RPP Focal Point Training Survey Results - Spring 2002
Catalog of Responses
FSL Evaluation Team

The purpose of this survey was to systematically collect feedback on the training forecasters received on the GFESuite and its components during the RPP Focal Point Workshop, April 30-May 3, 2002, at the Forecast Systems Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. Out of the 56 who participated in the training, 49 completed this survey, providing candid responses in order for us to objectively assess the current state of the GFE and RPP. Their names will be kept confidential and will not be associated with specific responses.

Feedback from this survey was compiled by the FSL Evaluation Team. If you have any questions please contact the FSL Evaluation Team: Woody Roberts, 303-497-6104 or Patrice Kucera, 303-497-6618.

_____________________________________________________________________

Spring 2002 GFESuite Training Workshop

1: What is your position title?

Position Title Count

Lead or Senior Forecaster 19

General Forecaster/Meteorologist 16

ITO 2

Instructor 2

SOO 7

Service Hydrologist 1

Met Intern 1

Regional Scientist 1

Total
49

2: Rate your level of expertise with the GFESuite.

N=49, mean=3.0, std=0.8, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=no answer

[0] 1=total beginner

[16] 2=intermediate

[20] 3=experienced

[12] 4=advanced

[1] 5=expert

3: Comments

Q#002: 4=advanced

I was very pleased with the quality of instruction provided by FSL staff. Configuration section topped the list. It would have been nice to add another week to the workshop.

Q#002: 4=advanced

As the IFPS focal point over the past year, I have configured the entire IFPS system from the ground up at my office. During this time, I have become quite familiar with many facets of the software. I am very comfortable with knobology. I developed a forecast methodology for the staff to use.

Q#002: 4=advanced

I have helped configure GFESuite at our office (RPP 15) and have developed SmartTools and Procedures. I have not yet begun to set up any text formatters.

Q#002: 4=advanced

Hope to be an expert with the RPP software.

Q#002: 4=advanced

I taught the GFE functionality at the IFPS Focal Point Course.

Q#002: 3=experienced

Have locally customized the GFE ZFP/CWF/CCF formatters for local operations. Have added additional Graphical HLS Threat elements.

Q#002: 3=experienced

My configuration experience on GFE is much greater than my operational experience.

Q#002: 3=experienced

In some areas, such as configuration, I am probably in the advanced or expert category due to on the job experience. In other areas, such as text generation, I am an intermediate or even total beginner, mostly because I haven't gotten to those areas yet.

Q#002: 3=experienced

A very busy 3+ days. Wish I would have had a bit more time with the labs, but I can still work on them back in the office.

Q#002: 3=experienced

I seem to be the most proficient person in this office. I haven't seen all that many people outside our office using the GFE, so it's hard to compare with such a small sample. The few I have seen are at about the same level as I am or better, and they're focal points like me.

Q#002: 2=intermediate

Somewhere between total beginner and intermediate

Q#002: 2=intermediate

Our site is not yet operationally using any part of GFE or IFPS

Q#002: 2=intermediate

Our office is far behind many of the others that attended the workshop. We plan on catching up quite rapidly by attending workshops such as this one, and also by learning from the experience of other offices.

Q#002: 2=intermediate

Your on-line documentation is very good (especially the examples)...until something doesn't work.

Q#002: 2=intermediate

Have worked with GFE since December 2001...but most work has been done since mid-February 2002.

4: Briefly list all the GFESuite training you have received to date.

IFPS Focal Point Course at NWSTC in June 2001.Advanced GFE Workshop at SRH in Sept 2001.Advanced GFESuite Workshop #2 at FSL.

IFPS Focal Point Course (NWSTC May 2001)Southern Region GFE Course (SRH Sep 2001)

NWSTC IFPS Course July 2001NWS SR GFE workshop October 2001FSL GFE Workshop April-May 2002

IFPS Focal Point Training Course Kansas City Spring 2001Advanced GFESuite Training Boulder, CO Spring 2002

IFPS class from NWSTC Reading Reference Materials

Several RPP sessions at FSL Training Center

RPP Workshop - FSL IFPS FP course - NWSTC

Initial GFE training FSL November 1999. A lot of training with documentation to teach the Focal Point Course here at the NWSTC.

IFPS DELTA Training GFESuite Workshop Spring 2002Web based instructions

I went to the NWSTC 8-day course, and have worked on editing/making job sheets for our office.

Self taught, from the net based resources. You should be proud of that net training material. It is very well done, and I actually felt competent to participate throughout this workshop.

As focal point: attended training in Kansas City for two week course visited RPP site for additional techniques listserver subscriber

NWSTC IFPS FP course, my own MDL, FSL web page reviews

IFPS Focal Point Course from NWSTC Advanced GFE Workshop in Boulder.

Attended the IFPS Focal point training in March 2002, attended this advanced GFE course.

NWSTC IFPS training course. Prepared drills for the staff (see below).Used FSL documentation, NWSTC training material, and some Eastern Region training material.

IFPS Course in Kansas City - Aug 2001Western Region IFPS Workshop - Jan 2002FSL GFE Workshop - April 2002.

IFPS Focal Point Course (Kansas City, MO) March 2001RPP Focal Point Workshop (Boulder, CO) Apr 30-May 3 2002

NWS focal point course.- Western Region IFPS workshop.- FSL GFESuite training workshop.

IFPS Focal Point class in Kansas City (Feb 4-15 2002)GFESuite Training Workshop (30 April-3 May 2002)

IFPS Focal Point training and this workshop.

IFPS course at the NWSTC in August 2001, WR GFE workshop in Salt Lake City in January 2002

WR GFE Conference 1/02IFPS course at Training Center 2/02GFESuite Course in Boulder 4-5/02

IFPS course at the NWSTC in August 2001, WR GFE workshop in Salt Lake City in January 2002

ifps school at nwstc, training at pleasant hill office, gfe course in boulder

IFPS course @ NWSTC1 week course GFE Suite Training Workshop April 30-May 3 2002

IFPS Focal Point Class Numerous training periods during IFWG meetings.

IFPS Course at Kansas City last June

Norman class talking with other forecasters western Region class

IFPS Focal Point course On-the-job training

The initial training at the NWSTC, the actual documentation, and this GFESuite course.

GFESuite Workshop 4/29-5/3/2002IFPS Delta Course @ NWSTC in January 2001 (1 day of GFE training)GFE Training Modules associated with various builds via FSL/GFE website

On station, at RLX, IFPS focal point training at the Training Center, GFESuite

IFPS training course at NWSTC Feb 5-15 2002Advanced GFE concept workshop at FSL Apr28-May3Some distance learning by utilizing web based applications

Minimal training from NWSTC, 2 week IFPS course Listening in on several SRH-sponsored IFPS classes emphasizing configuration and smart tools May 2002 GFE Workshop at FSL

2 GFE workshops, IFPS NWSTC course

in house training

1) 2 week IFPS/GFE course at Kansas City2) 1 week GFE workshop at Salt Lake City3) 1 week GFE Focal Point workshop at Boulder

Except for the RPP training, no formal training.

The spring workshop.

IFPS course at NWSTC

NWSTC IFPS Course Reading the online training material from FSL

IFPS Focal Point Course NWSTC Kansas City

IFPS Course Kansas City

PR Regional Focal Point 1999 to 2001IFPS Training February 2002GFE workshop April/May 2002

NWSTC IFPS Course WR GFE Workshop FSL GFE training

NWSTC IFPS course and your workshop

IFPS course at NWSTC, SR GFE Workshop (3 days), and self-study using the GFE online documentation.

RPP GFESuite Training - Nov 1999IFPS Workshop (Western Region) - Jan 2002GFESuite Training Workshop - Apr 2002

5: Briefly describe (if any) training you have conducted with your staff (include time estimates).

All staff have had an orientation to new IFPS operations. Intensive 8 hour One-on-One training with Focal Points. Additional training on methodology to produce GFE Text products. Online exercises to complete on local intranet.

5 one-on-one sessions with each forecaster (including the MIC and WCM) involving all aspects of IFPS. Most of these sessions involve the GFE. Each session lasted between 1 and 2 hours on average. A broad overview was given to all HMTs. This session lasted around 2 hours. An office seminar was conducted by me to the staff on IFPS. The seminar lasted around 1 1/2 hours.

Extremely little due to recent office move. Have informally sat down with a couple forecasters for less than an hour each.

All forecasters are trained and using GFE/IFPS operationally. Have begun training management and interns. Have not trained HMT staff.

"job sheet" type training with all staff knobology training with all staff (~2 hours)brief refreshers (15-30minutes) with all staff.

2 one-hour seminars broad-brushing GFE and uses; minimum of 3 day shifts (one-on-one training) using GFE and IFPS;'IFPS News' emails at least once per week explaining changes and new procedures.

Taught GFE section of Focal Point Course.

Developed all local office training documents, drills, quizzes and reference websites. Conducted 4 hour one-on-one training sessions with all forecasters, interns and management staff concerning GFE 'knobology'.

All forecasters were given a day for one-on-one training this Spring. Half of the time was devoted to WES, the other ~4 hours to one-on-one GFE introduction. Now they are working on the job sheets. I would say that most staff have spent 8 to 12 hours on training.

We have designed a basic course based on the web modules. I am aiding one student as I write this. I expect that by the end of this summer, all of the forecasters will be able to operate the GFE. Duane Carpenter and I have to really hustle to provide the correct configurations, SmartTools, etc. to meet this goal, but I confident that with your help, we can do this. I hope that we can begin experimental products by the Fall, when all of our forecasters will be needed on the desks.

One-on-one training with each staff member through a 6 month period. All members were fully trained on GFE and IFPS suite by December 2001. Intend to do another round of training with the new programs built into GFE 5.2.1 in the near future.

Our SOO has led the IFPS training in our office. I serve as the FP, and answer questions often while on the OPS floor.

Have done informal training during shift changes. Plan to do more one-on-one training this Summer.

We have introduced the staff to the GFE on the system through a couple of talks (about 1 hours time) but have not started formal training.

Drills for the staff: Drill 1. NDFD, Populating, the Weather Browser (about 1 hour to complete)Drill 2. GFE menu/tool bar (editing tools), Grid manager, Spatial Editor (about 3 hours to complete)Drill 3. Temporal Editor, RPP, practice GFE editing (about 1 hour to complete)Hands on training with each of the staff (1-3 hours)

Trained all staff on GFE knobology and forecast methodology.8 hours per person

I have conducted the following individual training sessions with each of our forecasters (assume an average of 1 to 1 /2 hours per training session):GFE Introduction/Overview GFE Basic Editing (Spatial editor, basic smart tools)GFE Advanced Editing (Temporal editor, locally developed smart tools)In addition I've also put everyone through a basic GFE Proficiency Check after their training (to reinforce some concepts/refresh their memory on others; this was also about 1 - 1 1/2 hours in length)The individual training sessions were based on a sample GFE training session put together by NWSTC; I broke this up into 3 parts and modified each to meet local needs.

My assistant focal point is conducting staff training. She has put in 30-40 hours so far.

At least 2 one-on-one sessions with each forecaster (2-3 hrs/session). Currently conducting third of three scheduled sessions...this session is similar to a performance exam...forecasters are expected to edit grids required to generate a CCF, then generate a practice CCF.

One-on-one introduction to using GFE to edit grids in the spatial editor. (About 90 minutes per person.)

