Concept of Operations and Operations Management and Coordination

Download this document as:

Adobe PDF • Open Document • Microsoft Word

CONOPS session participants:

Paul Moersdorf, moderator (NOAA NDBC), Jim Nelson, reporter (Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, SEACOOS PI), Rob Bassett (NOAA CoOPS), Ann Jochens (Texas A&M University, GCOOS), Andy Shepard (University of North Carolina, Wilmington), Greg McFall (NOAA Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary), Mel Briscoe (ONR, retired; former duties included Program Manager for SEACOOS), Parker Lumpkin (SECOORA), Jyotika Virmani (University of South Florida, FL COOS Consortium), Geoff Morrison (International SeaKeepers), Chris Mooers (University of Miami, SEACOOS PI), Libby Johns (NOAA, AOML), Josie Quintrell (National Federation of Regional Associations), Russ Lea (University of South Alabama; formerly UNC Office of the President, SEACOOS program coordination), Bob Weisberg (University of South Florida, SEACOOS PI)

Charge for the Session: How to coordinate efforts in regional coastal ocean observing system (RCOOS) design, development, maintenance and operations among the interested / responsible parties (private, academic, state and federal) through definition of a Concept of Operations (CONOPS).

Background: The functions that the RCOOS will be expected to fulfill in concert with the regional elements of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), and notably those of the federal "National Backbone", are largely undefined at present. Once established, the requirements/attributes needed to meet those functions can be outlined. A system diagram can be constructed and the potential realms of each (private, government, academic) sector in that system diagram be defined. A Concept of Operations is a process to provide a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of all parties engaged in an enterprise. In the case of the RCOOS, this includes the design of the overall system, defining how the system development is supported and implemented, establishing methods for assessing the functionality and performance of the system, as well as specification of maintenance and operations required for all the elements of the RCOOS. Associated questions include:

What are the key information needs for coordinated system design and evaluation?

What can be an effective mechanism for coordinated RCOOS development among national, regional and local interests?

What are the core operational requirements? What can be provided by the national, regional and local entities that are engaged in the RCOOS development?

What are appropriate models for an RCOOS Concept of Operation and how can these help guide the RCOOS development process?

Session Overview:

It was acknowledged that CONOPS is a broad topic and a full consideration requires input from sectors not represented in the session (including private industry, additional federal, state and local agencies, a range of stakeholders). Thus the details of CONOPS implementation were not addressed. Rather, the discussion centered on some of the key topics thought to be relevant to CONOPS development by the participants, including:

Defining roles and responsibilities of regional (RCOOS) programs with respect to those of the federal agency entities that will comprise the "National Backbone."

Some review of prior history – where we are and how we got here.

For the regional programs like SEACOOS, what have been obstacles to progress?

How can these be addressed?

Some proposed action items, focusing on defining the terms of engagement between the RCOOS and federal partners who are developing the "National Backbone" for the U.S. component of the IOOS.

Definition -- Concept of Operations.

The session began with a brief discussion of what is meant by the term "Concept of Operations," or CONOPS, both in a broad sense and in an RCOOS context. Broadly, a CONOPS is:

a generic term used in many fields, stemming from engineering and management and often used by the military and in operational meteorology;

a term whose exact definition and meaning depends upon the operational context and intended applications;

a means to define a set of functions to be performed (and/or products to be provided) for a given mission from which the attributes of an operational system can be defined;

a description of the set of capabilities required for the operational system.

It was recognized that there is no single definition for CONOPS. This will depend upon the specific system to which it is applied. Also, for most operational systems, and certainly for an RCOOS, a nested set of CONOPS will be required (i.e., the requirements for many operations must be defined).

In the context of an RCOOS, the CONOPS will help define:

What is expected from the RCOOS, including the beneficial services to the range of stakeholders in the region (including government agencies, the public, researchers, educators, various components of the private sector), and the value is being added to the region by the RCOOS.

Organizational structures and functional mechanisms required to achieve an "enabling system" that serves a broad range of interests.

How the RCOOS activities will be coordinated with those of other entities in the region.

Introduction to the session, initial discussion:

Paul Moersdorf (NDBC) acted as moderator for the afternoon session.

