transmittal of 02/19/2000 - powerpoint presentation of twg ... · dan graser-1 overheads...

Dan Graser-1 presentation overheads ..

From: Dan Graser EnclosureTo: ARPMaterialsDate: Sat, Feb 19, 2000 12:16 PMSubject: TWG presentation overheads

I apologize for the delay in getting this out. Hopefully, some of you may receive this over the weekend,and have Monday & Tuesday for familiarization.

This is a Powerpoint 4.0 file. If you do not use Powerpoint, you should be able to import it into otherpresentation packages without loosing too much of the formatting.

There will be paper-copy handouts of this file available at the LSNARP meeting on the 23rd.

CC: Irish 1II, R., Steven Zane

I if-.WNbbWS\TEMP\GWI00002.TMP -01 -.1 ..- Ia-qe 1C:\WINDbWS\TEMP\GWIQQOO2.TMP �Pa�ief1

MailEnvelopeProperties (38AECFE3.4A1:1:18974)

Subject:Creation Date:From:

Created By:

TWG presentation overheadsSat, Feb 19, 2000 12:16 PMDan Graser

DJG2.TWF2_PO.TWFNDO

Recipientsinternet

"Bob.WelIls @rw.doe.pov" BC (Bob Wells)"[email protected]" (Ray Clark)

ActionTransferred

Date & Time02/19 12:16PM

02/19 12:16PM

02/19 12:16PM

acj.carson-city.nv.usabby (Abby Johnson)

Transferred

anv.netJudyTF (Judy Treichel)

Transferred

aol.comMalMurphy (Malachy Murphy)nvtapper (Les Bradshaw)Tiffanih (Nick Stellavato)tuftam (Tammy Manzini)

att.nethoylel 132 (John Hoyle)

caliente.igate.comjcciac (Eve Culverwell)

co.clark.nv.usdax (Dennis Bechtel)evt (Englebrecht vonTiesenhausen)

cs.unlv.edutaghva (Kazem Taghva)

eurekanv.orglfiorenzi (Leonard Fiorenzi)

gfoster.comgfoster (Glen Foster)

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

02/19 12:16PM

02/19 12:16 PM

02/19 12:16 PM

02/19 12:16PM

02/19 12:16PM

02/19 12:16PM

02/19 12:16 PM

govmail.state.nv.us Transferred 02/19 12:16 PM

t d.WNdbwS\TEMP\GWj00002.TMP Page 2C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}000b2.TMP Page 2

madams (Marta Adams)ssteve (Steve Frishman)

idsely.comwpnucwst (Debra Kolkman)

Transferred 02/19 12:16 PM

02/19 12:16 PMisri.unlv.edutom (Tom Nartker)

Transferred

labat.comjosephlispeicher (Joseph Speicher)tony.neville (Tony Neville)

NCAI.orgRobertHolden (Robert Holden)

nei.orgrxm (Rod McCullum)spk (Steven Kraft)

Transferred

Transferred

Transferred

02/19 12:16 PM

02/19 12:16 PM

02/19 12:16PM

Notes.YMP.govClaudiaNewbury (Claudia Newberry)JillSchrecongost (Jill Schrecongost)


02/19 12:16 PMphonewave.netcccomp (Alan Kall)

Transferred

sierra.netescorop (Tony Cain)


telis.orginyoplanning (Andrew Remus)


02/19 12:16 PMchrisberlien (Chris Berlien)

Transferred

elaineezra (Elaine Ezra)

Transferred 02/19 12:16PM

threeputt.hawthome.nv.uswallace (Jackie Wallace)

winston.comstrubatc (Sheldon Trubatch)

Transferred

Transferred

02/19 12:16 PM

02/19 12:16PM

.r-41 . -11 � - I .. .. - - - -

I C:\W1ND0WS\TEMP\GW100002.TMP Pagie 31|I~~~ C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GWIOOOO2.TMP Paae 31~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ymp.govdavid_hunt (David Hunt)harryjeake (Harry Leake)john-gandi (John Gandi)lew_robertson (Lew Robertson)sam_hobbs (Sam Hobbs)


owf5_po.OWFN_DOELJ CC (Emile Julian)FXC (Francis Cameron)

twfl_po.TWFN_DOgpb (Paul Bollwerk)jgw (Jack Whetstine)JXH5 (John Hoyle)