One-on-one training with a number of the forecasters lasting 30 minutes or less on basic grid editing techniques with GFE.

One-on-one/two sessions with everyone in office for approximately 2 hours per person. Whole office has had approximately 2 hours of training on the GFE only so far. More to come after installation of IFPS10. We are starting to produce the grids now.

One-on-one training with a number of the forecasters lasting 30 minutes or less on basic grid editing techniques with GFE.

one on one and group training throughout implementation of ifps. approximately couple hours per individual.

Minimum 2 hr training per staff member on GFE. Extensive spot training on GFE issues on a as needed basis. (estimate 40-50 hours?)

IFPS/GFE Spin up training 1-2 hours per forecaster. GFE Brown Bag - 4 hours.

I am the IFPS Focal Point and help/work with the staff about IFPS during regular shifts. The SOO was responsible for official IFPS training of the staff.

A staff introduction half an hour group meetings 1 hour. one on one training 4 hours one on one operational work 1-2 hours.

Last fall, I spent approximately 8 hours per person on their initial GFESuite training. Since then, training has been much more informal, and focused on those with questions.

Introduction to GFE...Staff Meeting, 1 hour Intro to Spatial Editor, Grid Manager, Procedures, Basic Editing Techniques...1-on-1 sessions, 3-4 hours Review of 1st session techniques, overview of Temporal Editor, more Advanced Spatial Editor/Grid Manager techniques...small groups, 2-3 hours Future...(next 3-6 months)Temporal Editor Advanced Editing Techniques including Smart Tools and Smart Initialization.

One on one training of ICWF, IFPS, GFE (2-3 days per person)Intranet section with guidelines and flowcharts. Numerous e-mails of trouble shooting tips, instructions, or hints.

To this point, staff training has been minimal. I've printed some of the recommended articles from the IFPS training web site, and posted them in a binder for the staff to prepare the pending "paradigm shift".In addition, GFE basics (read very basic) have been casually discussed and briefly displayed for a few of the forecasters in order to "plant the seeds" for upcoming training.

None here; just the class I developed at SRH, bringing in regional experts (Charlie, Steve, etc.)

We in the process of training GFE to the staff, estimated IFPS implementation date of 9/2002.

1)2-day IFPS/GFE training for each staff member. About 80 percent completed.2)Required MaxT/MinT/PoP grids out to 7 days issued at 6 am and 6 pm daily.

Trained all forecasters on GFE basics and usage, approximately 5 hours per forecaster.

A day of one on one training with each staff member, plus follow up documentation and

e-mail.

Sep-Nov 2001 Trained all the forecasters (24 hours per forecaster)Jan-Mar 2002 Trained all the HMTs (24 hours per HMT).

Trained staff of knobology of GFE -- about 5 hrs per person Trained several on Smart Tools and Text Formatters -- 4 hrs total.

No one-on-one training possible due to operational priorities Wrote knobology training modules that can be done while on forecast shift...three written...first completed by almost all staff...second in progress right now.

None. Expecting to go full force within 2 weeks. SOO has completed 2 hour training with each forecaster.

No training to date as we are just getting started with IFPS

One-day classroom training with each forecaster (4 sessions, 4 people/session)One-on-one with each forecaster (1 hr each)

performed one on one training with GFE and other components of IFPS. Gave seminar on IFPS concept and provided guidance on it's usage.

Each staff member received approx 12 hours of one-on-one training. In addition, each staff member spent 3-5 hours of self-study using the online docs.

One-on-One Training with each staff member introducing GFESuite and the "knobology" - 8 hours each*** Total 160 hours ***Individual training editing grids techniques - 2 hours each*** Total 40 hours ***

6: Rate the usefulness of the each of the Joint Morning Session presentations listed below:

GFESuite Progress, Plans, and its relationship with IFPS, AWIPS, RAP, RPP, NDFD, and IOC

N=48, mean=4.0, std=0.9, min=0, max=5

[1] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[8] 3=adequate

[26] 4=useful

[12] 5=very useful

7: Comments

Q#006: 5=very useful

Found it very interesting on how the implementation is going in offices already and the differences between the way that the two offices are taking the process.

Q#006: 5=very useful

Excellent overview. Am glad to see FSL and MDL working together.

Q#006: 5=very useful

Great for finding out where other offices stand, and what things they are doing.

Q#006: 5=very useful

Had been confused about some of these relationships particularly RPP versus RAP

Q#006: 5=very useful

Good introduction to the course. This section clarified RAP vs. RPP for me as well as what to expect with IFPS10 and future builds. "IFPS Road map" from MDL was helpful as it explained what is truly expected from the field.

Q#006: 5=very useful

Very informative, especially the mapping of RPP releases to AWIPS and lag that has occurred in the past.

Q#006: 5=very useful

Very helpful to hear the comments of the users and what they want from GFE in the future.

Q#006: 4=useful

At the time, I felt this was a good intro to the workshop and got everyone on the "same base" since we have many different versions of GFE in the field.

Q#006: 4=useful

Was interesting to see the upcoming plans for the future and anticipated development.

Q#006: 4=useful

It's always good to get a formal breakdown of where we've been and where things are headed. Sometimes there is contradictory info out there regarding various AWIPS/IFPS software releases (release dates, etc) so it's good to get this info straight from the source.

Q#006: 4=useful

A good summary of all the software changes that are on the way.

Q#006: 4=useful

Nice overview...good idea to make sure all are "in the know" concerning this material!

Q#006: 4=useful

It was useful to have information on the framework in which changes are made and a time line for upcoming changes.

Q#006: 4=useful

Helped to better see how "all of the pieces fit together"

Q#006: 4=useful

Good overview and what to expect.

Q#006: 4=useful

Its always good to know what happening out there with offices leading the way into the GFE future.

Q#006: 3=adequate

Could have been shorter. Not real significant in an operational sense but for future planning and general information it was OK.

Q#006: 3=adequate

These were good overviews and provided some answers to questions that I and my fellow forecasters have about the "whole" IFPS mentality and process.

Q#006: 3=adequate

Nothing really new here for me, but a good refresher and summary.

Q#006: 2=of little use

It was nice to know information, but would could have been trimmed down and used the extra time for more lab time. Day one was a little slow, could have moved some of day two into day one.

8: Forecast Methodology with Lynn Maximuk and Charlie Paxton

N=48, mean=4.4, std=0.7, min=3, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[6] 3=adequate

[16] 4=useful

[26] 5=very useful

9: Comments

Q#008: 5=very useful

I have seen Charlie's presentation twice before. But, Lynn's was very refreshing and full of great ideas for helping to overcome local office dissension. It would be nice if Charlie could explain a little better how he was able to get the GFE software to create his .html pages.

Q#008: 5=very useful

While this might not be the place for it, the text formatters from GFE is the way to go! When it comes to workload, having all of the products come from one place makes things a lot easier. This presentation should be a standard for ALL NWS employees to experience.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Although Lynn's talk seemed time-consuming and didn't pertain directly to the focus of the course (learning more of the nuts and bolts of GFE), I did gain valuable information from Lynn's discussion. Charlie's talk really opened my eye to the many applications of GFE.

Q#008: 5=very useful

This is very useful in the sense of selling the gridded forecasting approach, i.e., why should we be doing this. However, some of this time might be more useful allocated to training on the GFESuite application.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Won't get into the specifics but definitely gave me a lot of ideas on how we spin-up the grids reality at the office.

Q#008: 5=very useful

This type of information needs a much wider audience

Q#008: 5=very useful

We need to get Charlie in at least a teleconferece so the staff can listen to his info. Or he could come to SJU :)

Q#008: 5=very useful

Thoroughly enjoyed both talks and look forward to the day we are using the GFE suite.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn's talk was very informative about how the EAX office was distributing the workload

Q#008: 5=very useful

Second time I've seen Lynn's presentation. Coming from a WFO with a large/busy aviation program, it is helping somewhat in trying to come up with a game plan to make the full transition to GFE/IFPS operations.

Q#008: 5=very useful

I was very impressed with Lynn's talk. He really provided the framework to convey to forecasters the new paradigm of forecast operations we will soon be entering. Very insightful points of worrying less about the 'words' in the ZFP and more about producing 'gridded forecasts' as THE product that all other products can then be generated from. GOOD STUFF. Charlie elaborated on some useful points. We have already been producing Graphical Hazardous Weather Outlooks in the Pre-IFPS era at MLB. We are starting a demonstration project with the Florida offices to have them do our Graphical HLS in a GFE framework. Will have to get a hold of the Florida lightning climatology grids. More good stuff.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn's talk was extremely interesting. The fact that he actually is doing this operationally made the talk carry even more weight.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn's talk really opened my eyes to the possibilities with GFE and changes to our operations. The operational duties at his office are far different from where our office stands right now. While I don't visualize making all of these changes immediately at our office, there were a lot of good ideas here. Charlie Paxton's talk was also very informative especially with demonstrations of some of the new text formatters and GUIs he has developed in GFE. I got a chance to talk to him a little after his presentation about some of the work that he has done.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn's presentation was great. He should give this presentation to as many office staffs as possible.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn received a lot of feedback from the audience. This was the third time that I have heard this presentation. I learn something each time I hear it.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn's presentation should be seen by everyone in the weather service. Charlie's presentation was a great finish to the earlier labs.

Q#008: 5=very useful

We need to see how to implement the technology in an operational environment, in addition to the components of the software.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Very interesting and useful to hear experiences from other offices, (especially those farther along in the process) who have gone through some of the growing pains associated with the transition to grid forecasts. I especially liked Lynn's talk. His comments on the new approach toward forecasting were very interesting. The talk about collaboration versus coordination was also interesting.

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn's talk was very useful for seeing and hearing what we may go through. Charlie's talk showed what we are capable of.

Q#008: 5=very useful

While there are considerable configuration issues with which to deal, no less significant is the impact IFPS will have on forecast operations. The presentation by Lynn was very useful and compelling.

Q#008: 5=very useful

I think Lynn is correct. I think the timing issues (aka shift schedules and briefings) will most likely be the hardest thing to change in my office. Though offices with only 4 general forecasters will have a tougher go of it with scheduling than offices with 5+.

Q#008: 5=very useful

While there are considerable configuration issues with which to deal, no less significant is the impact IFPS will have on forecast operations. The presentation by Lynn was very useful and compelling.

Q#008: 4=useful

Lynn's comments were good to hear, though sometimes I think he needs to remind the audience how long it has taken his office to get to the point they are at.

Q#008: 4=useful

Lynn's comment, " the customer prefers consistency over accuracy" was pure BULL[****], and I should have challenged him on that one. Tell that to a commercial fisherman way out [to] Sea and you would probably end up getting you head stoved-in.

Q#008: 4=useful

Good to see what this is all supposed to amount to.

Q#008: 4=useful

I enjoy hearing our other offices are using IFPS since we are still "infants" in this regard. I do hope the Training Team will provide a way for our forecasters to hear more about the "EAX method" via tele-training or something.

Q#008: 4=useful

Lynn's talk was actually one of the key talks of the entire workshop. He laid out in very specific terms of what the future may look like at a WFO. It was very intriguing. While I agreed with many points of the talk, I did think it was a bit too optimistic. He was way too dismissive of the text products. I could not agree more with his point on collaboration versus coordination. I wish he could talk to our staff on all the points he brought up.Charlie's talk was very good in bringing the GFE capabilities to full light. Having lightning climatology or any other climatology in GFE is going to be standard practice I believe. Graphics...graphics and graphics are where everything is going.

