R2O | Research to Operations

As we reflect on the advances in meteorology since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, it is also worth discussing how leadership has evolved over the past decade and the implications for joint activities between research and operations. In the response to Hurricane Katrina, the inability for different government agencies and other emergency response organizations to communicate and work together ultimately hampered the rescue and recovery efforts along the Gulf Coast. Similarly, if research and operations cannot be engaged partners in R2O exercises, the lack of coordination will stymie the transition of products that could make tomorrow’s weather forecast better. Recently, Forbes Contributor Kathy Caprino talked to Bill George of the Harvard Business School about today’s great leaders. Bill found that “authenticity” is the new standard for leaders. He went on to discuss how the open and collaborative nature of today’s leaders contrasts to the rigid hierarchical and cont

In this era of immediate accessibility to information through electronic media and worldwide networks, one misconception that can hamper R2O transitions is that the delivery of more information to the practitioner will lead to the practitioner providing a better deliverable to the ultimate customer. This information may be real-time data, imagery, model output, or some other derived product, but it may also be in the form of training, or as simple as a few extra words on the screen of the workstation. Of course, not all additional information is bad, and sometimes the problem lies more in the way it is presented to the practitioner than the content itself. The best information, worthy for the practitioner to consider, is concise, relevant, and actionable . For an example of why information meeting these criteria is most ideal, consider the aircraft pilot flying through rough weather approaching a busy airport. There are a number of factors that the pilot must consider, and given the sp

It has become increasingly popular to collocate National Weather Service (NWS) offices with academic institutions, presumably to maximize the potential R2O benefit. A few years ago, as part of a satellite proving ground demonstration, I was visiting a NWS office that was in a university building. On the research side, we spent long days working with meteorologists in simulating futuristic forecast and warning operations. As the hallways started to clear out and the day was winding down, I preceded to prop open the interior door between our demonstration room and the hallway so that anyone who was interested in what we were doing and finding (from the NWS or university) would feel encouraged to wander in before they set out for home. Not soon after, I was reproved because it was a violation of security rules to do so. The door was shut. While there are certainly situations where closed doors are necessary to maintain the safety and reduce distractions, an unquestioned security policy li

Testbeds are an emerging and essential forum in the weather community for bringing researchers and users together with a goal of determining the operational viability and maturity of research products. In practice, testbeds can take many shapes and their organization can vary. There are, however, misconceptions about testbeds that can negatively impact their utility within the context of R2O. Misconception: Researchers should not have a role in the testbed. While interactions between researchers and practitioners in the testbed should be limited, researchers must partake in testbed activities (1) so that they can directly observe how the research products are applied to operational challenges, (2) ask relevant questions to help improve understanding about their operational relevance, and (3) ensure that the practitioners understand the research product and are applying the product as designed. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that this interaction is not contravening the goal of

If you diagnose and map out the components of R2O throughout the weather community, you will find that there are several enterprise-level conceptual models. While I have consistently referred to R2O as a cycle, there must be a starting point, and a driver. For fiscal year 2002, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) highlighted R2O as a featured article in their federal plan. The article outlines the R2O models for the Department of Defense (DoD) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and classifies paths for “research push” and/or “operations pull” in describing them. While “research push” and “operations pull” may have been suitable for accomplishing R2O missions of the past, neither is very cost and resource effective through the longer term. While the research and operations sectors have existed since the inception of the R2O paradigm, adequate forums to facilitate the “2”, and the their utility, have only become appare

Variants of this question come at different stages of the R2O cycle following the initial transition of a research product. On its face, the term “operational” is vague within the context of R2O. If you open a dictionary, you will probably find that “operational” confers readiness to use. Because the R2O process is multi-faceted, that is, there are scientific and technical components, the threshold at which readiness is achieved will depend on the role and perspective of the stakeholder within the cycle. You may consider a new development to be operational once it is available to a subset of practitioners and those practitioners have been trained on how to use it. Others may require availability throughout the organization. A former Meteorologist-in-Charge (MIC) at the Milwaukee field office of the National Weather Service (NWS), Ken Rizzo, believed there were two basic ingredients to a successful transition to operations: consistency and reliability. Consistency refers to the requirem

There are usually two distinct parts to a transition within the R2O cycle, especially for major programs. The first part is the implementation of a new or updated technical system that enables the transition. The second part is the implementation of the research product within the technical system for the user to assess. Since each part has the potential for significant challenges, there is an increased likelihood that, if combined and not treated as discrete tasks, the R2O cycle will be prolonged as shortcomings in one task dog the other. For the purpose of expediency, managers often push system integration with research evaluation (after all, there have probably been a lot of delays already!), and others are willing to support this endeavor because it is truly an exciting time in the R2O cycle. After all, the user will shortly have access to the research and development for the first time and it seems the objective of the transition is in reach. But practitioners have little place in