twf2_po.TWFN_DOCLH1 CC (Chris Hoxie)hjs (Harvey Spiro)JLC5 CC (Jesse Cloud)RSI CC (R. Irish III)SEZ CC (Steven Zane)TJB1 CC (Thomas Barchi)

twf4_po.TWFNDOCBR (C.W. (Bill) Reamer)CJG1 CCSLW1 CC

Post Officeinternetacj .carson-city.nv.usanv.netaol.comatt.netcaliente.igate.comco.clark.nv.uscs.unlv.edueurekanv.orggfoster.comgovmail.state.nv.usidsely.comisri.unlv.edulabat.comNCAI.org

DeliveredOpenedOpened

DeliveredOpenedOpenedOpened

DeliveredOpened

OpenedOpenedOpened

DeliveredOpenedOpenedOpened

Delivered

02/19 12:16 PM02/19 4:40 PM02/21 1:39 PM

02/22 7:39 AM02/22 8:45 AM02/22 7:43 AM02/25 10:39 AM

02/19 12:16 PM02/22 3:11 PM

02/19 3:04 PM02/19 12:34 PM02/25 9:17 AM

02/19 12:16PM02/22 8:23 AM02/22 12:07 PM02/22 6:28 AM

Route

internetinternetinternetinternetinternetinternetinternetinternetinternetinternetinternetinternetinternetinternet

I i--.-\wi-mn-C)WS\TFMP\(;WIOOD02-TMP FI Z1 -1 .-.. I, F

nei.orgNotes.YMP.govphonewave.netsierra.nettelis.orgchris

internetinternetinternetinternetinternet

internet:terraspectra.comelaine

threeputt.hawthorne.nv.uswinston.comymp.govowf5_po.OWFN_DOtwfl_po.TWFN_DOtwf2_po.TWFN_DOtwf4_po.TWFN_DO

internet:terraspectra.cominternetinternetinternet

02/19 12:16PM02/22 7:39 AM02/19 12:16 PM02/19 12:16PM

FilesArpO223.pptMESSAGE

OptionsAuto Delete:Expiration Date:Notify Recipients:Priority:Reply Requested:Return Notification:

Concealed Subject:Security:

To Be Delivered:Status Tracking:

Size11130881038

Date & TimeSaturday, February 19, 2000Saturday, February 19, 2000

12:04 PM12:16 PM

NoNoneNoStandardNoNone

NoStandard

ImmediateDelivered & Opened

i-d-mwSik

Licensing Support NetworkTechnical Working Group Report

Analysis of LSN DesignAlternatives

February 23, 2000

F.-',s~ij *., 4"Technical WorkingL "~' Group Objectives

* Performs any investigation, research, oranalysis as is directed by the A RP

U Provides various products,, analyses,,.'1 presentations, etc, for the ARP for their

consideration and possible action

F ebruary 23, 2000

Page 2

o-"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

Jr OUTLINE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... . ..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. . .. ..;. ; ;.... ..

;- :- * Summary of October and DecemberTechnical Work Group Meetings

* Overview of Alternatives

II Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 - Description,implications, and decision factors

U General Expenditures Assessment

* Summary and Next Steps

Questions will be entertained at the end of each sectionFebruary 23, 2000

Page 3

TWG Participants11 '- _. ' :k.'.....I . -.. .' ....I... -, ',t- -I.-. .*7 '. .- ! 4; ,;,, j. ...

Dan GraserGlen FosterJohn GandiE. v. TiesenhausenThomas MoorePaul BollwerkJack WhetstineChris BerlienElaine EzraTony NevilleJoe SpeicherSam HobbsTom NartkerHarvey SpiroHarry LeakeKazem TaghvaDavid HuntDennis BechtelJill M. Schrecongost

NRC/ASLBPNRC/LabatDOE/YMPClark CoNRC/ASLBPNRC/ASLBPNRC/ASLBPNye CoNye CoNRC/LabatNRC/LabatM&ONYMPUNLV-ISRINRC/OCIOM&O/YMPUNLV-ISRIMTS/YMPClark CoDOE/YMP

(301)415-7401(703)598-3759(702)794-1313(702)455-5184(301)415-7465(301)415-7454(301)415-7391(702)795-8254(702)795-8254(703)506-1400x506(703)506- 1400x835(702)295-5472(702)895-0848(301)415-5862(702)295-5531(702)895-0873(702)794-5571(702)455-5178(702)794-5436

[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@labat.comjoseph.speicher@ [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@notes.ymp.gov

February 23, 2000Page 4

October Meeting Accomplishments. ~. .........