Q#008: 4=useful

Lynn's session was useful in that it provided a glimpse into what things were like at a WFO experienced with the software (even though I didn't necessarily agree with some of his views).Charlie's session - pretty much the same thing; it was nice to see some of the things TBW is doing with more advanced versions of the software than what we currently have (IFPS 5.1.2/RPP 10). The GFE Text Formatter/Xnow portion, while short, was particularly intriguing.

Q#008: 4=useful

Lynn Maximuk's presentation was very idealistic, but very invigorating. I came away with a freshened sense of enthusiasm for IFPS and what it can do for our future.

Q#008: 4=useful

Interesting take on how to use and implement GFE. Concerns with Charlie Paxton's use of a low resolution element (Wx) to derive other high resolution elements like PoP and Sky. Agree with the concept though.

Q#008: 4=useful

Maximuk's presentation was very useful...several key items were pounded home. Glad all NWS forecasters will hear what he has to say via teletraining. Paxton's presentation was adequate...but many offices have developed customized products and have posted them to their respective web sites, so no big surprises/revelations.

Q#008: 3=adequate

This is encouraging for folks in the plains, but mountain sites have additional hurdles to jump over to be successful.

Q#008: 3=adequate

Lynn's talk was useful in the fact that I could hear his experience with the software. His detailed use of his staff rotation changes and new product issued was irrelevant since our office has a completely different workload and could not possibly adjust our shifts the way he did nor do we have the expertise/time to develop all the in-house products. Lynn reminded me of a used car salesman. He was trying hard to sell some ideas that he thought worked well but our limited experience so far is directly opposite to his. Had he tried to deliver his talk to our older staff (many near retirement) he might have had a roomful to handle. I don't think they would be buying (I didn't buy a lot of it myself).Charlie's talk was more useful in that I could see some applications to the code but he didn't try to sell it as the best thing since sliced bread.

Q#008: 3=adequate

Charlie Paxton very useful - Lynn Maximuk of little use.

Q#008: 3=adequate

I think It will take time in the west to develop new methods.

10: Which Track did you participate in during the Workshop?

N=49, mean=1.5, std=0.5, min=1, max=2

[0] 0=no answer

[23] 1=Track A

[26] 2=Track B

11: The Two-Track Schedule was designed in order to accommodate the large number of attendees. Please rate the effectiveness of the Two-Track training strategy.

N=49, mean=4,4 std=0.7, min=3, max=5

[0] 0=no answer

[0] 1=not effective

[0] 2=somewhat effective

[6] 3=adequate

[18] 4=effective

[25] 5=very effective

12: Comments

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

I liked having my own computer!

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

This was the first course I have ever attended in the NWS that each individual had a machine. I cannot stress how important this was/is. It is not the same thing to work on a station set up for Colorado when compare to your own site and make changes real-time and not. EXCELLENT!

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

With a group this large, I think it was necessary to split the groups up into a manageable size. Good thinking.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

I think it was very important to have one person to a workstation in labs for many of the exercises. It was justified to have us occasionally double up on work stations for demonstrations.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

Have one computer per person was exactly what is needed for all training sessions. If you do this again, this is a must, one computer per person. If you cannot get as many computers, limit the number of participants.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

The ability to train individually on a workstation increased the value of the training. A single track would not have been as effective.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

Having my own GFESuite was great. The hands on training is invaluable.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

There is always a problem that some issue will come up in one session and be discussed in great detail and not as much in the other. The instructors were careful to pass along information. In spite of this possible problem, having two tracks is the most effective. It is too crowded in the labs when the entire group is together and there is the possibility that someone will not speak up in a large group, but, will in a smaller one.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

Very impressive training and well thought out. The two tracks make more work for you but allows twice as many people to attend the workshop.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

It's a much better approach to have one person at the keyboard rather than two people trying to trade off. Definitely keep it this way.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

I don't know how the tracks were designated, but I might have tried to split up attendees based on experience.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

The ability to train individually on a workstation increased the value of the training. A single track would not have been as effective.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

Being able to work on the computers by ourselves was enormously helpful. The joint discussions allowed for the best of both worlds.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

Hands on training almost always better than lecture, especially with this type of system to learn.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

Having your own workstation, with one or sometimes two persons during labs is essential, and many other national-type courses are hampered by this problem. If the labs were more intense, as they would be in an advanced course, the value of one person to one workstation would even be more evident.

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

I appreciated the extra computer hardware and the two track strategy. This allowed easier individual work on the machines.

Q#011: 4=effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

Found it effective because you could work on much of the items yourself with out having to share a setup. For large classes such as what we had it is a must.

Q#011: 4=effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

It was little hard to hear in the lab room. Otherwise, I thought it was an excellent was to get hands-on and get a first hand look at how new feature (ISC) works.

Q#011: 4=effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

I liked being able to have a computer of my own. It allowed me to get the necessary hands on experiences.

Q#011: 4=effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

At times, the two tracks received different lectures/labs, but it seemed to be more because of the slightly different experience levels in each group. I liked the slightly smaller groups, big enough to get lots of ideas, but not so large I felt intimidated about speaking out.

Q#011: 4=effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

The system seemed to work fine.

Q#011: 4=effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

Dividing the class into two groups enabled a better learning environment and allowed us more time to get to know some of our peers. Although resources may not have allowed it, I would have preferred the class divided into even smaller parts - maybe 15 to 20 per group maximum.

Q#011: 4=effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

I think the Track idea is great. Perhaps, though, there were still too many people in each track. I would have preferred to go at a little slower pace through the Track sessions and have time for a little more one-on-one help with some of the exercises. There were several questions I had about why we were doing things a certain way, that I was not able to ask.

Q#011: 3=adequate

Q#010: 2=Track B

It certainly made things easier in that everyone got a chance to play with the GFE software on their own....yet you were still part of a group setting.

Q#011: 3=adequate

Q#010: 2=Track B

Don't think FSL had a choice, unless it wished to provide twice as many workshops. I couldn't help but feel that group B missed out by not hearing what group A was discussing during a couple of the sessions.

Q#011: 3=adequate

Q#010: 2=Track B

One track would not have worked.

Q#011: 3=adequate

Q#010: 1=Track A

2 track theory seemed to work well...the poor instructors probably didn't like having to teach the same subject back-to back that way, but I didn't really sense that from them.

Q#011: 3=adequate

Q#010: 2=Track B

I wasn't able to interact with the other track as well.

13: Rate the overall usefulness of the following lectures you received:

Daily Forecast Critique Lecture

N=48, mean=3.8, std=0.9, min=0, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[16] 3=adequate

[23] 4=useful

[8] 5=very useful

14: Comments

Q#013: 5=very useful

Although I have stated very useful...I must also add that it would be advantageous to attend such a workshop again after using IFPS for approx 6 months.

Q#013: 5=very useful

Make this presentation available online and thru teletraining to MIC, SOO and WCM!

Q#013: 5=very useful

This will be a excellent tool!

Q#013: 4=useful

A lot of potential here. Since this is still such a huge work in progress I'll hold off any additional comments. Tom has a lot of ways to go with this.

Q#013: 4=useful

It was useful as an overview as to some of the capabilities that may be available in the future.

Q#013: 4=useful

The best part of the lecture was the discussion that followed.

Q#013: 4=useful

This will become more important after the DFC has had a chance to get more features implemented and improved. I found what we had interesting and it showed good promise for the future.

Q#013: 4=useful

A potentially very useful component. A real need for it.

Q#013: 4=useful

Tom LeFebvre did a good job of pointing out this project is in its infancy. I would like to see more ideas shared on good ways to monitor GFE forecasts using other real-time data such as satellite and radar.

Q#013: 4=useful

This was my first exposure to the subject. It sounds like there is a lot of potential in this area.

Q#013: 4=useful

Nice overview...well-presented. Clearly a "work in progress".

Q#013: 4=useful

Software needs to mature more before it becomes of even greater use to field I suspect.

Q#013: 4=useful

Seems interesting and also seemed that Tom was looking for input to this feature, but many of us have yet to use it so were not able to provide (what I felt) were definite answers to these questions.

Q#013: 4=useful

I missed part of it but will go over the book notes

Q#013: 4=useful

I thought this was a good discussion/presentation on this new feature of IFPS. I had never heard of it before going to the training course.

Q#013: 4=useful

I was hoping this was farther along with edit areas. There is a lot of potential here that needs to get into the forecast process.

Q#013: 4=useful

A good introduction to the application, future improvements, and the general discussion of what the forecasters thought should be done with the GUI was even more enlightening.

Q#013: 4=useful

ideas flowed. I happen to be very academically interested in this section.

Q#013: 4=useful

DFC looks like a good start to a necessary step in verifying grids data.

Q#013: 4=useful

Much potential for this down the road. Like the idea of a Super SMART Init that can tweak the forecast based on the previous day(s) model biases.

Q#013: 3=adequate

I am looking forward to what this software will develop into. The potential is huge. Possible replacement of current NWS point verification seems to be a possible future implementation of the DFC.

Q#013: 3=adequate

The DFC is a great concept. While this lecture wasn't as useful as some of the others owing to the bare-bones nature of the current software, it was adequate... I'd love to see a future lecture once you guys have time to develop a more souped-up version.

Q#013: 3=adequate

I would have liked a little more detail about how to configure this piece of software. It had plenty of details about where this software could go, and we were solicited input on what should be done with it. This is good, because the DFC could go many different directions.

Q#013: 3=adequate

Nice introduction to this function. However, since it is still early in its software development, it is of limited operational use for now.

Q#013: 3=adequate

Just not a lot to talk about at this point.

Q#013: 3=adequate

Looks like the program is just getting on its feet.

Q#013: 3=adequate

Seems like a "phase two" deal...we'll face enough challenges just getting "phase one" -- knobology and configuration running.

Q#013: 3=adequate

It's in it's infancy, so it's hard to get too involved in the DFC yet.

Q#013: 2=of little use

There was not enough information about the verification progress to make it worthwhile.

15: ifpIMAGE and Other Programs Lecture

N=48, mean=3.8, std=0.9, min=0, max=5

[1] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[16] 3=adequate

[23] 4=useful

[8] 5=very useful

16: Comments

Q#015: 5=very useful

Need an exercise on this in the Lab. Show SITE level generic format and then specific differences with each element.

Q#015: 5=very useful

It covered in good detail essential elements for ifpIMAGE as well providing information on other programs that may be used from time to time.

Q#015: 4=useful

Don't just tell us what the New ifpIMAGE program can do, include code examples for us to use back at our sites.

Q#015: 4=useful

Would liked to have to realtime examples of ifpIMAGE. Even some lab time with ifpIMAGE writing scripts and producing images.

Q#015: 4=useful

I picked up some useful details about changes to this software.

Q#015: 4=useful

ifpIMAGE is important. The other tools are important, but it is tough understanding what they do when you can not use them. It may help to have a lab for this section.

Q#015: 4=useful

ifpIMAGE presentation introduced me to some new IFPS programs I was not aware of: ifpnetCDF, moreGFEData, and getNotify. Our office has mostly fully developed scripts already in ifpIMAGE, but sections on ifpIMAGE in lx1/lx2 environment and some of the attributes were particularly useful.

Q#015: 4=useful

I would have liked to have had a chance to create a graphic. Otherwise, it answered the questions I had on naming the file and where it store the graphics in the database.

