1 / 11

CoCom F2F meeting

CoCom F2F meeting . Chicago April 9-10, 2013. Expectations for April 9-10. 2012-13 – 15 month Plan and Budget Final budget to submit to BoD Plan for materials to Rob to prepare for submission to NSF 2013-18 – Proposal materials Far from prepared for final decisions - - -

tyra
Télécharger la présentation

CoCom F2F meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CoCom F2F meeting Chicago April 9-10, 2013

  2. Expectations for April 9-10 • 2012-13 – 15 monthPlan and Budget • Final budget to submit to BoD • Plan for materials to Rob to prepare for submission to NSF • 2013-18 – Proposal materials • Far from prepared for final decisions - - - • Review of core budgets wrt targets • Presentation and summary of initiatives • Programmatic and pan-IRIS • Identification of missing pieces • CoCom priorities on initiatives • Schedule for budget iterations – pre and post BoD • Confirmation for submission of draft program descriptions

  3. Challenges • Anticipating review • Collaborating with UNAVCO/PBO • Especially wrt Cascadia and Alaska (and Subduction Observatory?) • Syncing with NSF • What is EarthScope? • What are core services? • What are new initiatives? • What is 1-in-4? • What is IRIS? • Planning for eventual budget reductions? • Leading and pushing the envelope • A key issue with “New Technologies” • Predicting the future • Preparing for 2018

  4. Uncertainties • NSF Intentions • EarthScope vs Core • Innovation vs Status Quo • TA • Alaska • NSF mandate? • Exit strategy – 2018 or later? • Cost, schedule and scope containment / contingency • Eastern US - 1-in-4 • Schedule impact • Cost impact • Equipment capitalization • Instrumentation • New Technology • “Large N” • Replacement • GSN – Primary • PAS/FA - TA inheritance

  5. Proposal Themes • Sustain the core • Prepare for the future • Quality Initiative • International leadership • Protecting the NSF investment • Completing EarthScope • Equipment re-use • Balancing Services • TA/FA • Data Services -> pan IRIS • Communicating with the Community

  6. What to take to the Board? • USArray Issues • Extent and shape of Alaskan investment • TA scope and schedule • MT scope and schedule • FA/PAS merge policies • Cascadia • Initiatives • As proposed by CoCom • How to incorporate new initiatives • New technologies

  7. NSF Guidance The GESF proposal will be based on an underlying integrated Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) with the following high-level elements:(a) Management of the Global Seismographic Network; (b) Management of the USArray Transportable Array, including magnetotelluric systems; (c) PI support, including PASSCAL and the USArray Flexible Array; (d) Polar programs support activities; (e) Data management activities; (f) Education and outreach efforts; (g) New initiatives; and (h) Project management.

  8. From NSF Guidance Response • The proposals should not include an annual IRIS Community Workshop, UNAVCO Community Workshop, and EarthScope Science Workshop. The EAR viewpoint is unanimous. • The current structure of IRIS and UNAVCO Community Workshops every other year, alternating with EarthScope Workshops in the intervening years, in addition to the SSA Annual Meeting, the AGU Fall Meeting, and numerous smaller workshops, provides ample opportunity for community engagement and discussion. • We emphasize that focused workshops may always be proposed separately. • “New initiatives” are those activities that would be new and would be conducted during all or part of the 5-year proposal period. They must be fully described in the proposal and the budget.

  9. We ask that the proposals include the following budget tables in addition to those requested previously: • The budget tables should present rolled-up budget numbers at each WBS level. For example, the SAGE budget tables should include subtotals that add up all 3.1.3.x activities into a single 3.1.3 number, all 3.1.x activities into a single 3.1 number, etc. • We also request that both SAGE and GAGE proposals include a table and graphic showing the total budget requested for activities that cross multiple WBS elements, including at least management, governance, data, and instrumentation; you could also consider an “other” category.

More Related