: -- Reviewed three alternative LSN technical solutions; I Walked through technical description of each of the

alternative solutions

:: * Proposed a fourth technical solution (variant on technicalsolution 3)

* Considered & Compared:

.- Integration and Interaction - Document management and control

- Server performance - Software licensing

- Text accuracy standards - Search engine performance standardsnt- Documentation - Security

- Performance statistics and - Data maintenancedocumentation'''''M'.'''s'' - ~~ ~~~Training

.- Acceptable formatsFebruary 23, 2000

Page 5

. October Meeting Action ItemsJ.. ~ ~ ~ 4 -~ .kf

LSN Functional Requirements - Items and assigned responsibilities:

* Revised version of Functional * Portal software vendors.Requirements (NRC) Identify if any of them operate

on non-NT systems (e.g,* Recommendations for UNIX?) (NRC)

bibliographic headers (NRC)* Applicability of data mining

* Detailed descriptions for the tools (NRC)two (now three) viablealternatives (NRC-LABAT) * Experience of DOE/ES&H

performance statistics fromBallpark pricing estimates for their portal site. (NRC)the two (now three) viablealternatives (NRC- LABAT) * Records packages and issues

to be addressedFebruary 23, 2000

Page 6

December Meeting Accomplishments:, , ,.1 ..-.;.", .;.. - , ., ... , � ..". '� -L .1. ��, - � , I -- � , " .I I " .: - :.- I.1 -1 ... , '- �. � , ."?. "!'? " . '.q, ./, , - 11�' - -, _" "; - " _,, , - �,- ". 2. ,.I.,-

, , , " " , - , '7,' ':'

'r- - 7 . , 'r , " " -,.1,�:�,::-t� ,� �!,� li, I;- - ...... �; - ,-, __ !,_ _`_:_ �" .1. .. � I? 'U , c � 7' - _-,

.1

J

* Defined Mission of System:

- Web-based system-providing all documents uniformly

- Independent compliance auditing

- Ensure system performance

* Defined Key Attributes of System:

- LSNA control of system

- Timely availability of the system

- Highest performance at reasonable cost.

* A fifth solution proposed (portal with enhanced central storage)

* Focus on bandwidth as an important and difficult issue


Additional Activities

.~Nevada Public Libraries -"All public library systems in Nevada provide Internet access to thepublic, including library branches in outlying suburban areas as well asrural and remote libraries. So if your documents are available on theInternet, Nevadans will have access to them. Libraries in all of theareas you mentioned provide access to Internet. You'l find a directorylisting of all Nevada libraries and the hours during which they are openon our Departmental website at dmla.clan.lib.nv:.us (click on NevadaState Library and Archives, then on Nevada Library Directory andStatistics)."

Bonnie Buckley,4 ~~Library Planning and Development

Nevada State Library & ArchivesFebruary 23, 2000

Page 8

Additional Activities

. -:" �- . .. , :" . , '. , - , x 4. -, .1 . � - ., -".:"I. I " . , �, 1. -" ... .-.1. I- ,-._ .. .; V ;r-: t, '. - ', - � '. ,Z�, " 11�,.- . " !-:ZIIIL'.111154,- , f, -,� j,". . i,.1l'-��-.--�'I.-,-.�,..,;�.'�-�,�.�:-"--!,��IX-i':I X� ---, -"t'r,;,-� "I - "' "I `7��.-. --- w � � .1 .- -v_ 't V ?" 7 , 1. ..- - . Z" --- -.T";

.�J. LSN Functional Requirements

-48 Core Requirements Identified

- Attributes of Central Mainframe Scrubbed Out

- Reviewed by TWG


m z~~~~~~~~~ -' . r tfl @W J

-ir ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-

IfSummary of October and DecemberTechnical Work Group Meetings

U Overview of Alternatives

* Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 -Description,implications, and decision factors

U General Expenditures Assessment

U Summary and Next StepsFeray2,00Page 1

Overview ofBy-'. .. ,. ., ia....... ..

