TIC Working Group ETIC Working Group EEvolutionary System ArchitectureEvolutionary System Architecture

Walter Arabasz&

David OppenheimerMarch 3, 2005March 3, 2005

Working Group Members...Working Group Members...

Walter Arabasz, Chair Walter Arabasz, Chair (Univ. of Utah, NIC & TIC)(Univ. of Utah, NIC & TIC) Glenn Biasi (Glenn Biasi (Univ of Nevada, RenoUniv of Nevada, Reno)) Ray Buland Ray Buland (USGS Golden & NEIC)(USGS Golden & NEIC) Art Lerner-Lam Art Lerner-Lam (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory & IRIS)(Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory & IRIS) Phil Maechling Phil Maechling (Univ. of Southern California & SCEC)(Univ. of Southern California & SCEC) Tom Murray Tom Murray (USGS Anchorage & AVO)(USGS Anchorage & AVO) David Oppenheimer David Oppenheimer (USGS Menlo Park, NIC & CISN)(USGS Menlo Park, NIC & CISN) Rick Schult Rick Schult (Air Force Research Lab, Hanscomb AFB)(Air Force Research Lab, Hanscomb AFB) Tony Shakal Tony Shakal (California Geological Survey/Strong-Motion (California Geological Survey/Strong-Motion

Instrumentation Program & CISN) Instrumentation Program & CISN) Mitch Withers Mitch Withers (Univ of Memphis & NIC)(Univ of Memphis & NIC)

ChargeCharge

• Define an Define an evolutionary pathevolutionary path for transforming for transforming existing elements of ANSS into a functional existing elements of ANSS into a functional nationwide systemnationwide system—with emphasis on steps that —with emphasis on steps that can be taken in the near term (1-3 yrs), based on can be taken in the near term (1-3 yrs), based on realistic ANSS funding projections realistic ANSS funding projections

• Clarify key system performance goals [relevant to Clarify key system performance goals [relevant to system design] and characterize “where we are system design] and characterize “where we are now”now”

• Account for geopolitical realities as well as Account for geopolitical realities as well as abstract ideals in designing an ANSS system abstract ideals in designing an ANSS system architecturearchitecture

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Guiding Principles (Baldrige and Road Map)Guiding Principles (Baldrige and Road Map)

Review key system performance goalsReview key system performance goals

Characterize “where we are now”Characterize “where we are now”

Discuss (in detail) 3 architectures for an Discuss (in detail) 3 architectures for an ANSS systemANSS system

RecommendationsRecommendations

Baldrige National Quality Baldrige National Quality ProgramProgram

A NIST-sponsored program for a systems-level A NIST-sponsored program for a systems-level approach to organizational excellenceapproach to organizational excellence

Provides assessment, self-improvement, and Provides assessment, self-improvement, and planning toolsplanning tools– Leadership Leadership – Strategic PlanningStrategic Planning– Customer (and Market) FocusCustomer (and Market) Focus– Measurement, Analysis, and KnowledgeMeasurement, Analysis, and Knowledge– Human Resource FocusHuman Resource Focus– Process ManagementProcess Management– Organizational Performance ResultsOrganizational Performance Results

Road Map for PartnershipRoad Map for Partnership

How do we reconcile state/local ownership,How do we reconcile state/local ownership,investment in, and ongoing support of investment in, and ongoing support of significant infrastructure for seismic significant infrastructure for seismic monitoring with the prescriptions of ANSSmonitoring with the prescriptions of ANSSdecision makers?decision makers?

Key System GoalsKey System Goals

Rapid Parametric Information Data Exchange Information Distribution Quality Control Security Public Archive One earthquake, one report Reliability

Where We Are NowWhere We Are Now

“20 Questions” distributed prior to WG-A, but compared against proposed standards

Report discusses survey and provides link to all responses

No seismic network meets proposed standards

Effort will be substantial to meet proposed standards

Where-We-Are Now Where-We-Are Now FindingsFindings Standardization of algorithms lacking Need for reconciliation of multiple reports

of earthquakes Limited centralized waveform archiving No standardized error estimates Inadequate metadata Uneven exchange of waveform data

between networks Little strong motion processing

Where-We-Are Now Where-We-Are Now FindingsFindings No uniformity of magnitude calculation Moment tensor calculations produced

only by AEIC, CISN, and NEIC ShakeMaps produced only by PNSN, CISN,

Utah, and Nevada Parametric data publicly available only

from NEIC, AEIC, CISN, and Utah

Consider 3 ANSS Consider 3 ANSS ArchitecturesArchitectures Decentralized

– Processing occurs at regional centers– Product conflict resolved nationally– Backed up by national facility

