1 / 23

Governance Structure for SIS Producibility Initiative

This outline discusses the background, governance, examples, and current thoughts on the governance structure for the SIS Producibility Initiative. It explores the roles and responsibilities of governance, funding methods, and criteria for evaluating the organization. English.

dhampton
Télécharger la présentation

Governance Structure for SIS Producibility Initiative

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Status: Governance Structure for SIS Producibility Initiative Richard Turner SIS Producibility Workshop 6-7 September 2006

  2. Outline • Background • Governance • Examples • Current thoughts • Next steps

  3. Background • SIS Productivity needs an organizational structure to • Increase stakeholder confidence • Maintain initiative continuity • Measure progress • Adapt to change • Assure transition • Manage overall initiative activities

  4. What is Governance?

  5. Governance Roles/Responsibilities - 1 • Strategic management and vision • Guides the 7-year program, aligns work • Creates and maintains roadmap and goals • Maintains strategic coordination • Measures progress of program • Tactical program management • Allocates resources • Monitors, controls and evaluates contracted work • Validates results • Drives transition

  6. Governance Roles/Responsibilities - 2 • Tactical Research Management • Guides research • Allocates specific research resources • Designates specific research tasks • Manages IP rights • Coordinates publication and knowledge management • Prepares for transition • Funding • Solicits and manages funding • Establishes contracting mechanisms

  7. Examples We Found

  8. Summary of governance examples - 1 • Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engines (VAATE) • National program (Services, DARPA, NASA, DOE) • Directed by AFRL, managed by industry members • Detailed, hierarchical technology roadmap • Government contracted research • Microelectronics Advanced Research Corp. (MARCO) • Executed through DARPA, directed by a consortium • Pools funding from industry and gov’t. sources • Consortium selects, contracts with and monitors self-organizing, self-managing Focused Research Centers

  9. Summary of governance examples - 2 • Advanced Research and Technology for Embedded Intelligence and Systems (ARTEMIS) • European Union Joint Technical Initiative • Strategic Research Agenda and steering group • Supports various networks and conferences • Still researching funding approach • IT for European Advancement 2 (ITEA-2) • Blue Book for strategic alignment • National funding and management • Projects nominated to receive ITEA-2 endorsement to help gain national funding

  10. Summary of governance examples - 3 • High Dependability Computing Program (HDCP) • NASA initiative loosely led by CMU • Research in new approaches for developing mission critical systems • Development of testbeds was major part of initiative • Large number of research universities and affiliates participated • Several testbeds developed before funding was dropped in 2005

  11. Observations from examples • VAATE has good roadmap depth and evaluation methods but no specific academic involvement • MARCO’s independent consortium and research centers provide for mixed funding sources and research partnering • Artemis roadmap is appropriate to much of our interest • ITEA-2 funding strategy doesn’t provide “government buy-in for alignment” but evaluation process for projects is good • HDCP experience with testbeds extremely valuable; lack of feedback from customer to researcher and lack of coordination between researchers were issues

  12. Current Thoughts

  13. Funding/Resources Pooled In-kind/IRAD Company specific/designated Existing/separately funded activities Resource allocation/selection Collaborative decisions Sponsor-directed decisions “Seal of approval” Funding vehicles Groups (FRCs) Individual companies Grants Contracts Intellectual Property Open source Shared by all participants Managed/negotiated Strategy and vision Formal research agenda Notional, evolving roadmap Detailed, milestone-based Steering group of stakeholders Management Single office responsibility Tiered structure Multiple independent but coordinated offices Transition Independent activity external to development management Embedded in research and management Hybrid Validation/Test Track Coordination Part of management Independent assessments Yearly report cards Shared responsibility Managed, experiment-driven test beds Trade Spaces (options not exclusive)

  14. Criteria for organization evaluation • Efficiency of operations (low overhead) • Strong, continuing relationship among sponsors, researchers, and users (feedback/cooperation assured) • Strong, supportive management structure (intentional leadership) • Effectiveness for transition • Stability and longevity (in face of sponsor changes) • Flexibility and adaptability (in face of technology changes) • Multiple funding/resource streams ($, in-kind, IRAD) • Minimal IP problems