S22:;%s Alternatives:.~~ ~ '':,:' - _ ,. ~

- 0 Simplified - Just Link Everyone's URL

- 0 Moderate - Central Search Interface

O Portal fed by distributed participant websites (1remote storage)

0 Portal fed by distributed participant websites on campus (proximate storage)

O Portal with enhanced central storage fedby distributed participant web sites

February 23. 2000Page II

r-Cvi~l X Options forImplementing Alternatives

* ; . . by } , ,; . _ .t-, .:

M Operate ourselves vs. outsourcing

M Campus - a location where each participant'sserver is housed in close proximity. Participantscooperate on shared resources; servers/storageare connected via a LAN.

* Co-location Facility - buy standard equipmentand install at a commercial, full service computerinstallation. They provide connectivity, security,backup, etc., for standard fee.


Options forImplementing Alternatives

. t. 4 . + S. _Pw ;s wsz

rA~fe~i,•ti6~1 A~fdrb~tW,2 Alteraive t3b Alternabtive 4'~AtrntvZ Z7 ( ' ' : is

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dsn,..d~,,,,,,,,,,,,A - - tiogrejh: -: :. (Dt t / /

;AS>.@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 71

-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ein Buid' Designs~ii &esgn'ui'ui

~~ . 1 ;&-Op:te orta; Operate &~oal Oenra Chraaact;

I ,t NRO;: at Cn- Storageatrta .O'ert'e rbat

. . ,, , ,.<.+p k{X . ..... .....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .. .

O~pera1.tNRC; NR~i jii 'C-Ica-o

Pa itic Particip' RI cilits; Ptin, Facility;:'-,*-,3- i ''-'.'isperate tTheir, Operatdl Their'-

. es- ',

De..sign P1'B3uild.. Deign Btild

pera tj

-Art;obins. ~ articipants -..Operate:TheE§tab iThefr

:-Se~e~t~- , Se rver at"


Common Aspects fort i ; ti- r; j~~~t

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5

* Portal-based user interface

m Audit system for LSNA

. UseNRC ElEfor motions practice andADAMS for docket

- Web-based system

* Participant to establish web site presence

* Standard file formatsFebruary 23, 2000

Page 14

1 XC 0'}"' 4;;';-';3:,'t ' ', ;,..' 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'2

... .......... j .'

g~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -. . . > . . .

... ' ' .. |.t'.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'- 7f _ S _ " -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 7 -;7

- Summary of October and December-'1 - Technical Work Group Meetings

- Overview of Alternatives

* Alternatives 3, 4, and 5-Description, implications, anddecision factors

* General Expenditures Assessment

* Summary and -Next Steps February 23, 2000Page IS

Alternative 3 Schematic

�1

C

'1-�

".� ; � " - '-:: �', ;� ; .- o ....... .... i - .]---. -. :r '. - . . I -;� , , :� "" '- 6J. '< 1 7" ' " -' --- I i-, ,---, �:" , -,- �,-jk -, :4t�L _r, , - - - % ��, I .. I!-, !!, .- ,� �-' - � . 17�1--;--�1.11

WEBSERVERS

DOE Nevada NRC

...............

LSN Index &Centralized Portal


^ Alternative 4 Schematic.~~... '--S~~ ' *;..........~..'..

-OR... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.... NET ...

* DE. .............. PR-IMITY

Collection DOE

Web Server _ _ ' /

LSN Index &Centralized Portal

.e ---.--- - . NRC Nye *.. '-.t't!.''-''',j .. *'.Web [ e *

-. ervr .Server ParticipantWeb Server

-, ;:,.-, .-,HEa , : .

Nevaa" J 'Collection: -.. ,= .. Web Server

, - % ............... *@-.r, . .

"'C6116ction:- c ~~~~Paticpnt- Collection - | | Coi~ctins | February 23, 2000

Page 17

Alternative 5 Schematic

WEBSERVERS __._._i-?_-__*_lV___l

A, \ } , , g =~~~.,,.,o >' 1' :'II

; " '-:'.. :,. .: - _

.. :. ;, . .: 7',

: .. :, .... ,

.. ..... ..