Q#015: 4=useful

This is essential information for our operations here.

Q#015: 3=adequate

If time allowed, show some of the configurations through GFE and the images that coincide.

Q#015: 3=adequate

I am still a bit hazy on exactly how to make it all work. I did learn more about it though so time will tell.

Q#015: 3=adequate

I would have liked to have seen a lab on ifpIMAGE. Production of IFPS graphics is VERY important. The lecture on the "Other Programs" went by way too fast. But then again, these programs are used much less frequently.

Q#015: 3=adequate

Not a lot of new information for me on ifpIMAGE since I've already used it some. I would have liked a little more time and some examples of their uses for some of the "other programs". Several of these a relatively new to me since I haven't had a need to use them yet. The lecture ran through all of these programs pretty quickly and I'm not sure I came away with a full understanding of their utility.

Q#015: 3=adequate

Knew a lot of this. Mainly because I had focused on the web part of the GFE in our office.

Q#015: 3=adequate

Need more examples; this would have been a nice 2 hour lecture/lab on its own.

Q#015: 3=adequate

I knew most of the stuff about ifpImage already...however I did learn a few new features.

Q#015: 3=adequate

Good warning to us that getting images on to our web site will be a non-trivial matter.

Q#015: 3=adequate

a bit too detailed on all of the "new" items.

Q#015: 0=did not attend

Missed it due to contracting food poisoning!

17: Intersite Coordination Lecture and Lab

N=49, mean=4.2, std=1.1, min=0, max=5

[2] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[5] 3=adequate

[21] 4=useful

[21] 5=very useful

18: Comments

Q#017: 5=very useful

This worked really well. Gave us all a good feel for what ISC will involve.

Q#017: 5=very useful

ISC has been a controversial topic. I thought the lab was great and, at the time, felt that offices should be able to coordinate using the software. Now that I'm back at the office.... I'm back to wondering if it will all work, but being more convinced that it can will likely rub off on forecasters. I hope so anyhow.

Q#017: 5=very useful

This was my first real glimpse of ISC....so this was extremely useful, even though I had to leave early and missed a chunk of the lab dealing with the FxConnect software. I gotta say....ISC is pretty neat stuff, it appears that a lot of thought went into this initial version of the software.

Q#017: 5=very useful

I thought this was a good mix of lecture and lab. I felt I learned a lot on how ISC operates from this one lab. Good work!

Q#017: 5=very useful

It would have been impossible to get as good a feel for ISC without the lab. It was also justified to have us double up on the workstations.

Q#017: 5=very useful

Having the "hands-on" approach for the ISC lab was the way to go. By being able to actually use it when other"sites" were also sending ISC grids to our "site" really gave me a feel for how ISC will be used operationally. This was maybe the best lab of the course.

Q#017: 5=very useful

This made me see that ISC will work and that the biggest problems will be with policy and not software.

Q#017: 5=very useful

I had never seen the Intersite Coordination before. It was lots of fun to play with, and I set it up in our brand-newIFPS10 shortly after I got back.

Q#017: 5=very useful

More time for lab and lab needs to be overall better planned.

Q#017: 5=very useful

Since this is coming to a WFO near me very soon (and I had no previous knowledge of this), I appreciate the info received here very much!

Q#017: 5=very useful

The next hurdle!

Q#017: 5=very useful

This will be very important. It was great to see this in action!

Q#017: 5=very useful

The lab was very hands-on and did much to demonstrate the capabilities of the software.

Q#017: 5=very useful

A real eye opener! It will be interesting to see how this works in the WR!

Q#017: 5=very useful

The lab was very hands-on and did much to demonstrate the capabilities of the software.

Q#017: 4=useful

Need to do some operational "case studies."

Q#017: 4=useful

This is something very important to the field...that I think might need more training in the future.

Q#017: 4=useful

Needed more structure. There was too much play time. This was a good time for an outlet at the end, but, recommend that there be more explicit instructions to see how realtime situations may work.

Q#017: 4=useful

Very good exercises. A good "intro" to many sites that have not seen how ISC works.

Q#017: 4=useful

It was my first look at ICS. I would like to have had a little more time to work through the functionality.

Q#017: 4=useful

I found it interesting on how it worked, However think it would have been better if the lab had continued where the 'offices ' actually tried to get a seamless grid generated.

Q#017: 4=useful

An introduction for me and a vital part of IFPS. The lab was somewhat disorganized, especially the part about the map drawing but I get the big picture.

Q#017: 4=useful

Not much of an issue at a OCONUS site.

Q#017: 4=useful

This was my first exposure of any kind to ISC and it was a good learning experience.

Q#017: 4=useful

Cleared up a couple of issues. The lab didn't go very well, but I think most of us learned quite a bit, anyway.

Q#017: 3=adequate

Not sure of applicability to Alaska

Q#017: 3=adequate

Better work on the server overload issue, so that we can actually run a simulation and develop a better feel for methodology.

Q#017: 3=adequate

I admit that I was burned out by then, and worried about my connections home. We'll have to do a lot of work on this here because we may end up having three offices within this office.

19: Python and Numerical Python Lecture and Lab

N=48, mean=3.7, std=1.2, min=0, max=5

[1] 0=did not attend

[2] 1=not useful

[4] 2=of little use

[9] 3=adequate

[21] 4=useful

[11] 5=very useful

20: Comments

Q#019: 5=very useful

We should have spent a LOT more time on this. Why the rush? Other sessions had too much time and this didn't have enough.

Q#019: 5=very useful

The numerical python addition to the course was a very good idea.

Q#019: 5=very useful

Again having the PC to actually do the programming on is great

Q#019: 5=very useful

Went a little fast on this one. Need to work in lab exercises that step through some basic concepts. Slides need to be more like Tracy's.

Q#019: 5=very useful

The lecture and exercise were great. Like in all good training it would have been nice to have more time in the lab.

Q#019: 5=very useful

Too much, too fast, at least for someone with minimal Numeric Python experience coming into the workshop. But, that's OK, because of the other resources we have available to us (python org, FSL info, etc). In the long run, this will prove to be very valuable session.

Q#019: 5=very useful

wished that I didn't feel so rushed--this was one of the topics that I think a whole week could be dedicated

Q#019: 5=very useful

Tracy did a great job with this!

Q#019: 5=very useful

The lab was not very well prepared. Since there was a large group of students, all steps that needed to be performed should have been on a hand-out. It was very difficult to follow along with the instructor especially from the back of the room.

Q#019: 4=useful

Very quick pace, would have liked more pre-course material.

Q#019: 4=useful

I have in my notes that the first part of the lab was better than the second half. I think that it started moving a little more quickly and in a less organized fashion toward the end. However, certainly the importance of switching from python to numerical python was made clear, and there were several examples to help us get started.

Q#019: 4=useful

I'm going to get a whole lot more out of this when actually start programming. It may have been better to have different exercises than those posted on the net (which I had mostly done), BUT in that very short lab time, it is best to have an answer sheet right in front of you, especially if this is new material.

Q#019: 4=useful

Much more time is needed to learn python and how to write scripts. Perhaps another course with the emphasis on python and smart tool construction.

Q#019: 4=useful

Python seems to be a key to the GFE. It is also a tough idea (at least for me) to get my mind wrapped around. I have programmed quite a bit...but not in the OOP style. More examples and hands on would not hurt this topic.

Q#019: 4=useful

It helped to improve my minor understanding of the python language.

Q#019: 4=useful

More time (another day or two) would be nice for smart tool development.

Q#019: 4=useful

Might want to start out with some basic Python...briefly...then dive into numerical...Some examples of structures in Python then convert to numerical....for example...if then structure then where structure...

Q#019: 4=useful

Perhaps a bit too fast but overall there was good material presented.

Q#019: 4=useful

Useful, but a bit too fast-paced with some of the more advanced topics.

Q#019: 4=useful

This was the first time I'd actually been involved with numeric python.

Q#019: 4=useful

There was not enough time in the lab to do much. Maybe it may be better to shorten the lecture and do more lab.

Q#019: 4=useful

It was a useful starting point for a topic to which more time could be devoted.

Q#019: 4=useful

More time to complete would have been helpful...along with more step by step instruction.

Q#019: 4=useful

The material was covered a little quick. Need to go a little slower. With such a wide range of python users, it was hard to follow at times.

Q#019: 4=useful

It was nice to get an overview of python.

Q#019: 3=adequate

I would have preferred having a step-by-step process showing the creation of various smart tools. Your examples and answers to exercises are great, but having not had any C++ or object oriented programming experience, I still get lost when trying to write smart tools.

Q#019: 3=adequate

I'm a python/numerical python novice. I don't think one can impart much information about a programming language in a brief lecture. It's just not a subject which can be taught quickly.

Q#019: 3=adequate

Material way too fast for anyone not already python literate.

Q#019: 3=adequate

This was great but I was not able to get all that I could out of the lecture/lab because it was going to fast.

Q#019: 3=adequate

Numerical Python lab and attached notes helped clarify some issues in Numerical Python for me. However, one hour was WAY too short for this lab. This should've been at least 2-3 hours and taught in conjunction with or on the same day as SmartTools.

Q#019: 3=adequate

It's a shame that we were limited in time with this. Python is still a bit of a mystery.

Q#019: 3=adequate

Either teach the basics in more detail or skip this section.

Q#019: 3=adequate

Not really enough time allotted to get into much python.

Q#019: 2=of little use

Need a separate workshop for focal points to learn about Python and its use with IFPS

Q#019: 2=of little use

I am not a Python export (I need to study up), so I was left "in the dust." The lecturers need to slow down.

Q#019: 2=of little use

Basically an introduction for me. I have used python in bits and pieces and the lab was useful only to expose me to more bits and pieces. I felt that I needed more, but I realize that you can not possibly teach an entire python class, yet I feel I needed more exposure. Perhaps two somewhat shorter sessions that cover more ground.

Q#019: 2=of little use

I've rated this a little low, not because the information is "of little use", but the speed of the course block was too fast for me, since I'm not a solid programmer in any language. Perhaps you could consider offering a more detailed Python/NumPy course which could go over all the basics...then incorporate the concepts directly into GFE NWS applications. Perhaps as a "final" exam, each student could be assigned a tool, procedure, or text problem to solve which could then be incorporated into the next GFE release.

Q#019: 1=not useful

I thought it was great to have the exercises but I am not skilled with Python yet. It would have help tremendously(sp) if you could have gone over the solution to at least a couple of them. Yes, the answer is in the book but going over the solution by the instructor would have helped me a great deal.

Q#019: 1=not useful

Didn't feel these labs were very helpful. Many of us didn't know what the heck was going on. I'd say have fewer exercises and have the instructor go into better detail.

21: GFESuite Configuration Lecture

N=49, mean=4.0, std=0.7, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[10] 3=adequate

[27] 4=useful

[11] 5=very useful

22: Comments

Q#021: 5=very useful

More thorough than what we received at the training center.

Q#021: 5=very useful

Directory structure info one of the most useful sessions in the entire workshop.

Q#021: 5=very useful

need more examples and lab time with this

Q#021: 5=very useful

Mark Mathewson said (prior to our session) that he thought that this lecture was one of the more tedious/boring ones in the workshop, but I couldn't disagree more. This lecture answered a number of questions in my mind, and covered a lot of useful topics regarding GFE configuration....very useful since our 5.2.1 install is probably only a month away now. In addition, my group (track B) came up with a lot of questions...and the resulting discussions made this session one of the more interesting ones in the workshop.

