WP-K.2(Task 1: Traceability matrix design) - D-K.2.1 Part1

leads: @Beatrice Ellerhoff (BE)

contributors: Andrea Kaiser-Weiss, Christian Plaß-Dülmer, Rachael Akinyede, Hannes Imhof, Max Reuter

related deliverable: D-K.2.1: First interim report including deliverable status and conceptual design of traceability matrix [Month: 12/o-15] (DWD)

Conceptual design of traceability matrix as discussed at the ITMS-K Meeting on the 20th of April 2023

Summary:

Traceability in the ITMS Project and ITMS-K can encompass various aspects, and it is relevant to consider as many of them as possible. These may include tracing and evaluating:

• the progress of the project from a project management perspective by establishing a matrix that is related to a traffic light system and helps identify solved and pending tasks as well as potential risks

• the data flow and added value from the utilization of new data within ITMS, e.g. including versioning

• the scientific progress of the project in terms of its overall goals, such as the support to mitigation efforts

As a result, two levels of traceability emerge: First, one that tracks progress according to the schedule given by deliverables and milestones, which is more or less independent from ITMS aims. And second, one that evaluates progress acoording to the development status of a product specific to the ITMS project.

Requirements:

Moreover, the traceability matrix should meet the following requirements:

• Precision: Is the metric clearly defined and is the success tested in a way that it identifies and facilitates progress in the project?

• Applicability: Can the metric be straightforwardly implemented?

• Objectivity: Could someone else apply the measure and obtain the same result?

• Communication: Can others understand it?

Design:

1. A traceability matrix to track the progress according to schedule:

Regarding the first level, a traceability matrix should continuously answer the following questions?

• Was a deliverable / milestone submitted or reached?

• Was it submitted / reached on time?

• Was it reached as planned or with limitations / concessions?

• What are current pending trasks and risky issues within the project?

These questions can already be answered within the infrastructure and information that our project management on Confluence and Jira provides. However, the information is not yet easily accessible in a single place and to everyone in the project. To address this, we will establish:

• Easy visualization of the status of deliverables and task via Kanban boards (todo, ongoing, done), including “red flagging” of tasks as a traffic light system in case of issues

• Calendar notifications for upcoming deliverables

It is task of the coordinators to monitor and update this metric as well as to facilitate communication within affected project members / parts in case issues occur.

Open

Open

2. A traceability matrix to track the scientific progress according to the ITMS aims:

Yet, the project is in a too early stage to fully develop a tracebility matrix that evaluates the status of a greenhous gas monitoring capability developed within ITMS. However, we discussed first ideas of the design of such a matrix. In particular, it should benefit the planning of phase 2 by answering the following (scale-dependent) questions:

• What accuracy (systematic error) of the provided emission estimates can be achieved?

• By how much can we uncertainties (random errors) be reduced?

• What is the magnitude / intermittence of hotspots ITMS can identify? Under which conditions?

• Across which scales can the system capture emission variability from the observations, forward and inversion model?

• How well can sector-specific contributions be identified? Can natural and anthropogenic contributions be differentiated?

• Can the results from ITMS components (inversion, Q&S processes, forward modelling, observation system) be benchmarked? And how?

• How applicable are the developed monitoring capabilities to stakeholder needs? Is the resulting data accessible and communicated well? Does it facilitate the implementation of mitigation efforts?

• How does the developed system compare to other similar systems?

A possible approach to illustrate the progress on these questions in a metric that is comprehensible and communicable is by using a three-sided pyramid (as the visualization of the climate model hierachy). The effectiveness of the developed modeling capability could then be measured by its representation in a plane / level within the pyramid, which combines diverse criteria (given by the three axes) in an ideal manner. The higher the level / plane, the more successful the product would be considered. As an illustration, the base of the pyramid could indicate the minimum requirements, while the top could correspond to the ideal desired emission monitory system.

See also slides from ITMS-K meeting by BE linked to: https://itmsgermany.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ITMSK/pages/27525121

Planned updates related to this deliverable:

The traceability matrix will continously be discussed at ITMS-K meetings and, in particular, before the due date of the following deliverables:

• D-K.2.2: Second interim report including deliverable status and first consolidated traceability matrix [Month: 24/o-27] (MPI-BGC).

• D-K.2.3: Third interim report including deliverable status updated traceability matrix [month: 36/o-39] (DWD).

• D-K.2.4: Final report including deliverable status and updated traceability matrix [month: 48/o-51] (MPI-BGC)

Go back to ITMS Module K or ITMS Evaluation Report_Home