TIC Plan– Like Decentralized but one center per region

Centralized– All processing at a “national facility” or IPS– Raw data (waveforms, picks) forwarded from data

concentrators– Always authoritative, but backed up by regions

WEB EQalert

EOCOES

Archive(s)

Stations

ANSSCentralSite

Regional Seismic Networks

WEB

EQalert

Decentralized Processing

Info outlet

Data processingConcentratorWaveformsProducts

OFR 02-92 Nomenclature

ProsPros

Similar to current situation

Robust since data close to processing

Autonomy fosters local solutions

Primary role justifies local funding

Local knowledge utilized

Regional data sharing sufficient to monitor

Facilities at risk from earthquakes

Difficult to standardize data exchange

Rules required to resolve authoritative information

Expensive to staff 7X24 Difficult to integrate global

data sets into local archive Duplication of efforts

potentially wasteful

ConsCons

WEB EQalert

EOCOES

Archive(s)

Stations

ANSSCentralSite

RegionalCenters

OFR 02-92 Nomenclature

WEB

EQalert

TIC Plan

Stations

Subregional SeismicNetworks

Info outlet

Data processingConcentratorWaveformsProducts

ProsPros

Similar to “Decentralized” model

Processing could be performed in areas of lower seismic hazard

Fewer units decreases complexity of system

Similar to “Decentralized” model

Potentially expensive to establish new regional centers, and given current level of funding, unlikely to receive much support

Uneven work loads from region to region

ConsCons

WEB EQalert

EOCOES

FEMA,NOAA…

ANSS ArchiveIRIS, NCEDC, and SCECDC

Stations

IPS

RSNs NEIC

OFR 02-92 Nomenclature

WEB

EQalert

Waveform

s or

picks & snippets

products

Integrated Processing Service

continuous?

Info outlet

Data processingConcentratorWaveformsProducts

ProsPros

Simplifies standardization and delivery Comprehensive view of earthquake Integrates global data for large US

quakes Eliminates conflicting reports Minimizes 7X24 cost IPS could be located in area of minimal

seismic risk Experienced staff respond Local scientists unburdened from

technical response during crises All products go into a central DBMS Continuous waveform archive possible Distribution of RT waveforms to R&D

groups Single connection for Earthscope

USArray and PBO data streams

Data less robust due to long paths Loss of local knowledge Requires methodologies for

local/regional/global Regional identity (funding?) diminished Local incentive to invent diminished Data analyst motivation diminished Could take years to develop Single point of algorithm, hardware, and

distribution failure Transfer of software back to regional

networks disruptive Full waveform exchange costly over

DTS; impacts campus traffic if over Internet

ConsCons

WG-E RecommendationsWG-E Recommendations

Software management group (SMG) (person?) should – write guidelines for ANSS software

oversight with TIC/NIC review/approval– develop specifications for next

generation of ANSS software– include cost estimates and milestones– address regional and global needs– complete work by 10/31/2005 (?)

Recommendations Recommendations continuedcontinuedSoftware should – be open source if possible– evaluated in its full context of

development, ownership, and maintenance

– permit centralized, decentralized, and “hybrid” modes of operation. One size does not fit all.

Recommendations Recommendations continuedcontinuedTIC should– allow/invite comment on specifications– have authority to modify specifications

based on comments– ensure specifications have broad

political and technical support across ANSS

Recommendations Recommendations continuedcontinuedANSS management should – review document in early FY06 &

allocate funding– Invite universities to participate in

development of software projects– Conduct a benefit-cost analysis in FY06

or FY07– Adopt Baldrige National Quality

Program

Recommendations Recommendations continuedcontinued ANSS management and principal

stakeholders should develop a standard MOA that – defines how partners will participate in ANSS– considers political issues (regional/state/local,

centralized/decentralized/hybrid, “Road Map for Partnership”)

– defines performance standards to be met

Recommendations Recommendations (finally..)(finally..)Regarding OFR 02-92, WGE – Abandon concept of one primary center

per ANSS region

Closing thoughtsClosing thoughts

WGE was unable to reach full consensus on the end state. Geopolitical realities are clearly a paramount challenge

Network operators are justifiably concerned about self-preservation

We have the opportunity to be visionary