is worth spent - and this has positive feedbacks - you feel like being part of the process and the DAAC future.”

Comments on The Survey

As I mentioned above, one comment was provided as an answer to the essay question, others came by separate email.

a. Re the questions:

1. “The answer choice above was inadequate. eg: my answer to 7 really lies between first and second. And for 9 is between 2nd and 3rd.”

2. “Comment on survey: For me, the correct answer to questions #4 and #9 is "I don't know", probably because I am a relatively new PODAG member.”

3. “Also, there might appropriately be a button which says "don't know" or more accurately "can't remember" too!”

I will modify the question list accordingly.

b. Re the mechanics of the on-line survey:

1. " ‘Submitting’ still doesn't generate a reply as far as I can tell.”

2. “nope, no new window.
> What should have happened after you hit 'submit' was a new html page should
> have popped up saying something like thanks for taking the survey “

3. “The problem is the Netscape window with the form stays there unchanged, somaybe you could have it set to go to a Thanks for submission window?”

4. “I just tried to fill out and submit the survey. When I tried to submit, I kept getting a message back saying that the server was unavailable and to try back later. I re-tried several times but always received the same message. I had to give up and I guess will have to try again at another time.”

5. “It did not appear to want to submit, so I copy it all here.”

I apologize for the difficulty people had with submitting their response - I made an error (or two) in the initial set-up, and I need to find out why the submission acknowledgement dingus didn’t seem to work for you.