Q#021: 5=very useful

More time (another day or two) would be nice for configuration issues pertaining to: ISC, adding local models, DFC, etc..

Q#021: 5=very useful

The best part of this lecture was the tips and troubleshooting section at the end. The BASE/SITE/USER section was also very worthwhile.

Q#021: 5=very useful

This was one of the best sections of the course. The information was presented fully but as concisely as possible. All of the directory structure diagrams and the explanation of how ifps10 will be configured in lx1/lx2 were the most useful bits for me. The troubleshooting tips and scenarios were very helpful and we will use them frequently here at our office. Showing how to add new models and weather elements to GFE was clearly explained.

Q#021: 4=useful

There was a lot of repeat slides or concepts. Kept saying the same thing over and over. Seemed to be several presentations put together into one. I realize that the time was probably not there to put this together.

Q#021: 4=useful

Very helpful and plan on going through the lecture notes on my own system.

Q#021: 4=useful

Hard to handle the wide range of user levels in this class, since some of us had GFE all configured, and others hadn't done much.

Q#021: 4=useful

good stuff, although I am a beginner.

Q#021: 4=useful

Again, to actually show examples would be beneficial.

Q#021: 4=useful

Presented some good information which will aide us in getting our site configured correctly.

Q#021: 4=useful

Good...thorough...and easy to follow.

Q#021: 4=useful

Good overview of what we need to do to set GFE up and how it is set up.

Q#021: 4=useful

This was most useful in terms of the tips provided as well as suggestions on using the documentation provided with each release.

Q#021: 3=adequate

A lot like the IFP image session. I learned some things but still have a ways to go. Your documentation will help since it is fairly thorough.

Q#021: 3=adequate

Mostly review for me.

Q#021: 3=adequate

Could have used a bit more detail on exactly what was configurable and what was not.

Q#021: 3=adequate

Lots of material

Q#021: 3=adequate

Again, this would have been nice to have a lab on.

Q#021: 2=of little use

Would have like to actually had hands on in doing some basic configuration such as setting at sites and users.

23: Smart Initialization Lecture and Lab

N=47, mean=4.2, std=0.8, min=3, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[10] 3=adequate

[19] 4=useful

[18] 5=very useful

24: Comments

Q#023: 5=very useful

We need the answers to this lab.

Q#023: 5=very useful

More time (another day or two) would be nice for smart initialization of model grids.

Q#023: 5=very useful

This will be helpful for us down the road. We already have an ADAS analysis package running...see our web site. We want to get the prognostic portion of this model running as well, to import into GFE some day down the road.

Q#023: 5=very useful

Excellent. I was able to get back to the office and change our Smart Init scripts immediately.

Q#023: 5=very useful

Again, needed more time for this. Very important part of GFE.

Q#023: 5=very useful

As they become available, I would suggest listing sample methods that field offices use in Smart Init to give other offices some ideas.

Q#023: 5=very useful

Smart Init was a section of GFE I had very little previous experience with. The module was a good introduction to Smart Init but needed to be an hour or two longer if possible. Again, I think all of the Python related material needed to be presented in more depth over a longer period of time.

Q#023: 5=very useful

will be using this as soon as I find some time!

Q#023: 5=very useful

Again, too much, too fast. However, this definitely showed the endless possibilities available to us through Smart Init.

Q#023: 5=very useful

SmartInit and the python lecture were the 2 topics that i had the most interest in...so for both I would say I would've liked even more time.

Q#023: 5=very useful

Way, way too fast and the instructor needs to slow down, especially when it comes to typing complicated commands at the command line. Would suggest adding those commands into the book somewhere so that we wouldn't have to keep stopping him to repeat them. This topic, along with the next one, needs to have lots more time spent on it and be run at a slower pace!

Q#023: 5=very useful

Will be a great help to model data initialized better for our area. A little more time for the lab would have been nice.

Q#023: 5=very useful

This was new stuff for me. Very well presented.

Q#023: 5=very useful

Needed more time. Too fast. Needed more time on how to do. I got lost in the verbal steps. Need to write down.

Q#023: 5=very useful

Just not enough time to work through the labs. I do plan on going through the documentation lecture examples.

Q#023: 4=useful

I'll be really intense on this in the next few weeks.

Q#023: 4=useful

Similar to smart tools, more time learning the code and writing examples.

Q#023: 4=useful

Again, would have preferred a slower pace with more examples.

Q#023: 4=useful

An important topic, since this is a new feature in the 5.2.1 build of GFE and one I'll definitely want to use.

Q#023: 4=useful

A lot of good information here, some review, some new. The labs were instructional. My only complaint: there were no lab exercise answers in the workshop binder.

Q#023: 4=useful

It was useful, but could have been explored in greater detail along with an example of applying calculations on one or more edit areas.

Q#023: 4=useful

Lecturer needs to make sure everybody is on the "same page."

Q#023: 3=adequate

Again, a little fast paced for the non-programmer, but overall a good lecture.

Q#023: 3=adequate

There needed to be more structure to this section.

Q#023: 3=adequate

The Smart Initialization lecture/lab went by too fast for me. I was unable to grasp as much of it as I would have liked.

Q#023: 3=adequate

An introduction for me and seems a bit advanced although I can see the usefulness of it. The lab was too fast and if I remember correctly the exercises were not written out in the manual. I wish all the labs had detailed explanations in your training manual (I believe this one was one of the few that didn't).

Q#023: 3=adequate

This lecture/lab went very fast. At times it was hard to keep up with the instructor.

Q#023: 3=adequate

for now, not sure how important this is; will be much more useful once all become more familiar with the process.

25: Smart Tools Lecture and Lab

N=48, mean=4.0, std=0.8, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[10] 3=adequate

[23] 4=useful

[14] 5=very useful

26: Comments

Q#025: 5=very useful

Only complaint was that I wish we could've had more lab time on this topic...smart initialization, also.

Q#025: 5=very useful

Lab was too short and fast. Need more instruction on what was happening with each line as we made changes in the exercises.

Q#025: 5=very useful

Again, I wish we would have had more time in the lab. I will go through the Numeric Smart Tool documentation, which is excellent.

Q#025: 5=very useful

Good information, but needs to have more time spent on it.-

Q#025: 5=very useful

Lot more time needed.

Q#025: 5=very useful

Again, great!

Q#025: 5=very useful

Will useful in getting the tools written and tweaked correctly to work for our area.

Q#025: 5=very useful

The more info on Smart tools the better.

Q#025: 4=useful

This lecture/lab was helpful in defining the structure & purpose of smart tools

Q#025: 4=useful

Not enough time for this section...more time here would have been helpful for us Smart Tool development "rookies."

Q#025: 4=useful

Nicely structured lab, learned a lot. Could have done more but it was useful.

Q#025: 4=useful

Useful, but a bit too fast-paced with some of the more advanced topics.

Q#025: 4=useful

More time to complete would have been helpful...along with more step by step instruction.

Q#025: 4=useful

need to devote more time to this; this could be the key to the maximum use of the GFE by forecasters.

Q#025: 4=useful

I had hoped that we had a bit more time for smart tools, but the week was very full and I don't know what I would have taken out to devote more time to smart tools.

Q#025: 4=useful

Needless to say, an advanced course would be helpful!!!

Q#025: 3=adequate

In much the same way as the Smart Init lecture/lab, I could have used more time with Smart Tools. These things are so important (and understanding the Numerical Python coding behind them) that extra time would have been appreciated.

Q#025: 3=adequate

Like the python/numerical python section, it is hard to teach how to write programs (smart tools) in a short lecture/lab. As such, I don't think I was able to learn too much, but it was good to get some exposure to the subject. I probably won't really be comfortable with this subject until I sit down and write some tools on my own.

Q#025: 3=adequate

I found the presentation somewhat confusing. It might have been better to spend more time on the presentation and less time on the labs with more time spent covering procedures and utilities.

Q#025: 3=adequate

Lecturer needs to make sure everybody is on the "same page" and that all the "nuts and bolts" are well-covered.

Q#025: 3=adequate

I'm still not to the point to where I'm developing smart tools -- I'm sure the usefulness of this lecture will be realized by meat a later date

Q#025: 3=adequate

Again, would like a separate workshop to learn about smart tools

Q#025: 3=adequate

Wow...how many smart tools are there out there right now...and how many are simply duplicates where everyone has written basically the same thing (e.g., T - Td checker)?

Q#025: 3=adequate

This material was very, very useful but the lab/lecture for SmartTools was WAY too short. This is one of the most important areas of GFE work for us and should've been presented over a whole day with Numerical Python if possible. I would've liked the chance to create "on the fly" weather elements, work with the weather ugly string, and write some example procedures/utilities. We did not have enough time to get to these sections in the lab.

Q#025: 2=of little use

This is a VERY crucial aspect of GFE. I think more time should have been spent on this section. I did not get much out of this.

27: Text Product Infrastructure Lecture and Lab

N=49, mean=4.2, std=0.8, min=3, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[12] 3=adequate

[17] 4=useful

[20] 5=very useful

28: Comments

Q#027: 5=very useful

To save time, have us copy only one thing from the examples directory just so we learn how to do it. All the other files should be pre-loaded in the proper directories.

Q#027: 5=very useful

Very helpful section of the course with structure of scripts clearly presented. Again, would've liked to have had more time on this section of the course to be able to finish the labs and go further in depth on the fire weather and recreational forecast examples.

Q#027: 5=very useful

Probably was the best organized. Really liked the annotated slides (presentations). Rec product was a very good example. Needed more time. Tracy did a really good job on this one!

Q#027: 5=very useful

This was all new to me and very informative. I now understand why some of the offices are going to this over the IGR.

Q#027: 5=very useful

Great lab! The slides were well laid-out.

Q#027: 5=very useful

This was a well-organized and fun lab to do. It made me really want to upgrade our RPP 15 version of GFE.

Q#027: 5=very useful

Ah, the way the NWS should go! I think this had the most impact during the week. I hope this can be expanded and continue to be adopted through the NWS.

Q#027: 5=very useful

Have given me a better understanding of how the whole Text Product Infrastructure works.

Q#027: 5=very useful

This was the one lecture that I looked forward to the most. Our office has made a commitment to get the GFE text formatters working and get away from using the IGR (matrix). This will make the most efficient use of our time. I actually wish more time would have been given to this topic, since this is the way we are going with product production.

Q#027: 5=very useful

Once again, we rushed through this one. Could have spent twice the time on it.

Q#027: 5=very useful

This was a great section which I got a lot out of. Wish we could of had more...more...more.

Q#027: 5=very useful

Very useful for how to set up new products. The section handouts will be a great help to making our own products. I personally would have liked a bit more lab time.

Q#027: 4=useful

An introduction, with the sky the limit. I only hope I have time to actually try and do some of it. The lab wasn't bad considering the material was involved.

Q#027: 4=useful

There was a lot of material here. Would be nice to have it broken down into more lecture/lab time and be able to complete more of the exercises.

Q#027: 4=useful

Good information...not NEARLY enough time to learn what was going on during the lab, but that's OK.

Q#027: 4=useful

More time to complete would have been helpful...along with more step by step/commad by command instruction.

Q#027: 4=useful

Have done much of this already...but many of the points were still useful...especially the on what the new format is. I think this new format will help everyone in writing/troubleshooting the code

Q#027: 4=useful

I had already written a Text Product template, but it was important to see the changes in the newer builds.