Moersdorf set an initial context for the discussion of a RCOOS CONOPS in terms of content and applications, posing as key issues: What are the requirements for the RCOOS? What is its "reason for being" and context? The CONOPS in this sense providing a plan to achieve the objectives and meet the requirements of stakeholders. Near-term objectives can then be defined in terms of key requirements for addressing the priority applications for the region. Given the state of development of IOOS planning at the federal level, it was proposed that an appropriate time horizon for defining CONOPS for the SE RCOOS is a near-to-medium term timeframe; some 5-10 years.

Moersdorf also emphasized that it is important to recognize that, as a guide toward the core objectives for the RCOOS, the CONOPS is not going to be static, but will need to evolve with changes in requirements, resources, and our understanding of the coastal ocean. Furthermore, it was seen that an "umbrella of CONOPS" will be needed; that is CONOPS defined for each of the functional units of the RCOOS (e.g., even down to level of CONOPS for each of various classes of models).

From the initial discussion, it was clear that a critical challenge for defining the RCOOS CONOPS in the near-term was seen as developing the means for effective engagement of government, academic and private sector elements and a range of stakeholders. Other factors to be addressed include: demonstrating the value of the RCOOS to the region; transitions from data (observations, model output) to value-added products; and engaging and "educating" potential users.

Some historical perspective.

Participants in the session were able to provide useful historical perspective to the issues and challenges associated with defining a CONOPS for the SE RCOOS; notably Mel Briscoe (ONR) from the perspective of interagency relationships and Paul Moersdorf from the perspective of the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC), one the key elements of the "National Backbone."

In Briscoe's opinion, a problem for IOOS/GOOS/COOS development over the last 20 years has been that it has been "trying to serve all needs." As a result, the system became perceived as being too complex and too expensive. The alternative approach, starting simply with well-defined applications and building from that has also been taken (e.g., surface wave measurements and applications). This is an approach which Briscoe feels can be productive. Briscoe sees one of the challenges as being to show how the more narrowly focused, application-specific, and incremental approach is also helpful in terms of building toward the "higher end" applications. In this sense, it was felt that the CONOPS cannot be trying to provide everything for everyone, but rather needs "a flavor" of the applications to pull in support, and provide the starting point for the further development of IOOS/RCOOS capabilities.

From the perspective of the operational branch of NOAA in the coastal ocean, Paul Moersdorf was asked to summarize how the CONOPS for the NDBC has evolved over the last 40 years. The original charge for the NDBC was to make marine weather observations and get that information to the National Weather Service (NWS), initially using terrestrial meteorological technology in a marine setting. Now, the NDBC is charged with efficient operation and management of: a marine meteorological network (buoys and shore stations and associated data management); a climate monitoring network; and a tsunami warning network. One of the key considerations for the NDBC operations is that the data is "perishable"; that is, high quality data must be delivered to the NWS in a timely fashion. The nature of the staffing at NDBC has also evolved over the years. Originally all were federal employees, mostly engineers. Presently most are contractors. However, although its mission and approach have evolved, Moersdorf noted that the total NDBC staffing has been fairly constant (about 44 + 6 over 40 years).

In response to a question from Chris Mooers concerning the role of R&D in the NDBC, Moersdorf responded that this has largely been conducted through interpersonal relationships and relationships with the community, as opposed to a formalized component of the NDBC CONOPS. The example sited was the development of directional wave measurement capabilities for the 3 m discus buoy (initiated by Ken Steele of NDBC in the 1980’s) and worked by a larger community. Recent interactions with the community have come through the "data quality" topic, examples being the QARTOD initiative (Quality Assurance for Real Time Ocean Data; workshop reports available at www.qartod.org), assessment of ADCP configurations on NDBC shelf buoys (intercomparison with a bottom-mounted instrument by Harvey Seim), and recent coordination with the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) on evaluation of wave sensors (www.act-us.info; workshop reports). There are also ongoing discussions regarding CO2 sensors on NDBC platforms.