, v tY, s

: . .. : ,.no

- .. .:

.. . - -.- i, .:. .4-;

*^- :9 : i.: .4, ,.:�..;,{\;

.:, ;, _ .-. -. -].- ." +,rz- t' '', '4

; . .__-, ' ;

..:._. '. _.4

"" "''"'-; :.''.tI "'- "'.''i''; X...... .-} :. ',

' .+

.' '- .'': <

.. r ;

_ .. . -.e

.. W.

, ...

t

. _ t

9 _ -, ..;

':: .7

_- .,._ ... : 9

;. 4' . \

..... . 3\.. . :. ,

.,, ,, 5' .:: ;;

.t. .'t, a j

. .. ..

:. - .4

.: ,.. ..

. . .S

.. ,.,.. g

_ e

; .^ . .t

DOE Nevada NRC


t >.>ft Alternative 3: Distributed Portal!Remote Storage

..... ,.--... ~.-.tv.4-.;.... ,-._*, s -. ¢ ' ;.2. ~ . 'g' .i. 1S .8 .*.

DESCRIPTION: Remote portal software indexes files that aremaintained by participants at their sites

IMPL~ICATIONS:

Participant rolesCritical role for ensuring availability and performance

- ;: i X Portal provides some availability aspects- Participant ensures file delivery and bandwidth

*Ease of use-Very flexible: users may customize desktop/interface

* Consistent query screen/results-Highest level of availability: portal & participant sites independently available-Response time performance can be variable-Image & text delivery depends on participant resources

Februeary 23, 2000Page 19

Alternative 3: Distributed Portal!

_ Remote Storage (continued)-DECISION FACTORS:

f Y LSNA administrative control- LSNA controls search, interface, security, and access- Monitoring and tuning tools provided- Fetching text files and image files is constrained

-..., * Risks

- Design complexity: Moderate to higher schedule risk of participants beingoperational to support licensing and moderate schedule risk for LSNA to haveoperational for licensing

- Integration issues: Moderate implementation complexity risk to participantsand moderate complexity of integration risk for LSNA

Costs- Lowest cost for the NRC- Variable cost burden to participants to do system administration and data

managementFebruaty 23, 2000

i<. i Page 20

fAlternative 4:Campus Portal/ParticipantAMaintained Proximate Storage

...... ......... :-. ;;,, 4, L S- A,

-'DESCRIPTION: Portal software indexes files maintained by participant webservers located at central site

IMPLICATIONS:

Participant roles- Ensures file delivery, but not bandwidth-Remote administration required- Responsible for availability and performance- Responsible for a portion of the shared campus costs

i Ease of use- Very flexible: users may freely customize desktop/interface- Consistent query screen- Lower level of availability-Response characteristics are predictable- Image and text delivery depends on participant resources


A ?ternative 4:Campus Portal/Participantntained Proximate Storage (continued)

DECISION FACTORS:

* LSNA administrative control

- LSNA controls search, interface, security, and access

- Monitoring and tuning tools provided

* Risks

- Design complexity: Higher schedule risk of participants being operational tosupport licensing and moderate-to-high schedule risk for LNSA to haveoperational for licensing

- Integration issues: Moderate-to-high implementation complexity risk toparticipants and LSNA

C Costs- Moderate cost to the NRC

- Variable cost burden to participants to perform system administration and datamanagement (some presence at the central site is required)

Februaty 23, 2000Page 22

Alternative 5:Distributed Portal!Enhanced Central Storage

4-. 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.DESCRIPTION: Remote portal software indexes files maintained by participantsat their sites. Portal, with enhanced central storage, maintainscopy of participant site. Local cache ensures timely delivery touser.

IMPLICATIONS:

* Participant Roles- Decreased requirement for system management-No 24 X 7 availability requirement

* Ease of use- Very flexible: users can tailor desktop/interface- Consistent query screen- Highest level of availability

¢ * - Response characteristics are predictable

Febrary 23, 2000

Page 23

Alternative 5:Distributed Portal!