Q#027: 4=useful

Depending on whether we will eventually be allowed to "officially" create our products this way, more time is needed with this as well in lab/lecture

Q#027: 4=useful

I have worked on the RPP 15.1 text formatters and so I am quite familiar with how to modify these. I still learned the "new" format that was adopted with RPP 16. I am going to convert my RPP 15.1 formatters to the new format using the knowledge gained in this section. Good information.

Q#027: 4=useful

More options to consider in lieu of having the MDL formatters. Will be interesting to see how everything works out.

Q#027: 3=adequate

Good stuff, but for some reason, it didn't come together for me. I'll have to learn much about this OJT.

Q#027: 3=adequate

Our office does not issue many "non-routine" products, so the GFE text formatter is not as important to us. I did come away with some basic information, however, which will provide a background for later.

Q#027: 3=adequate

I'm giving this an adequate for one main reason - the lecture/labs proceeded much tot quickly and didn't allow much time for the information to sink in...I often didn't have enough time to finish the exercises in the lab and frequently had to cheat by looking at the answers. Text Product Infrastructure is a very important topic...IMHO the GFE text formatters are the way of the future and should be given more time....even though they are technically"experimental" in nature and are not currently the "official" means of producing something like a ZFP.

Q#027: 3=adequate

This was a totally new subject to me. As such, I found it a little fast-paced and over whelming with some information overload thrown in for good measure. It was good to get some exposure to the subject. However, I went in expecting a drink from the faucet but instead I got a blast of information from the fire hose.

Q#027: 3=adequate

Not enough lab time

Q#027: 3=adequate

While this was helpful, I found some of the presentation confusing and had difficulty in getting timely assistance when working on the exercises.

Q#027: 3=adequate

Needed more time for this section

Q#027: 3=adequate

Lots of interest here...as this may be the only way we can get this to work in Alaska.

29: New Features of the GFE Lecture

N=48, mean=3.8, std=0.6, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[12] 3=adequate

[30] 4=useful

[5] 5=very useful

30: Comments

Q#029: 4=useful

Always a good intro.

Q#029: 4=useful

Always good to see the new features available.

Q#029: 4=useful

DFC looks like a good start to a larger verification issue.

Q#029: 4=useful

Good overview of the current GFE status.

Q#029: 4=useful

I learned some new things.

Q#029: 4=useful

Hearing about the new features was great, but listening to the discussion between the developer and forecasters was the best part of this section.

Q#029: 3=adequate

While there were a lot of good ideas presented here, I thought the DFC/Interpolation/New Features sections were a bit too long and detracted from time better spent in the SmartTools/Text Products or Smart Init labs.

Q#029: 3=adequate

It was interesting to see what was new on the horizons.

Q#029: 3=adequate

Could have been shorter and more concise.

Q#029: 3=adequate

was an abbreviation and conglomeration of some of the other lectures.

Q#029: 3=adequate

Good warning on what's coming up.

Q#029: 3=adequate

Cut this one way down or eliminate. We can all read about the new features on the README.

Q#029: 2=of little use

We've had version 15 loaded on two training boxes for quite some time, and recently updated to version 16. So, we were aware of most, if not all, of the new features covered in this session.

31: Interpolation Lecture

N=48, mean=3.6, std=0.7, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[2] 2=of little use

[19] 3=adequate

[23] 4=useful

[4] 5=very useful

32: Comments

Q#031: 5=very useful

Cleared up some misconceptions I had.

Q#031: 4=useful

It was nice to have an open discussion with Tom concerning the interpolation algorithms. I think we gave him some good ideas which he may be able to implement.

Q#031: 4=useful

Some good discussion. Best fit to climatology curves option...may be good in certain situations.

Q#031: 4=useful

I appreciated hearing how interpolation worked and the new features.

Q#031: 4=useful

Nice to know that interpolation is going to get better.

Q#031: 4=useful

Lots of neat ideas were exchanged during this lecture/discussion.

Q#031: 4=useful

Good to let everyone express their ideas and concerns.

Q#031: 4=useful

A lot of intriguing ideas brought up here. Just keep any new methods simple to use!

Q#031: 3=adequate

It was nice to have the ability to share ideas on interpolation, however this discussion dragged on too long and too many people commenting on the same topic.

Q#031: 3=adequate

I never got how this fits in to the final products.

Q#031: 3=adequate

Again, to actually show examples and have some lab time would be great!

Q#031: 3=adequate

It was nice to hear how it worked, and about the improvements that are in the works.

Q#031: 3=adequate

It was Ok but I knew the short comings of it going in and came away without much of a clear answer to the problem. It was useful to know it is being attended to though.

Q#031: 3=adequate

Interpolation is important, but I am not sure it should be one the top of the list. (DFC should be number 1.)

Q#031: 3=adequate

This seemed to mostly be designed to solicit input on possible improvements to the interpolation options. Less time could probably be spent on this topic unless there additional interpolation options in need of coverage.

Q#031: 3=adequate

I think lots of work needs to be done in this area, and it was apparent from this lecture that it hasn't been worked on in some time, and that ideas are still being tossed around. Solutions to current problems are not really all that satisfactory, but better than leaving the feature as it is. Sorry I don't have any better ideas for you.

Q#031: 3=adequate

somewhat unstructured. I am not sure many of us had much input into this process.

Q#031: 3=adequate

Again, probably too long. Our group got off on other discussion tangents.

33: Please rate the Joint Discussions

N=48, mean=3.6, std=0.7, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[9] 3=adequate

[23] 4=useful

[16] 5=very useful

34: Comments

Q#033: 5=very useful

This workshop helped to fill in a lot of blank areas I was unsure of. It also helped to talk with folks from other offices, as they will certainly be able to help as well with their experiences.

Q#033: 5=very useful

I thought people were very willing to talk - and for the most part, had good ideas to contribute. The previous workshop was smart to request additional joint discussion time.

Q#033: 5=very useful

Most of the joint discussions were extremely useful to me. I got the chance to ask a couple of important questions here and we all were able to toss ideas around. In the three and a half day course length, there was a bit too much time spent in these. However, I wish the entire course had been a day or two longer.

Q#033: 5=very useful

The dialog between the developers and users was almost as important as any of the lectures.

Q#033: 5=very useful

Although I initially thought that too much time was devoted to joint discussions, we certainly were never quiet during the sessions. It was a pleasure to interact with the GFE developers, with great discussions and good explanations of why options could/or could not be implemented, and what priorities were. It was one of the few times in my years with the weather service that I felt input was requested and would actually be considered.

Q#033: 5=very useful

Again, I like to hear how other, more experienced offices, are implementing IFPS. This provides me with ideas on how WE might do things.

Q#033: 5=very useful

These were useful in exploring some the issues as well as possibilities with GFE/IFPS

Q#033: 5=very useful

Having both tracks get together and share ideas was so helpful. I am glad that more time was give to the joint discussions.

Q#033: 5=very useful

Very helpful to trade ideas with other focal points who are going through the same "growing pains" as I am with my staff. Also, very useful to have face-to-face Q&A's with developers.

Q#033: 5=very useful

good to hear what others are doing.

Q#033: 5=very useful

This was the "marquee event" for the course. Lots of good ideas...and a chance to see where we are on the path.

Q#033: 4=useful

Always a good idea to hear what other offices are doing as well as their point of view.

Q#033: 4=useful

Needed these since we were in 2 tracks.

Q#033: 4=useful

These seemed to move along better than I had originally expected. Some very good issues were brought up.

Q#033: 4=useful

Brings forth ideas, both to the developers and offices.

Q#033: 4=useful

Open discussion is something that I think is well under-rated! Great ideas and collaboration from other offices is needed and this was well shown that week!

Q#033: 4=useful

I think that the members from the field were able to bring a lot of new ideas to developers which will greatly improve the system in the future.

Q#033: 4=useful

May have been too much time allotted. However, experience says there really is never enough time for discussion. If you a lot no time for discussion--there will be a need for a lot of discussion.

Q#033: 4=useful

it was quite useful (and fun) to bounce ideas off other people with good ideas about how to make IFPS better.

Q#033: 3=adequate

This section was not as useful as most.

Q#033: 3=adequate

Very good discussions. Also useful as a break in the labs so we can clear our heads. Needs to be more of an agenda ahead of time so we can think about the items more in advance. Needs to be a way to shut up some of the people who will babble on about trivial things, like a moderator (with a muzzle).

Q#033: 3=adequate

For the most part, these discussions were quite good. But, if I could choose between them and focused, structured lab time, I'd take the lab time.

Q#033: 3=adequate

The discussions were good but I think that many of the questions posed by the attendees could have easily been answered on an individual basis. More time should be given to the labs...writing numeric smart tools, procedures, setting up a model database (MM5).

Q#033: 3=adequate

Good ideas came up! Maybe a few too many joint discussion times.

35: Please rate the Overall Training Pace

N=48, mean=3.6, std=0.6, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=no answer

[0] 1=too slow

[1] 2=somewhat slow

[17] 3=just right

[28] 4=somewhat fast

[2] 5=too fast

36: Comments

Q#035: 5=too fast

I would suggest taking out (or reducing) some of the sections and beefing up what I see as the real core of the course: numerical python, smart tools, smart init, and text product generation.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

probably could use a couple more days

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

...but this is what we were warned about when the workshop started!

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

somewhat fast, but there is a lot to cover, so I see no other option. Having the workshop book to take back will be a good reference.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

At times, the pace of training was too hurried. Perhaps, another day or two should be added to accommodate this.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

I would have rather had it be a little too fast than a little too slow, so I was generally pleased with the pace.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

Obviously it was a lot of material for 3 and a half days. I would have preferred to spend a whole day on Smart Tools/Numerical Python rather than a half day. Also more time on Text Product Infrastructure and Smart Init (at least a full half day for each) would have been useful as well. The remaining lectures had the right amount of time allotted for them. The material was well presented for the time allotted.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

Could have been longer with more lab time, but, that would have required more cost for weekend travel. Perhaps start Monday afternoon.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

Several instances where too much information was being presented and not enough time to ingest or understand.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

But, I realize there was a wide spectrum of experience in the room. You can't please everybody here, I'm afraid.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

I only say somewhat fast because of the pace of a few of the lectures....i.e. Text Product Infrastructure, SmartTools, Python/Numerical Python. Otherwise....the pace was just fine.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

The pace is very difficult to establish given the variability among the students. I had less experience with GFE(we are just getting going), but I tried to make sure I did all the "prerequisites" you requested. I heard some complaints that the labs were too basic, but I'm sure that was only for a few. That's why I thought you may want to split the two tracks by experience level.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

3.5 days is probably the right length, but since I wish there had been more lab time (about 1/2 day), wonder if it'd be possible to reduce open discussion time a bit?

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

A few of the labs where too fast. I do not have a solution except to maybe have copies of blank formats in place at the beginning of the lab so less time is spent on the copying and pasting.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

As can always be stated...Workshops could also be extended a week or so...but budgets and what have you curtail that. Otherwise the material was great.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

As said already, Python, Text, SmartTools, and Smart Init needed more time.

Q#035: 4=somewhat fast

Most of the workshop had an excellent pace. Some of the labs did not have enough time.

Q#035: 3=just right

probably too slow for most, but I had a handicap.

