Working Group

Working Group Charters

Breakout # 1: Alternative Design Models

Identify and describe the alternative design models for providing resources and services. Example models could be implementation by discipline orientation (common resources shared by many/all disciplines to resources subdivided for discipline specific resources); system integration and scale (tightly integrated to very loosely integrated); resource distribution (localized into a few facilities to highly geographically distributed); etc.   Identify the points of “diminishing returns” for each of the models and the potential strengths and weaknesses for each. Each alternative should be described in two three sentences.

Breakout # 2: Alternative Provisioning Methods

Identify the primary alternatives that NSF could use to provision the necessary resources for high spectrum science, engineering and research. Triage these alternatives to identify the three to five that would likely be mostly feasible and implementable. For each alternative, identify the role(s) that NSF, universities, private industry and other federal agencies might have in making the alternative succeed. Each alternative should be described in two three sentences.

Breakout # 3: Alternative Analysis Criteria

Develop the important evaluation criteria that should be used to assess and select alternative methods for NSF to deploy high spectrum resources. These criteria should include perspectives from all stakeholders and potential uses, but needs to be aggregated so that there are no more than 10 criteria for assessment. Additionally, identify the important cost model components and describe them so the alternatives can be assessed. Each criteria should be described in two three sentences.

Breakout #4: NSF Administrative Implementation Alternatives

Identify the primary implementation alternatives that NSF might implement to provision the necessary resources for high spectrum science, engineering and research. What processes are available and feasible for NSF to implement (current methods of site/equipment awards, contracts, intergovernmental agreements, MFREC processes, etc.) Triage these alternatives to identify the three to five that would likely be mostly feasible and implementable. For each alternative, identify the role(s) that NSF, universities, private industry and other federal agencies can have in making the alternative succeed.

Breakout #5: Alternative Evaluation and Assessment – 1

Given the alternatives developed in Breakouts # 1 and 2, and the evaluation criteria developed in Breakout #3, evaluate the alternatives with strengths and weaknesses; risks and uncertainties and perform an initial qualitative cost assessment.

Breakout #6: Alternative Evaluation and Assessment – 2

Given the alternatives developed in Breakouts # 1 and 2, and the evaluation criteria developed in Breakout #3, evaluate the alternatives with strengths and weaknesses; risks and uncertainties and perform an initial qualitative cost assessment.