The "National Backbone." Given the critical importance for CONOPS of the relationship of the RCOOS to the federally supported "National Backbone," Mel Briscoe provided some observations regarding where we are and how we got there. The term "National Backbone" is one originally used by the National Geodetic Survey, who provided a small core network of baseline geoid bench-marks around the nation, facilitating "densification" around these by state and local programs for elevation mapping (see: http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/foundations/gravity_surveys). Mel Briscoe related how, in background discussions for US GOOS and IOOS programs, the "National Backbone" concept was adopted as one which would help focus a federal-level commitment to monitoring the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and accepting a certain level of fiscal and management responsibility for the U.S. coastal ocean. Also, in terms of the "regions" defined for U.S. component of IOOS, Briscoe noted that the federal government needs a manageable number of units; past experience has shown that 10-12 units seems to be what works (note: there have been 11 Regional Associations established).

In terms of the "National Backbone", the opinion was voiced that the regions have been waiting too long for this to be defined. Moersdorf suggested that, as a starting point, a safe assumption is that the existing assets will be sustained. If additions are desired, then it will be up to the RAs and others to be advocates for these enhancements.

Costs and Economic Benefits. Factors that have contributed to reluctance by the federal government to commit significant new resources to IOOS development were noted. One concern felt to be significant among the U.S. Congress is that IOOS would represent commitment to a program that is ramping up in funding, but to an undefined level; thus a potential ramp-up in perpetuity. Moersdorf felt that a clear "concept of expectations" is needed, defining what is realistic. It also was felt that prior economic analyses have largely focused on what can be termed "cost-avoidance" (i.e., look what good things we have done and how you have benefited from it) as opposed to "value-creation" (i.e., actual scenarios of if we had X amount of funding we could save Y). Russ Lea noted that a broader view of private sector roles is needed, pointing to "carbon credit" trading as an example of private sector involvement in big picture environmental science issues; creation of "value" for the private sector based on scientific information.

Interactions between federal agencies and the regions. Effective engagement between the regions and federal agencies with a stake in ocean observing was seen as critical to defining a CONOPS for the RCOOS. However, a key lesson learned in the development of the IOOS and RA/RCOOS concepts has been that the federal government did not come to the regions as a partner at the onset.

Presently, it appears that the members of the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Observations (IWGOO) are principally concerned with their respective agencies, and Ocean.US, the organization created to coordinate agency efforts, has itself been operating as a virtual federal agency. It was felt that both the IWGOO and Ocean.US have been focused on agency roles and missions, and are not effectively engaging the regions in the IOOS development process. From the regional perspective, voiced by Josie Quintrell (NFRA), an ongoing source of concern is that it is not clear that there has been an endorsement of the regional concept at the federal level; the NOAA IOOS Program Office endorses this approach but it is unclear if this is shared by other NOAA line agencies and other federal agencies. In terms of effective engagement between the regions and the federal agencies, it was felt that the mechanisms are in place, pieces are not missing; rather, the challenge is to get these to work properly.

The general issue of effective engagement between academia, mission agencies, the private sector and regional stakeholders is in part a challenge of "merging cultures." It was suggested that we need to build on good intentions, but rethink how different entities interact, reconsider what should be their respective core missions for IOOS that will achieve the best results.

Roles and responsibilities.

Given the largely academic institution composition of the SEACOOS partner, the role of academia in the ongoing RCOOS CONOPS development was discussed.

Bob Weisberg (USF) has been a strong advocate for the need for a science-based design for the RCOOS; a CONOPS that is guided by furthering understanding of coastal ocean processes. Chris Mooers (UM) also pointed out how physical state estimation is fundamental to the priority applications/societal needs identified in IOOS planning documents and by SECOORA in the SE. On the other hand, information needs for some focused applications does not necessarily require understanding the coastal ocean.

In terms of the academic role in the RCOOS, the power of academic involvement in the RCOOS was seen as including:

• testing concepts, bringing in new ideas;
• developing approaches to various applications that are based on scientific understanding of coastal ocean processes;
• providing an ongoing evaluation of the adequacy of the system.

While the Regional Association process would (for example) provide the means to:

• engage stakeholders, conduct information needs assessments, and set priorities for RCOOS applications;
• engage the public, creating public awareness, and building support for the RCOOS.

