Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This session addressed:

  • A review of the process for generating and rating Use Cases and their implementation
  • How can we maximize community input to UREP? A suggestion from the last review that Campus Champions be involved in the generation of Use Cases.  




Action Items:

SummaryDescriptionResponsibleDue Date
Use Case examples documentUsers do not always have concrete ideas about how XSEDE can make their research easier. It would be helpful for those who reach out to the user community to have (widely accessible) examples of Use Cases that have been implemented; those Use Cases may prompt users to think of additional tools that would help them,

JP Navarro

Lee Liming

Use Case How-to documentOther XSEDE staff and even users could create and submit Use Cases if they knew how. We need a document which explains: how to create a Use Case, the format, what information and fields are required; how to submit a Use Case; what happens to a Use Case once it has been submitted. This document must be written in a manner suitable for users without technical computing backgrounds. When a draft is created, it can be reviewed by CEE, ECSS, possibly others

JP Navarro

Lee Liming

Allow users to vote on Use CasesAs important stakeholders, users should be able to vote on Use Cases also. Create a secure process for this.XCI 
Make Use Cases easy to understand for UREPUREP members sometimes do not vote on individual Use Cases because they feel that they do not have the necessary background to understand it. Before UREP votes on priorities, each Use Case should be summarized in non-technical language; the summary should include why it is important and what "pain point" it addresses. One specific suggestion was to use as much as possible of the original language provided by the source of the use case idea. In other words, look back to where the idea came from and reuse as much of the original wording and reference points as possible.XSEDE staff connected to the contributor; XCIongoing
Review composition of UREPThe make-up of UREP should be reviewed to ensure that all stakeholders are fairly represented. Whether to weight the votes of some member types more than others should also be considered.









Process review

See slides below.  The basic life cycle is:

  1. Gather input
  2. Prioritize requests
  3. Implement top-rated tools

Maximize community input to UREP

Currently there is space in JIRA to track requirements so that CEE and ECSS can enter Use Cases.  

Suggestions for allowing Champions and users and CEE and ECSS staff to submit include:  

  • the ticket system
  • form in the CSR

Should be a place to see all UCs which have been created.

Creating CDPs

CDPs define what the options are to implement a UC, what effort is needed.  Lee L. says they should be about a page and should be produced quickly and little effort.  

CDPs should be brief summaries,  in user-facing language as UREP members sometimes do not feel qualified to rate a CDP due to lack of specific subject knowledge.


Need transparency about what happens to a UC after it is submitted. Explanation of whether it wil proceed to a CDP or not (and why not); whether once a CDP is created, what the priority for implementation is.


Slides for this topic


  • No labels