Draft PBO Proposal

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:50:36 -0400
Subject: PBO Proposal Revision Procedure
Cc: Will Prescott (wprescottusgs.gov), Wayne Shiver (shiverunavco.org),
        Frank Webb (fhwcobra.jpl.nasa.gov)
To: Mike Jackson (mikejunavco.org)
From: Jim Davis (jdaviscfa.harvard.edu)

Dear Mike,

	By now you have seen the "Standing Committee Report on First Draft,"
transmitted separately.  The purpose of this e-mail is to give you guidance
regarding incorporation of this report into a revised version of the PBO
proposal.

	I had asked the Standing Committee (SC) to evaluate the proposal based on
several criteria.  In general, the SC reported that it was not able to make
these evaluations based on the document we presented.  In their view, a complete
work plan is required.  The difference between the work plan and the proposal
has until now not been made, and I now realize that we need to begin to make
this distinction.  For example, the first criterion I I gave the SC was,
"Evaluate whether the current PBO facility plan, as outlined in the draft
proposal, has a high probability of meeting the community's observational and
science goals for PBO."  This is a valid criterion for an NSF proposal.  The SC
evaluated this criterion as,  "Evaluate whether the current PBO facility plan,
as outlined in the draft proposal, WILL MEET the community's observational and
science goals for PBO."  They correctly concluded that the document did not have
the required information to make this evaluation.

	Therefore, we will proceed with the following steps:

(1) As of now, we will distinguish between two documents: (a) the PBO Proposal
(really the PBO component of the EarthScope proposal), and (b) the PBO
Implementation Plan.  The latter is as yet unwritten, but requires a realistic
timetable and dedication of resources;

(2) I will attempt to communicate more accurately to the SC the distinction
between these two documents;

(3) You will research the level of detail expected for an NSF MRE proposal;

(4) You will revise the PBO Proposal consistent with my comments below; and

(5) You will write a brief report indicating your conclusions from (3) and how
the revised draft responds to SC comments.

Below, I expand on each of these steps.

<<< PBO Proposal vs. PBO Implementation Plan >>>

	It is my understanding, having reviewed (literally) over one hundred IF
proposals, that an NSF proposal for a facility needs to describe the management
structure for the facility, the proposed work, the operational plan, and provide
enough detail to evaluate the budget given the proposed work.  In addition,
there is the intangible question: "Does this proposal convince me that the
investigators on this proposal know enough to accomplish the proposed work."  I
believe that the draft you have presented is very good by this standard, but
some revision is warranted (see below).  The PBO Proposal should not, however,
be a detailed plan for implementation (This aspect should be verified; see
below.) for several reasons: the PBO Proposal would be mired in detail that the
vast majority, if not all, of the reviewers would ignore, and it would be "out
of synch" with the proposals from the other EarthScope activities.

	The SC is requesting a complete implementation plan, and I think that this
document is important.  We will distinguish between the PBO Proposal and the
requested document by referring to this as-yet written document as the "PBO
Implementation Plan."  Completing the PBO Implementation Plan requires resources
that will not be available unless and until PBO funding comes in, Spring 2003 at
earliest.  However, the SC's comments raise the issue that this is an important
part of planning that should be explicitly budgeted for, and in which they
should play an advisory role.  Therefore, I would task you to propose a plan and
a timetable for the development of the PBO Implementation Plan, and to identify
the required resources in the PBO Budget that will be used for this development.
In addition, the proposal should reflect this aspect of PBO development,
although it need not be overemphasized.  If you can have this plan and timetable
ready by 30 September, it can then be reviewed by the SC.

<<< Level of Detail for PBO Proposal >>>

	As I indicated, I think the level of detail reflected by the current draft
of the PBO Proposal is about right, although revisions based on SC comments will
strengthen the proposal significantly.  You should, however, investigate this
assumption.  Your primary resources for this investigation should be the
investigators on the other EarthScope components (Dave Simpson, Mark Zoback), as
well as NSF/EAR program officers, who might be able to give advice.

<<< PBO Proposal Revision >>>

	You should prepare a revised proposal that responds to the SC comments,
keeping in mind that many of the comments are more appropriate to PBO
Implementation Plan.  Specifically, I find the following comments to be
especially important and require some response:

--The omission of any reference to existing networks, their roles in PBO, and
experiences learned from them is a major weakness.

--The costs are not well enough documented [i.e., justified] to determine how
credible they are...

--[T]he decision making process for descoping and prioritizing is not defined.