Q#035: 3=just right

Ranged from too slow in most of the lectures to fast in most of the labs. Each could be adjusted a bit. Too many bullets in the lectures and not enough meat. Too much meat in the labs and not enough lettuce.

Q#035: 3=just right

The pace was just right. The course just wasn't long enough.

Q#035: 3=just right

A few portions were too fast or slow as mentioned above, but overall it was just about right.

Q#035: 3=just right

Lab time may have been a bit more. Though we can still work on the exercises in our respective offices.

Q#035: 3=just right

On Thursday, I was sick, so training seemed fast that day, but I'm sure it was just because I was out of sorts.

Q#035: 3=just right

Overall Training was right on pace with what the established requirements were.

Q#035: 2=somewhat slow

Too bad we couldn't have packed more into the week.

37: Please rate the usefulness of the Hands-On Laboratory Exercises

N=48, mean=4.3, std=0.8, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[2] 2=of little use

[5] 3=adequate

[18] 4=useful

[23] 5=very useful

38: Comments

Q#037: 5=very useful

a bit rushed but never the less invaluable

Q#037: 5=very useful

Best way to learn is hands on.

Q#037: 5=very useful

Great having a computer for each person. That was ideal!

Q#037: 5=very useful

this is where the real learning takes place in my opinion

Q#037: 5=very useful

Occasionally the trainers got to typing way too fast...so it was hard to keep up...especially when we were getting into new aspects of GFE.

Q#037: 5=very useful

Definitely the best part of the class.

Q#037: 5=very useful

Overall the labs needed to be better prepared and more time is needed. Since the workshop is supposed to be an advanced users workshop, labs might want to demonstrate how to do some more advanced things. Simple things that are already in the baseline documentation are not really needed. The lab examples might be culled from the mailing list where someone asks something more tricky than just adding another column to a tabular product.

Q#037: 5=very useful

Just love the hands-on exercises.

Q#037: 5=very useful

The lab exercises were absolutely indispensable. I would recommend slightly less typing, however. One suggestion is to already have the configuration files written, and from those, make minor adjustments to see the results. I think more could be covered in less time using this approach.

Q#037: 5=very useful

Being able to create text products and Smart Init scripts in labs and asking developers questions about them was very helpful. This was a great way to present the material.

Q#037: 5=very useful

These were very important. Very critical. Some needed more structure, Document more with comments on why enter this step or make this entry change.

Q#037: 5=very useful

I thought this was the best part of the course. There just was not enough time. I will go through the labs again with the documentation.

Q#037: 5=very useful

Even though time was a limiting factor, the hands on labs are always a home run since most people (including myself)learn better by doing.

Q#037: 5=very useful

As I have stated before I wish there was a bit more time allocated to do them, but they could be finished on station.

Q#037: 5=very useful

Need answers to the SmartInit stuff.

Q#037: 5=very useful

Need more time but the labs were vital to the training.

Q#037: 5=very useful

I really enjoyed the labs and appreciate the amount of work that wend into setting up the workstations for the attendees. It was nice to not be sharing workstations and to all be in one room.

Q#037: 5=very useful

Information such as this cannot be well understood (in my opinion) without such an ability.

Q#037: 4=useful

It's nice to see and get in and play with the software in a non-operational environment. I like to do as I learn, so the labs where we changed the GFE around (Smart Init, Smart Tools, Text Products) to do different things were best.

Q#037: 4=useful

Too fast.

Q#037: 4=useful

Too fast!

Q#037: 4=useful

more time please!

Q#037: 4=useful

Useful, but would like more time to complete the exercises and have all questions answered.

Q#037: 4=useful

Needed more time for instructors to provide the overview of what needed to be done, as well as a bit more time for us to do the work. Also, you needed more folks to provide one-on-one guidance during the lab exercises...1 or 2 people providing support to 25+ students isn't enough.

Q#037: 4=useful

Wish we could have had a fresh new set of exercises for the workshop. I had been through the exercises in the documentation before.

Q#037: 4=useful

I liked having my own machine. This allowed me to see any errors as well as see the successes firsthand.

Q#037: 4=useful

These were mostly useful, but especially for the SmartTools and Text Product Infrastructure, there wasn't enough time to work on the exercises and the presentation of information was somewhat confusing.

Q#037: 4=useful

Wish we had more time to complete them all.

Q#037: 3=adequate

Need more "nuts and bolts."

Q#037: 3=adequate

Some of these were adequate (Smart Init, ISC), others were not adequate due to the pace of the lecture/lab(Text Products, Smart Tools (in spots)). I hate to say that they were of little use overall...perhaps "of some use"would be a better descriptor here.

Q#037: 3=adequate

Needed more time in the labs

Q#037: 3=adequate

As usual for Alaska -- the place that invented the phrase "offer not valid in Alaska and Hawaii ;-)...we got stuffed in the back of the room. Very poor acoustics...couldn't see the screen very well...and white board writing was almost invisible. Lots of muddling through...and got very hung up on python bugs in code which subtracted from the benefits. Please provide answer sheets for all exercises.

Q#037: 2=of little use

see comments from 20. rest of labs were great.

Q#037: 2=of little use

We really did not get enough time to complete most of the lab exercises.

39: Please rate the usefulness of the Training Hand-Outs you received.

N=48, mean=4.3, std=0.8, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[6] 3=adequate

[18] 4=useful

[23] 5=very useful

40: Comments

Q#039: 5=very useful

I have gone through them several times and will continue to do so through setup and training here at this office.

Q#039: 5=very useful

These will be used by me in configuring my system back home. The documentation that you guys produce is ALWAYS good and very informative.

Q#039: 5=very useful

The book is very nice. I have already used it several times after I got back home. It is also nice to have some of the handouts online.

Q#039: 5=very useful

It is an excellent idea to hand out copies of the slide presentations. It allowed me to annotate notes and absorb more information.

Q#039: 5=very useful

The handouts were clear and concise, yet thorough. Not too long and wordy for the material presented. I will use the printed out slides/handouts frequently during GFE configuration.

Q#039: 5=very useful

Lots of very good information. Nice to have these in digital format to download. This leaves the option to have people use single slides for an office presentation. This guide was much better organized that the previous one. I like the tabs and order of presentation.

Q#039: 5=very useful

The handouts and documentation on the web are some of the best I have seen.

Q#039: 5=very useful

I wouldn't be at the level I'm at without your online help guides or these handouts. Keep 'em coming.

Q#039: 5=very useful

I may have put two slides per page on the handouts.

Q#039: 5=very useful

A big plus to have the notes available on hard copy.

Q#039: 5=very useful

Will be a great benefit to refresh the memory on how to do the items from the session that fade from the memory.

Q#039: 5=very useful

I like the format of the book. Lots easier to handle than standard binders.

Q#039: 5=very useful

Overall the GFE documentation is among the best the NWS has of any software package.

Q#039: 5=very useful

Fantastic! Thanks for putting them together so nicely.

Q#039: 4=useful

Would be nice to get all of the presentations on CD that we can easily search and pull information for local presentations.

Q#039: 4=useful

Thorough...well done!

Q#039: 4=useful

These should be useful as reference material.

Q#039: 4=useful

Include more and more code examples that can be applied at the home office

Q#039: 4=useful

I have used them on a regular basis.

Q#039: 4=useful

Not as much detail as I was expecting, but as we were told, the detail is in the actual documentation.

Q#039: 4=useful

How about a CD-ROM to take back to the local offices with all the slides and handouts?

Q#039: 4=useful

hand outs seem useful...as with some of my other responses, it will be difficult for me to determine the usefulness of some of these items until I get more in to the nitty gritty of GFE configuration

Q#039: 4=useful

Great to take back home and use the examples as templates for local development.

Q#039: 4=useful

Some where better than others; some were little more that speaker notes.

Q#039: 4=useful

Should be good references for the future...but probably not useful for training general staff.

Q#039: 3=adequate

Some repeats of the online stuff, which is of excellent quality.

Q#039: 2=of little use

I don't remember anything about them so they must have been inadequate. The material could have been presented in a basic outline with more detailed information in an appendix or something. It seemed as though there was either too much information or not enough.

41: Please list the aspects of training you found MOST useful.

very much liked the section on adding a new model to the GFE and the steps that must be taken. Also, liked the text product and smart tools sections.

ISC and Text Product Infrastructure.

I thought everything presented was very useful.

Smart ToolsText Product InfrastructureSmart InitGFE ConfigurationIFPS/GFE status and plans Talks by Lynn Maximuk and Charlie Paxton

Hands on smart tool, python and smart init training

The lab time. Smart Init.

The labs were the most useful.

The note guide. The joint discussions, question and answer periods. Lab work.

Labs, interactions with the GFE developers.

Interaction with the developers and other offices.

Spending time in the labs.

Hands on computer work (especially numeric python exercises within the various labs) were very useful to me.

Python and Smart Init config issues.

The hands on time and meeting and working with the developers.

Labs and interaction with students and instructors.

Lynn's talk and the labs

GFESuite ConfigurationSmart InitializationIntersite CoordinationIfpImage

Getting introduced to the newest subjects, such as DFC.

Smart tools, smart initialization, ISC, and that "vision" thing.

Interpolation discussion. Forecast critique ISC Forecast methodology

SmartInit, ifpIMAGE

although some of the lab exercises were confusing, they still were the most useful to me.

Writing of smart tools and text products.

The new features of GFE and ISC.

The best part of the training was the interaction with the developers. their openness and expertise made asking questions easy and fruitful.

The future of the software, and the discussions of how to improve the software.

Hands on lab sessions, joint discussions. Lynn's presentation (again)...determining what we need to do to educate our users AND forecasters in the whole forecast process change.

Hands on with a computer in the lab.

Simply put, being able to interact with the developers, and hearing their viewpoints, opinions, software development approaches and hearing how IFPS/GFE is being used at other offices.

Text product generation, numerical python, smart tools.Also, smart init, but I felt like a lot was lost due to the instructor moving too fast and then having to frequentlygo back to try to pick up the many lost students.

Numerical Python and Smart Tools

Smart tools/Smart Initialization

Again, the text products lecture were of most use to me, in accordance with our station goals.

how other sites are using GFE such as Pleasant Hill

ISCDFCText FormattersSmart Tools

Joint discussions...good to hear other's ideas and getting a sense of their problems and pitfalls so that perhaps we can avoid them ourselves up here. The two presentations of what this is all going to look like when it's working properly. Tough to begin work on this without some mental of picture of what the end product should look like.

Smart Init and Text Product Generation.

hands on labs.

lecture and discussion

Configuration and Text Products

42: Please list the aspects of training you found LEAST useful.

Joint discussions.

DFC/Interpolation sections Other ifp programs section Numerical python -- way too short

Discussion periods. New features.

Each track was still rather large - felt like a lecture rather than a small class.

None ... it was all important. Maybe our lunch break should be shortened to one hour.

Hard to find anything that wasn't somewhat useful.

I think that maybe a bit too much time was spent on new features. These are topics that I think could be covered by teletraining once the training group gets going.

One or two instances of Python code on the board not readable and going way too fast.

Overviews of what GFE can do. In addition, when we were in the lectures, having a table to place the book and take notes on would have been easier.

I suppose the text product section was the least useful to me (but I still learned valuable stuff).

Some of the hands on exercises were very good, but they went too fast!

Lectures that ran long and listening to too many of the same people talk.

Perhaps we had a little too much Joint Discussion time. I would have liked to have more lab time, instead.