L. tJ nhanced Central Storage (continued); *, ,_'. . ,.;', ._,,.................................. ;,,.....*

DECISION FACTORS:

; * LSNA Administrative Control

- LSNA controls search, interface, security, and access- Enhanced monitoring and tuning tools provided- Assured interface performance and assured file delivery performance

* Risks- Design complexity: Higher schedule risk of participants being operational to

support licensing, and moderate-to-high schedule risk for LNSA to haveoperational for licensing

- Integration issues: Low implementation complexity risk to participants andmoderate-to-high integration risk to LSNA

- LSNA bears responsibility for accuracy/availability of participant documents

* Costs-Highest cost to the NRC- Lowest (operational) cost burden to participants

Februaty 23, 2000Page 24

~Summary of October and DecemberTechnical Work Group Meetings

ROverview of Alternatives

IZ, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5- Description,

... .,......:

implications, and decision factors

* General ExpendituresAssessment

0 Summary and Next Steps Fbar2320FebrPare 25;:.;0

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pg .25

Cost to EstablishWeb Presence

,. A.ID.N

S gI Iii ljii lIAI

_3!~~~~~~~~~~~ p _j -A wN. Web server

implementation500 - 5,000 1,000- 50,000 20,000+

3

4

Maintenance and 5,000 - 10,000 5,000- 15,000 10,000+administration (annual) 5 1

Communications (annual) 600- 12,000 3,000 - 18,000 6,000+

Web server 500- 5,000 1,000 - 50,000 20,000+implementation 5

Maintenance andadministration (annual)** 30,000 - 60,000 30,000 - 90,000 60,000+

Communications (annual) 100 -2,000 100-2,000 100- 2,000

Web server 500 - 5,000 1,000 - 50,000 20,000+implementation

Maintenance and 5,000- 10,000 5,000 - 15,000 10,000+administration (annual) 5 1

Communications (annual) 600 - 4,000 1,200- 6,000 6,000+

5'

Table presents reasonable cost ranges only. Upper range of costs may be significantly higher.* Document conversion costs will be significant and are predicated on size and type of collection** Includes partial FTEs February 23, 2000- Page 26

General Expenditures AssessmentAmong Alternatives 3, 4, and 5

$5,000,000 ...

$4,000,000- ~7,

$3,000,000 ......

$1,0 :X3 . , ,,.7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ UJJU ~ t

Alternative Nu

O Annual Rec

IiM One-time cow

T-01"n.

mber

irring Costs* $45!

sts $2j]I $2,5i

3 14 I 59,000 $611,000 $784,00015,000 $2,280,000 $3,601,000

74,000 $2,891,000 $4,385,000Consists of LSNA portion onlyTravel costs not includedNOT a quotation - for general use only* First year


. ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ . . . .

;^Summary of October and DecemberTechnical Work Group Meetings

El~ Overview of Alternatives

RI Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 - Description,

implications, and decision factors

IEl General Expenditures Assessment

U Summary and Next Steps

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fbur 23 200

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pg 28 .

-1" abu,.w S Decision Factors

Bandwidth / Alternatives 4 & 5 Provide SinglePerformance Throttle Point for Better Control

: Design Simplicity to LSNA: Alternative 3 Least Complex

Design Simplicity to Alternative 5 Least ComplexParticipant:

Alternative 4 Kequires Parties to AgreeLocation Constraining: on Single Facility to Place Their Equipment

Completion Schedule Alternative 3 Least Amount of Hardware &Risk to LSNA: Software Acquisition and Integration

Document Alternatives 3 & 4 Parties Accountable;Integrity / Availability: Alternative 5 LSNA Ultimately Accountable

Financial Administration: Alternative 4 Requires Cost Allocation Structure

Cost to Participant: Alternative 5 is Lowest

Cost to LSNA: Alternative 3 is Lowest


:. .V Next Steps_ s i . ..sKX p. . .xs~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......

* Seek LSNARP Endorsement or Consensus Preference

-- Discard of alternatives 1 and 2- Achieve consensus among alternatives 3, 4, and 5

* Finalize Functional Requirements

* LSN Administrator Prepares Capital Planning andInvestment Control (CPIC) Document

* Present CPIC with LSNARP's Advice to NRC'sExecutive Council

* Notify LSNARP of EC Approval or Decision


....... . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.

2-wtit .......

W as<o ek ep{)r D ~Noht0

:

(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~.... . .

equal

APPENDIX

Alternatives I and 2 - Strategies

and Final Findings


6§-^j,;30z.'31 Alternative 1:

-. Simplified Strategy.. ... .. . .

1.. - ......

DESCRIPTION: Homepage with pointers to other home pages

.. ... . ...

