SEP in the SNWG Program Plan

[CherrelleTucker]

Ultimate Goal

• Science SOW - introduction to the solution (background on SNWG and expectations they have)
• Project Plan is binding document that solution implementation teams are required to adhere to (whatever is state here is “law”)
• NPR71.2088 template for project plans (tailored to solution projects)
• Gray text is guidance text (won’t be included in final project plan)
• Natasha: Suggest we add a few sentences to the science SOW at the beginning “Purpose of this document is to… in response, submit a project plan”
• Natasha: Role of SEP is not to do stakeholder engagement on behalf of projects; it’s to provide direction, create connections, etc. - provide framework for teams to adapt
• Natasha: Need to find a way to have co-design in the technical approach; Could place text in section 1.3 in the technical approach section; for this cycle could keep things separate and in future design a technical approach that has co-design incorporated
• Anita: Weighing balance of keeping separate and [ ]; want to make it clear; maybe in SOW, be very forthright that this is what we are trying to change (without scaring away the teams)
• Natasha: Link [in plan] to milestones?
• Gradual change vs all at once (rip of the bandaid) - which path to choose
• Anita: Want to rip the bandaid off but in workshops, etc. that we’re here to support; have document, etc.; can communicate throughout the process; included example in snwg-sep slack channel of co-design failure; don’t want this kind of things to occur for SNWG
• Natasha: Training or webinar open to all solutions teams (2022 team in particular) to explain and walk through; may need a guidebook; people outside of SNWG are asking for this type of training as well
• Action: Team to look at these documents (SNWG-MO Project Plan Template) and discuss more next meeting
• How to incorporate co-design into solution project plan
• Pontus: Seems like gradual approach would work better but need to look into more
• Sean: Is it possible to do both (gradual and rip bandaid)? Do differently depending on the solution?
• Natasha: [Ripping off bandaid] would just be a few more additions [of co-design] to the technical part; leaning toward ripping of bandaid
• Pontus: E.g. HLS (pure data) would be less complicated
• Natasha: According to David, already doing this (codesign) with OPERA
• Action: Pontus and Natasha to talk to David about how codesign is done for OPERA when in California
• Jenny: Would be helpful if there was existing training so that teams could reference; feel like they’ll have a lot of questions so they would come back to us to hold their hand through things; SNWG SEP plan for the to reference before we send out the project plan would be ideal
• Katrina: Remember this happening from last cycle
• Anita: Could include examples of how you can do this, pitfalls, etc.; have a way where people could skip around (within this info) to find what they need
• Sean: Two to four or five weeks from now before the [project plan goes out?]
• Two weeks the timeline if doing things the same for all solutions
• Pontus leaving on the 17th, Natasha leaving on the 16th (will be out of pocket [ ])
• May need to postpone the kickoff meeting back
• Sean: Can work this
• Action: Natasha will work on the Project Plan document with the rip off bandaid approach
• Action: Plan to offer a webinar (as much support as teams want)
• Katrina: Most concerned about ocean winds team (JPL) – adding things would make it to where they would not be able to finish in 5-years
• Natasha: May have to tailor things for them (JPL teams in general)
• Sean: For ocean winds, may have more time
• Katrina: For 2024 solutions, if we want them in their initial cost estimates, want to have resources to point them to so that we aren’t having to build in more time/dollars in after
• Natasha: Excellent point
• Katrina: Something simple they can use to get a WAG
• Natasha: We need to have something ready for when this comes around
• Natasha will ask around on this
• Action: Ask SERVIR about how they do co-design
• Pontus: The language “you will have to do this or you will not receive funding” works in the research community
• Sean: On board with this for Cycle 5, but for Cycle 4, this was not in their agreements/budget; this may not fly to well with the Cycle 4 teams (if it’s significantly additional scope)
• Anita: Could scope this out first; maybe try with HLS since in house to see how it goes
• Natasha: (Could go into Anita’s document) what is the minimum amount of co-design and then what is the most you could do; could define the minimal amount of co-design they need to fit in
• Anita: Thinking about building in quarterly meetings where they chat with the agencies - hopefully wouldn’t create too much heartburn
• Natasha: Add in the project plan, understand that this a new requirement; lets meeting with SEP and MO and see what makes sense; Could we put that caveat in there
• Katrina: In the science SOW, could incorporate that here (“Stakeholder Engagement and Solution Co-design” section)
• Action: Natasha to add some language about this being a new approach and SEP open to feedback to how to adapt this to their project in the “Stakeholder Engagement and Solution Co-design” section

• Audience

• No response

• Additional Context

• No response

• Related Issues or files

• No response

[CherrelleTucker]

Jenny has added what she could. Needs a review from someone else. Eventually will get formalized and signed for FY25. Ideally not a living document. Annual update, but then generally just a reference. This will be closed out once actions are complete.

[CherrelleTucker]

2024-08-29 SNWG SEP Weekly Meeting

Current status: Jenny completed comments and updates in the SEP section. Next steps: Natasha to review. (In progress)

[CherrelleTucker]

Tues, Oct 8, 2024 9-10am CT

SEP language in the MO documentation

Requested by: Anita LeRoy Topics: SEP language and where it fits in within SNWG MO documentation

---

Microsoft Teams Need help? Join the meeting now Meeting ID: 274 590 459 122 Passcode: ecwbmg

---

Dial in by phone +1 256-715-9946,,631717233# United States, Huntsville Find a local number Phone conference ID: 631 717 233# Join on a video conferencing device Tenant key: teams@meet.nisn.nasa.gov Video ID: 112 769 267 9 More info For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN ALERT: All meeting participants consent to, and will abide by, the terms and conditions viewable at the LEGAL link below. No ITAR/EAR content display or sharing without consent from Export Control. Org help | Privacy and security

---