Daily Forecast Critique (only because the software is so embryonic; Tom LeFebvre's presentation was fine considering the limited amount of stuff he had to show). The "Other Programs" portion of the IfpImage lecture.

Text generation lab. The subject should be taught, but, as a novice, I found it too be too much information too fast.

New GFE features (we had GFE 15 on a practice PC in our office). 1 hr python session the first afternoon of the course (should have some sort of python-based prerequisites for future attendees to complete).

ifpIMAGE

Interpolation

political stuff from Maximuk...

Day one lecture on status of IFPS/GFE

The first seminar was too political.

the GFE config

As I already well understood the GFESuite BASE, SITE, USER concept, I did not need this to be covered again. This was well covered in the pre-requisites of the course.

Nothing really.

Group discussions that went off on tangents specific to just a few offices.

Most, if not all, of the material was new to me...so difficult to say.

Maybe configuration, although it's certainly relevant as well.

They were all useful

Probably the GFE progress/inter-relationship stuff

The interpolation was probably a bit too complicated for most folks.

Python and smart tools went to fast

ifpImage new features in GFE (we already have RPP16 installed)

Clearly...the FXC talk was not ready for prime time, although some of this can be attributed to server glitches.

Intersite Coordination...however good info.

new GFE features

lab exercises

Joint Discussions

43: What GFESuite topics need MORE focus?

ISC/DFC in the future.

Smart Tools, Numeric Python

GFE Forecast methodology suggestions from the field in joint discussions.

All of the Python-related material - Numerical Python, SmartTools, SmartInit, Text Product Infrastructure

How to train the staff

Smart Init and Smart Tools getting more into step by step entries and how these are put together with the libraries compared to the original Python code.

The topics needing more focus are the labs (Smart Tools, Smart Initialization, and ISC).

Python. Take us through writing a complex smart tool, text product script, etc from start to finish. Actually code the script right there in a lab and show us the results of running and debugging it.

Smart tools

I'll tell ya more later, after more experience. It seems to me that we need to share operational strategies as to how to cope with producing so many grids. I got much useful information on that in side conversations with other users. I hope that I will glean more from your forums as I get going on this.

Text formatters, smart tools and python!

For me Numerical Python is the most difficult to understand. As a result I would like to see more emphasis on this.

More hands on, at a slower pace, exercises in python and configuration items would have been nice.

Smart tools and configuration issues are the life blood of the local operations. I could have used more.

Adding models to databases. Writing Smart Init, Smart Tools, and Text Product Tools.

Text Product InfrastructureSmart Tools

Smat init. Forecast methodology.

More focus on how to generate some of the more popular and useful web-based products, as well as on smart init and smart tool development/modification. More focus on what GFE actually ingests from the various models, especially in the sfc-700 mb layer.

Interpolation Forecast critique

Python-related topics (SmartInit, SmartTools, etc.), Text Product Infrastructure

smart tools, smart init, python...

Need more emphasis and training on the most common real-world applications related to forecasting.

How to write new smart tools. What kinds of things (specifically) can we and can we not do with them? What are the limitations?

Smart Tool development/Smart Initialization (more time for both).

More hands on with element and product development. Hands on configuration would be nice too.

difficult to say

smart tools, smart init, and numerical python

Better set up of the labs, more time for labs, and more advanced lab exercises. Perhaps the two tracks could split into basic and advanced labs.

More politically sensitive discussions of how offices are really making it work...Charlie on Thursday touched on that.

Probably the Smart Tool/Text generation stuff (the examples the better).

Text products, smart tools.

smart tools

ISCText Formatters

Topic balance probably just about right.

Numerical Python, it would have been nice to use it a tad more. I know this is not a programming course but a bit more time working in OOP may be to some advantage.

SmartTools, SmartInit, Text tools

smart tools, procedures, products smart init. I am a great believer in getting rid of all but the GFE part of IFPS since all can be done with GFE.

Smart Init and configuration

44: What GFESuite topics need LESS focus?

IFPImage. A lot of the options for IFPImage can easily be found in the IFPImage documentation.

GFESuite configuration

Everything covered seemed important to me.

Discussions about less used programs in GFE. Shorter discussions on DFC/Interpolation.

For me, it would be the configuration part. This could have been shorter since this was covered in the FPcourse at the Training Center.

I honestly don't know.

none that I can think of.

nothing comes to mind.

I cannot think of any topics I would intentionally de-emphasize.

A review (lecture) of new features, just give us some training.

I don't think there is one.

I can't really pick one out here!

Smart tools. I think everyone understands their utility. However, I don't think you can really teach people how to program in a two hour lecture/lab. It takes much more time than could reasonably be allotted in a one week workshop.

None stand out.

Interpolation

Smart Initialization.

ISC...important, but might be able to cut down on time a bit.

Image stuff, its pretty straight forward.

difficult to say

configuration, "what's new", "other" programs

The history and IFPS sections could be eliminated to free up more time for labs. Due to the limited time available, try to cull out policy/political issues in favor of more GFESuite specific training. If more time was available, then things like forecast process would be appropriate but really need more on how to do the more advanced topics of GFE.

Interpolation

ifpImage

Topic balance probably just about right.

New GFE features

Can't think of any.

45: Please make any additional comments about this training experience.

Very well run seminar. Top Notch. Am excited to a streamline tool down the road.

It was nice to attend this workshop with the actual developers of the software. I think this workshop accomplished most of its goals in passing along information to the field and the field passing along suggestions to the developers. Without this two-way street, no one will benefit. Your whole team is one of the best in the government that I have seen in achieving this. Kudos to the whole GFESuite team at FSL. I want to suggest that workshops like this be conducted again so that IFPS focal points can be kept up-to-date with all the latest features. This will be especially true with all of the rapid software releases that will be occurring from now on. Perhaps, a scaled-down workshop focusing on items such as forecast methodology could be given.

This was the best training I have received in the NWS to date. I learned a tremendous amount during the course. I only wished the course could have been one or two days longer to help absorb more of the Python-related training. It was great to have the developers teaching the course themselves and listening to our ideas about what we'd like to see changed in GFE. Being able to interact face-to-face with other IFPS focal points around the country helped me understand where our office stands in the scheme of things. I was able to get a lot of new ideas by talking with some of the other focal points. I was disappointed to find out that this would be the last direct training from FSL to the IFPS focal points. I would like to see more of this type of training in the NWS: a course where experts/focal points on the subject come together for several days to brainstorm ideas and learn. While maybe unrealistic, it would be extremely useful to be able to go to IFPS training at FSL like once a year as the software is still being updated and changed. The more common shorter IFPS teletraining sessions likely to come in the future will likely be far less effective.

This was a great class/seminar! Being able to talk directly to the programmers is a first in my NWS experience and is invaluable.

Excellent job by all. This was a lot of work; an extra effort by all and it really showed.

Overall - an excellent experience. It was great to hear different ideas, to see new operational methods, and to get a feel for the new software.

Thanks for the time and effort you all put in. I was a great class.

It was a great experience to meet up with other focal points, IT's, SOO's and developers to share ideas. I hope the next one is as successful.

In general, I thought it was the best course that I have attended since I have been in the weather service (8 years). Sure, there are always some changes to make but the organization, the lab set-up, and the dialogs with responsive developers were great. I am grateful that I could attend.

I think that an advanced course would be beneficial at some point.

Simply, one of the best one week courses that I have ever attended. It seems FSL has there act together with the best documentation and resources when it comes to GFE (not to mention D2D). The staff is always quick to respond to email (unlike other branches) and explain topics with such ease. Thanks for a wonderful week and hope to return for additional training real soon.

I appreciate the opportunity to come and visit "the developers" of the software that we field-types use. I would imagine that this is an unusual practice in most instances.

I want to sincerely thank everyone who made this happen. The information I gained will help us further the mission and create a strong pathway for success using IFPS and GFE. Please continue to provide additional training in the future! Thanks again and GREAT JOB!

Thank you for inviting me. It will be of great use for our office and is a benefit for anyone attending.

Very good overall. I appreciate the effort involved. As I already said, I learned more from the labs than the lecture but needed some lecture to break up the labs.

Thanks for a great week! I learned a lot and feel more knowledgeable and confident about what I'm doing.

Overall it was first-rate, pretty much what I've come to expect from FSL. You guys do a great job helping us out when we run into problems out in the field (quick responses and timely solutions)....and this workshop was very informative and well worth the time. Now if I just hadn't gotten sick during the middle of the week.....Keep up the great work!

Overall, this was a good training experience. The time passed quickly, so we must've been busy! Thanks to Mark, Tom, Ronla, Tracy and all others that were involved...you did an outstanding job.

A good course. Well presented given the gauntlet of experience and implementation across the NWS.

overall the training was good. like I mentioned before, it might be wise to have fewer lab exercises and greater instruction on how to do those exercises.

Overall very good, and I will eventually incorporate all the new material with our IFPS setup.

The over all experience with the staff and the course was the best that I have had in the weather service. The material was pertinent and resources were adequate. The lecturers where excited about the material and open to hearing what we had to say and then acted on it.

Great training- one of the best things is getting together with other people enthusiastic about IFPS and it's future. It was great to meet the developers, and learn what their plans were as to where to go to with GFE.

A most excellent experience. A lot of info to absorb, but well worth the week away from the office. Here's hoping you continue to have GFE workshops in the future, perhaps with specific topic areas, such as a week of Smart Tool/Smart Init development for specific areas like Marine forecasting, just to give an example.

Best training that I have had in the Weather Service, yet. I am very appreciative. Thanks.

I think a lot of good ideas were thrown around....and the seed for a streamline tool was planted, which came about after a sort-of brain storming session with our track

Great job, Mark! Now, you need to expand it to two weeks and teach it at the NWSTC..... :-)

I was fortunate to be at the Nov 2001 workshop also. I think the labs were not as well prepared and proceed as smoothly as last time. However, this may because there were so many more participants this time.

FSL did an excellent job with the training. Biggest problem is that everyone is at a different level which makes it more difficult for the instructors. Hotel is over 1 mile to the lab, brochure said .3 miles?

Perhaps a CD-ROM with a bunch of smart tool/smart init/text generation/IFPImage programs (or parts of programs) etc., for use in local development.

Overall, an excellent course. Some of the lectures/labs did not have enough time, but overall a lot of information to bring back home.

If the NWS wants us to be the experts, then we need more workshops that concentrate on Python, smart tools, and configurations instead of just rushing through it.

The course is very good...probably one of the best I have attended since I have been in the NWS. I hope you are able to have other courses...possibly with Text Formatters, or smart tools. You did an excellent job. Thanks.

Appreciate everyone's effort. This kind of training is not easy...and the immediate benefits are not obvious. Real benefits will be a year from now when this thing is supposed to be up and running.

Overall course was outstanding. Instructors had a very good knowledge of the material and explained it well. Left the course with a much better knowledge of what I was doing. Thanks!

I was very impressed with the lecture of Tom, Mark, and the other developers. My experience with programmers is that they have little personality and are unable to communicate with the regular folk. This was not the case and I was very pleased. Give them a raise! Thanks for all your efforts. Keep up the good work!!

It would be great to add another week to the training with more exercises and tackling configuration issues.

Position Title	Count
Lead or Senior Forecaster	19
General Forecaster/Meteorologist	16
ITO	2
Instructor	2
SOO	7
Service Hydrologist	1
Met Intern	1
Regional Scientist	1
Total	49