--The role of the Regional Scientist is confusing and needs to be better
explained.

--There ought to be a page or two (as an appendix) on what these systems are,
how they work, and what they measure--and probably another page or two on what a
plate boundary is and what happens there. The geoscientists will skip it, others
will be grateful. Think Scientific American level. The focus of the text on
monumentation will seem bizarre to some readers, and needs to be justified.

--For what appears to be a relatively complex deployment and operation for
implementation, it is not
sufficient to merely assert that the costs are understood and present average
station costs without some data or justification on the assumptions that go into
those costs.

--There is concern about rigidity from the regional boundaries. Given that
something like this is unavoidable, it would be preferred that these followed
tectonic boundaries rather than state lines (perhaps a tectonic approximation to
state lines?).

--In the proposal, the point should be made that the community has spent a lot
of effort to try to make this the case--several well-attended meetings. So it is
pretty close to what we think is optimal, whether it actually is or not.

--[T]he assumptions behind the proposed [archiving] plans should be explicitly
stated.  How many individual
investigators are expected? What products do they want? Raw GPS? Tropospheres?
Station velocities? How will they interact with the system? Interactively via
the Web or from the command line in some automated script?
--There was a concern that the need for two archive centers was not justified.
The availability and cost of existing commercial capability for mirroring big
datasets at separate sites should be considered as an alternative.  Nothing we
do is "mission-critical", hence we can afford to have occasional 1-day outages,
also--except right after an earthquake (or the week before AGU). This, and the
fact that most of the data do not change once collected, ought to make the task
of getting backup cheaper.

--[T]he proposal gives the sense that it will be easily dealt with and that the
capability to construct sites will control the schedule (and implicitly the
costs).  More detail needs to be provided to justify why the reconnaissance and
permitting will not be the critical path in the implementation and why this will
not impact the average cost per site.  [Or maybe they will be and the proposal
needs to reflect this fact.]

--There is some concern that the borehole strainmeter effort has a lower level
of staffing. There is an 8:1 ratio of numbers of sites, but I think this may be
more than counter balanced by the time needed at each site and the greater
involvement that will probably be required of PBO staff in the process.

--In addition, the budget contains no  administrative staff for staff support.

--There needs to be some process where dots are translated to specific sites.

--The PBO Director seems to be written in as a micro manager and/or doer of
nearly all tasks.   This needs to be clarified.

Additionally, there are a number of more or less minor comments that should be
addressed in the proposal, and some are for our consideration (e.g., the comment
regarding the requirements for the ACC).

	I have also seen some comments Paul Segall and Duncan Agnew.  I would
categorize these for now as comments from individuals in the community and work
them into the September draft (see below).  From the standpoint of time, it will
be impossible for you to compose new text in response to every comment from
individuals.  I therefore recommend that you request proposal wording
modifications (like you received from Duncan) from the commenting individual.  I
would make this an explicit part of the solicitation of comments.

<<< Budget >>>

	Many of the SC's comments address the budget.  In my experience, in fact,
the presentation of the budget can make or break a proposal.  One needs to be
able to take any proposed task and find the line in the budget that relates to
the, and reversely point to any cost in the budget and relate in back to a
proposed science task.  Moreover, the readers of this proposal may not have a
great deal of specific geodetic expertise.

	Part of the problem stems from having the budget as a separate document that
itself has no specific justification.  Therefore, in the next draft of the
proposal, you should include the budget "organically," and add a detailed budget
justification section.  The budget justification should address such issues as
FTEs vs time, etc.

<<< Time Schedule >>>

	Many of the SC comments (including those above) can be implemented with
minor changes to the proposal.   Nevertheless, I realize that this is time
consuming.  We would like to get a draft to the public sooner rather than later.
Moreover, I know that you have some upcoming meetings with the IRIS folks that
will impact the proposal.  Therefore, I suggest the following:

[1] You prepare a budget summary giving the "highest-level" of detail (i.e., not
extremely detailed), include a budget justification, and attach this to the
proposal in its current form;

[2] You make this draft available to the UNAVCO community by August 8 (one week
from today).  Describe the process that has led up to it; describe that this is
a first draft that the SC has seen but that has not been revised.  Describe a
method by which comments can be sent to you, with a close date of September 6.

[3] Prepare a second draft of the proposal that incorporates the SC comments
described above and comments from the community by September 20.

									Jim

___________________________________
Dr James L Davis
President, UNAVCO Inc.
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
60 Garden Street, MS 42
Cambridge, MA 02138

Requested Modifications