'IMNPLICATIONS:

: .;;. *Participant roles:.- I - Each participant maintains fully capable storage, search, and retrieval capability

''''''''}''"y'W- Participant is totally responsible for availability, performance, and bandwidth

*Ease of use-Difficult for users to tailor desktop/interface-Difficult to use: multiple interfaces, one per collection/server-Alternative availability: if one participant is "down," the rest are still available

-Response time performance is variable-Overall performance is variable


Alternative 1:Simplified Strategy (continued)

. ~ ~ ~ ~ i Z.", L~,..- . .. . ..

.DECISION FACTORS:

;* LSNA administrative control- Participant site variety means LSNA has no systematic control

- LSNA unable to respond quickly to performance problems

- Certification of integrity requires:

- Heavy auditing

/ Highly structured guidelines and procedures

' Risks-Design complexity: Low schedule risk of having ready for licensing; moderate

schedule risk of participants being operational to support licensing

- Integration issues: Low implementation complexity risk to participants andlow complexity of integration risk

* Costs- Lowest cost to NRC

- Low cost burden to participants-Februar e 23 2000

- it al . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Page 33

Alternative 1 Findings

.-...-DESCRIPTION: Homepage with pointers to other home pages

. Why alternative 1 does not meet requirements:- Too complex for users- User interface not consistent- Too difficult to navigate- Not possible to aggregate information- Not versatile- Does not meet needs of large, complex discovery system- Potentially excludes some participants and "tilts the playing

field" for others.

ALTERNATIVE I is not;Fiv3 recommended to the LSNARP

February 23, 2000

Page 34

Wg<2S: Alternative 2:Moderate Strategy

:'DESCRIPTION: Centralized search interface

IMPLICATIONS:

':-.* Participant roles- Each participant maintains fully capable storage, search, and retrieval

capability

- Participant is totally responsible for availability and performance, but relieved ofsearch interface

Ease of use- Relatively inflexible: difficult for users to tailor desktop/interface

- Consistent query screen- Alternative availability: if one participant is "down," the rest are still available

- Response time performance is variable-Overall performance is variable

Februry 23. 2000Page 35

Alternative 2:LL Moderate Strategy (continued)

;w ; . ;s -! ; - .4 s ; . A, ,; f :: ? i. . A s x5> >;\'R-* sS''i'i"'li-i....^'.;.hi

DECISION FACTORS:

* LSNA administrative control

- Rudimentary LSNA control on interface and searching- LSNA unable to respond quickly to performance problems- Certification of integrity requires:

V Heavy auditingV Highly structured guidelines and procedures

* Risks- Design complexity: Moderately low schedule risk of having ready for licensing;

high schedule risk of participants being operational to support licensing- Integration issues: Low implementation complexity risk to participants and

moderately low complexity of integration risk

* Costs- Low cost to NRC-Variable cost burden to participants to perform system administration

February 23. 2000

Page 36

.

Alternative 2 Findings

-:DES CRIPTION: Centralized search interface

-Why Alternative 2 does not meet requirements:

- Interleaving result sets while preserving "relevancy" will not be easy

HTML forms query must be supported by each of the underlying sites(and this could be problematic to those participants on a leased site)

-*i -[Use of multiple search engines detracts from the consistency ofretrieval resultsReduces the overall capability to a level on par with the least capablesearch software provided by any single participant

-Thesauri may not be supported

- Increasing the required level of sophistication to meet basic functionswill levy requirements on participants to provide some search enginecapabilities at their site.

February 23, 2000is, ; Page 37

Alternative 2 Findings (continued)

:*- Why Alternative 2 does not meet requirements (continued):"Lowest common denominator" effect may actually increase cost by

""A requiring additional query tools and strategies, additional userassistance and documentation, increase the requirement forvocabulary management, and require significant customization.

Poses greatest risk (of obtaining inappropriate query results) to theleast skilled users

While it appeared initially to be a less costly approach to implementingthe LSN, by the time that the required additional features were added,it would approach or exceed the cost of simply purchasing the portalapproach presented in technical solution 3.

Agreement was reached that Alternative 2 would not be recommendedto the full LSNARP.

ALTERNATIVE 2 is notrecommended to the LSNARP


i

abdik

I<

v

transmittal of 02/19/2000 - powerpoint presentation of twg ... · dan graser-1 overheads...

Documents