Merging these two approaches (a scientifically defined RCOOS versus one driven by stakeholder priorities) can be challenging, and there a certain balance between these approaches was seen as being needed for an effective RCOOS CONOPS and RCOOS development strategy (e.g., what it will take to "sell" the program). On the practical side, involvement of academic institutions in COOS activities may require funding through cooperative agreements as opposed to grants (such mechanisms are in place).

Impediments to Progress.

Following a break, the session resumed with a focus on what participants perceived to have been "Impediments to Progress" with respect to RCOOS CONOPS definition and development. The bullet items below are topics raised, with associated discussion following. (Note that these are inter-related topics in a number of cases and there is overlap in the discussion.)

Clarifying the mission for the RCOOS.

Since the RCOOS is positioned between the larger-scale IOOS network and the regional and local users, it was felt that its role should be better defined. For example, what fundamental information can the RCOOS provide that addresses needs for both the larger scale (IOOS) and smaller scale (local applications) issues?

Moersdorf suggested that what may be lacking is adequate documentation on what is needed in terms of short-, medium- and long-range deliverables for potential users; something of a "rigorous requirements document" that captures defines requirements in a matrix sense (who can do what; how to link those efforts) that is "traceable" to end use needs.

Briscoe suggested that the output from the "Airlie House report" (Building Consensus: Toward An Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System; Ocean.US Workshop Proceedings; Airlie House, Warrenton, Virginia; March 10-15, 2002) provided a large part of the documentation required for what Moersdorf suggested. However, an earlier push to implement the Airlie House report recommendations was not well-received by NOAA. It was suggested that the Airlie House report be revisited and the pieces that could work now to further IOOS/RCOOS planning be presented to the appropriate activity, most probably the Ocean Research Advisory Panel.

Technical Training.

It was felt that a lack of appropriately trained personnel has been an issue in terms of the range of tasks required by COOS efforts to date. This was seen as "across the board" (i.e., technical and engineering support of in situ observing assets; modeling; information management). It was pointed out that there are some developing programs in "operational oceanography" that are targeting such workforce issues.

Conducting RCOOS roles in academic settings.

It was felt by some that the involvement of faculty and researchers from academic institutions in the pilot RCOOS efforts conducted to date (like SEACOOS) has not always been fully supported by the higher management in the university systems (Deans, Department Chairs). That is, there has been something of a mismatch between the missions of academic institutions and COOS activities.

Division of Labor.

Based on the prior experience of SEACOOS, Chris Mooers (UM) asked whether we have been asking the researchers to fill too many roles. Roles for individuals in research, operations and applications development and outreach activities have often overlapped. To some extent, this has been related to constraints on the program. Personnel resources have been stretched thin in order to achieve the progress to date, and there has been the need to adapt to significant changes in budgets during the SEACOOS program. In terms of planning for and adapting to resource fluctuations, it was noted that this goes back to the definition of the basic mission: what can be accomplished with the resources at hand; how to sustain what is mission-critical.

One key area where it was felt that appropriate roles need to be defined, and dedicated personnel engaged, was in developing new applications for COOS information (see discussion in the Breakout Session concerning Applications). The need for appropriately trained "intermediaries" or "translators" between researchers and end users of COOS information has been recognized at higher levels (e.g., ORAP), but it was felt that IOOS development would benefit from a significant pool of such personnel (that is not yet accumulated).

Internal Communications & program management considerations.

One of the issues raised concerning the SEACOOS program has been internal communications; the need to keep all personnel involved in the process informed, and how to effectively hand off responsibilities within the program (again the "division of labor" issue noted above). This raised the question of what is the appropriate/effective size for an RCOOS. Appropriate/effective size can be expressed in a number of ways; for example, in terms of geographic range, political boundaries crossed, and number of personnel involved. Various models exist among the COOS efforts to date, providing examples of fairly dispersed and more centralized organizations.

In terms of an effective size for an RCOOS, a key issue to be considered for the RCOOS CONOPS is how to scale the management and support operations. It was felt that geographic distance was perhaps less significant that "cultural distance" (also noted above). Mel Briscoe referred to a National Research Council report ("Global Ocean Science: Toward an Integrated Approach", 1999, National Academy of Sciences) that assessed scales of programs and thresholds for different management strategies. The operational definition of "small" versus "large" in that case was whether people could meet in the same room on a regular basis.

