Difference between revisions of "Planning"

From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
(spam control)
(17 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Developing the ESIP Exchange will involve a number of iterations through the following five steps:
::[[Burrows Exchange Notes 2006-01]]
==Vision Document==
The full vision document should list:
::In general terms the purpose is to improve quality, use, and appreciation of Earth science
::Specific planned actions should be prioritized and state desired progress toward the Federation goals as described in the:
:Stakeholders (not just users)
::Primary: Foundation, Federation, Partners
::Secondary: Earth scientists, modelers, decision tool providers, education, decision makers
:::(Need specific cost/benefit for features serving each stakeholder)
::esipfed.org, GOS2, wiki.esipfed.org, GCMD, ECHO, ESG, CLASS, NOMAD
:::(What else?  How do we incorporate each in a single system?)
::Incremental stages to desired end
:::(Which changes do we plan to make in which order when and why?)
::Planned milestones, benchmarking, and target
:::(Express targets as the tests that would show success)
Full requirements section should contain the following sections:
:Functional Requirements (relating to ESIP mission)
::Specify and prioritize elements from the various [[Federation Documents]].
::Capture viewpoints of each of the various stakeholders. 
:Nonfunctional Requirements (relating to technology and implementation)
::Performance, Interoperability, Security, Hardware
:Use Cases
::Key scenarios that exemplify the functional and nonfunctional requirements
::Raise each scenario to a family of use cases
::Each requirement defined as an explicit test that would show success
==Analysis and Design==
This step depends on the evolving requirements and will involve managers and the implementors: Atlantic BT, NGDC, ESRI, etc.  Budget contingencies and fund raising efforts should be a specific part of the design documentation.
<center>Figure 2. Federal Enterprise Architecture Implementation Diagram</center>
This will involve staged implementation according to a sequencing plan depending at least initially on heavily recruiting already-existing components.  We expect implementation to involve multiple components, each having their own separate implementation state, level-of-effort, and sequencing plan.
;Roll out and promotion
: All components are currently deployed with a variety of levels of use.  Advertising and marketing the integrated ESIP Exchange will take place for targeted communities based on tests at each stage of integration involving sample audiences.  We are essentially “Building our ship at sea”.
;Impact evaluation
: At each stage we will set benchmarks and targets and evaluate performance.
;Continual Redesign
: As the system evolves we expect both evolutionary and revolutionary changes involving coordination and support from initially independent components.  We hope to move from aggregates to become and integrated “system” across components and knowledge environments.
(I am using this page to begin a discussion that I hope will become the development plan (and eventual budget) for the ESIP Exchange. As of now, these are the comments of one person.  ([[User:HowardBurrows|Howard Burrows]] 18:09, 20 January 2006 (EST))
This plan is based on a book by Jim Conallen entitled "Building Web Applications with UML Second Edition".  In addition, it adopts elements of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (see [http://www.cio.gov/archive/bpeaguide.pdf|Practical Guide to FEA] and [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/|Whitehouse e-Gov Site]).)
[[Image:FEA Reference Models.jpg|center|]]
<center>Figure 1. Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Models</center>
Eventually, it might be useful to construct the ESIP exchange using a collection of interrelated "reference models" as employed by the US Government in the Federal Enterprise Architecture.
The most important aspects of our development strategy are shown on the left and right of Figure 1.  Construction will be driven by the "business" of the Federation as described in our [[Federation Documents]].  The result will follow a component-based architecture. 
In addition, we will be performance-driven and will design-to-test (DTT).

Latest revision as of 18:53, July 10, 2007