Laserfiche WebLink
expressed strong interest in the (projected) Year 3 capabilities for water rights administration and flow <br />(snowmelt) forecasting. <br />Occasionally, respondents indicated a need for data to assess environmental issues. Other unusual needs <br />included the need for qualitative data such as public reaction to different water management decisions <br />that may be perceived as negative. An example would be limiting recreational uses because of low <br />reservoir levels. <br />Both operations and management staff were interested in how the information would be presented. <br />Ability to superimpose graphs was mentioned frequently. The main concern among operations people, <br />however, was the ease in which they could assess CRDSS for data that was useful to them. The more <br />technically minded operations people wanted to use CRDSS modeling tools they need for real-time <br />analysis. Comparison of results generated from CRDSS versus their own results generated by their <br />established methods was mentioned several times. This may mean that operations people were not <br />completely willing to give up their old methods of interpreting data for those that will be available on the <br />CRDSS. On the more positive side, operations people mentioned several times that they would use the <br />system and devote time to learning the system if they find it useful. Moreover, people looked at CRDSS <br />as a means to facilitate the sharing of data and therefore emphasized easy accessibility to CRDSS?s <br />databases. They seem to look at CRDSS as a means to make their job easier but not as a tool to replace <br />the ones they are already using. <br />Managers, on the other hand, appear to favor a more centralized and standard information system and <br />hinted that CRDSS might serve as such a tool. Moreover, Denver Water participants seem to be <br />enthusiastic about using CRDSS as a means to facilitate cooperation with the DWR. Internal CRDSS <br />users looked at CRDSS as a tool to control the flow of information, while external users looked at it as a <br />tool to facilitate the exchange of information. In this sense CRDSS seems to have potential as a tool to <br />facilitate interagency cooperation and communication. <br />Workflow Review <br />Information sources listed are quite similar among the different agencies (i.e. USBR, USGS, SCS, etc.). <br />This indicates that CRDSS has potential as a centralized information electronic clearinghouse and <br />centralized water information archive. <br />Frequency of access to the CRDSS is expected to be bi-weekly to monthly for most respondents. <br />Availability of real-time data would prompt access on a daily basis during critical periods. <br />Outcome product responses indicated strong anticipation that CRDSS will produce data in different <br />forms that will make their interpretation and presentation to decision makers easier. Many respondents <br />seemed eager to use the graphics capabilities of the system. Discussion was active on this topic. <br />Managers indicated a desire to have an advanced user-friendly interface requiring only a few menu <br />selection to obtain a product. It was noted that such functionality required careful pre-planning of the <br />report format. Other, more technically-oriented staff wanted to maintain a capability for query-by- <br />example whereby they could design their own queries and report formats. It was explained that the <br />INFORMIX database could support that functionality as well. Most users saw the need to have an in- <br />house expert to (minimally) ask questions. Some managers seemed inclined to rely on the expert to <br />conduct the retrievals and provide the reports. <br />10 <br />A 275 01.09.95 1.19-1 Johnson, Grigg, Tang <br />