Demonstrating the value of the efforts to date.

Going back to the mission-related question, it was felt that there are a good number of small-scale and pilot efforts (e.g., inundation projects) that show value for COOS information, but the question is how to build on these. How can these be scaled to more locales? A problem in this regard was that the programs to date have, for the most part, not been set up to "institutionalize" success stories. It was noted that most funding to date for regional efforts has been through ear-marks and plus-ups. As this evolves to a competitive process, how is value going to be evaluated?

While the examples of benefits exist, these have not brought significant new resources. The need for appropriate "marketing" was discussed, including having people who can speak effectively to legislators, OMB, as well as engage the public (along the lines of the "translators" noted above).

Improving engagement between the RCOOS and federal government.

Andy Sheppard (UNCW) pointed out that the NOAA Office of Planning, Programming and Integration has formed regional teams to work across NOAA components to address regional needs (see: www.ppi.noaa.gov/regional_collaboration.htm). However, to date, it has been felt that there has been a disconnect between NOAA and its extramural partners in this process. It was suggested that leads for IOOS-related activities in each region should be identified to the NOAA program offices to facilitate further contacts.

For the most part, it was felt that Ocean.US and the IWGOO (Interagency Working Group on Ocean Observations), charged with coordinating IOOS activities across agencies (e.g., http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/sup_jsost.iwgs.html), have not been effectively interacting with regional programs, nor serving regional needs. The IWGOO is one of a number of working groups under JSOST (Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology). It was suggested that a briefing on regional needs to take place above the working group level regarding issues not being addressed by the IWGOO. It was also pointed out that the Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) is the one group with the legal authority to address ocean research and observing activities across federal and non-federal lines.

A federal plan that defines how the regions can balance and plan their efforts relative to the federal information assets and needs was seen as a critical need. What is seen as needed ranges from specific information on plans for specific sensor types (e.g., stream gauges, wave sensor) to plans for operational roles that will be assumed by federal agencies in observing, modeling and information management. In the sense of defining the value for the regional efforts, it was felt that there is a need for a clear definition of fundamental requirements for each region (e.g., DMAC capacity). To achieve this it was felt that there should be some level of federal guidance/vision provided to the regions.

Defining mutual benefit is seen as key to engaging the agencies in the RCOOS. Given that the primary role for most agencies is not to fund extramural efforts, it was suggested that federal agencies need to be approached in terms of what benefits both the agency and the RCOOS. This includes demonstrating how the missions of both organizations are served, and how federal agencies can receive their share of credit for what is accomplished.

SUMMARY – ACTION ITEMS

Much of the discussion in the session centered around coordinating regional and federal plans for further development of coastal ocean observing systems. As follow-up to the workshop, it was proposed to:

1. Develop an interim "roles and responsibilities" document.

   Define for the short-to-medium term, how the RCOOS can productively interact with and engage the various entities, particularly the presumed elements of the "National Backbone." Doing this will likely require each RCOOS to identify each national asset they consider essential as the RCOOS defines itself. Then the combined list of all RCOOS can be submitted to the IWGOO as the necessary national capabilities upon which to build the IOOS.

2. Develop a short white paper that presents alternative CONOPS designs as a document that can be presented to federal partners.

   This could thus serve to better focus discussions with federal agencies on functional/operational aspects of the RCOOS CONOPS. Alternative designs could emphasize different perspectives (e.g., observing, modeling, information system components) as well as integrated efforts. Decisions made regarding "community infrastructure" in observing, modeling and information management will have major implications for the overall system development. It is desired to develop a clear statement of operations that accommodates ongoing R&D and transitioning through "beta-products" to an operational status.

3. Revisit the recommendations of the Airlie House report. Pull out the pieces that are appropriate for the RCOOS (or NFRA) to emphasize now.

   Provide a RCOOS (or NFRA) summary of how the Airlie House report recommendations are important today to the appropriate activity, most probably the ORAP. This would provide the matrix of requirements for each RCOOS and become a basis for CONOPS planning with respect to coordinating federal and regional efforts.