  15. Some notional governance structures ITEA-like MARCO-like Researchers Sponsors VAATE-like Central Office Guidance/Mgmt

  16. Possible players • Center for Empirically-Based System/Software Engineering (CeBASE: UMd/Fraunhofer, USC, Nebraska, Miss. St.) • DARPA • ESCHER • NDIA • Software Engineering Institute • Service Labs/SW Centers • Software Test Track • Systems and Software Consortium

  17. Management Group SEI Conceptual MARCO Based Approach - Overview Results FRCs FRCs FRCs Contracts Technical feedback/Broad Coordination Resource Reporting TechnicalReports/Interim Results Feedback Test Track Validation Activities In-kind resources Feedback Tryout Successful approach Feedback SIS Producibility Consortium Programs Productization, Transition, Deployment, Adoption, Use Funding Tryout Guidance/Prioritization/Feedback Gov’t/Industry Feedback Steering Group Programs

  18. Management Group SEI Conceptual MARCO Based Approach - FRCs Results FRCs Self-organizing, self-managing research group; Lead organization may be a university,industry partner, or government lab. Research activities and research managementResource allocation and reporting Cross-FRC peer evaluation Publication – communication support FRCs FRCs Technical feedback/Broad Coordination Feedback Contracts Test Track Validation Activities In-kind resources Feedback Tryout Successful approach Feedback SIS Producibility Consortium Programs Productization, Transition, Deployment, Adoption, Use Funding Tryout Guidance/Prioritization/Feedback Gov’t/Industry Feedback Steering Group Programs

  19. Conceptual MARCO Based Approach – Mgmt. Group Results FRCs FRCs FRCs TechnicalReports/Interim Results Resource Reporting Contracts Management GroupAn independent group to oversee the following; possibly competed Program Mgt. Secretariat/facilitation Contracting RFP generationProposal evaluation Participation monitoringCongressional interface Strategic progress monitoring SEI Technical feedback/Broad Coordination Feedback Test Track Validation Activities In-kind resources Feedback Tryout Successful approach Feedback SIS Producibility Consortium Programs Productization, Transition, Deployment, Adoption, Use Funding Tryout Guidance/Prioritization/Feedback Gov’t/Industry Feedback Steering Group Programs

  20. Conceptual MARCO Based Approach - SEI Results FRCs FRCs FRCs Resource Reporting TechnicalReports/Interim Results Contracts Management Group SEI Technical feedback/Broad Coordination Technical monitoring Research Coordination Communications Technology Transfer Research RepositoryValidation support Feedback Test Track Validation Activities In-kind resources Feedback Tryout Successful approach Feedback SIS Producibility Consortium Programs Productization, Transition, Deployment, Adoption, Use Funding Tryout Guidance/Prioritization/Feedback Gov’t/Industry Feedback Steering Group Programs

  21. Management Group SEI SIS Producibility Consortium Conceptual MARCO Based Approach - Test Track Results Feedback FRCs FRCs Test Track FRCs Validation experiments Hands-on availability for acquisition programs Contracts Resource Reporting TechnicalReports/Interim Results Technical feedback/Broad Coordination Empirical SupportAn independent organization to design and conduct experiments; possibly competed In-kind resources Feedback Tryout Successful approach Feedback Programs Productization, Transition, Deployment, Adoption, Use Funding Tryout Guidance/Prioritization/Feedback Gov’t/Industry Feedback Steering Group Programs

  22. Management Group SEI SIS Producibility Consortium Conceptual MARCO Based Approach - Transition Results Feedback FRCs FRCs Test Track(Competed?) FRCs Contracts Resource Reporting TechnicalReports/Interim Results Technical feedback/Broad Coordination Feedback Tryout Programs In-kind resources Feedback Successful approach Productization, Transition, Deployment, Adoption, Use (Shared responsibility?) TBD Funding Tryout Guidance/Prioritization/Feedback Gov’t/Industry Feedback Steering Group Programs

  23. Next Steps • Get feedback from you on the concept presented • Political issues • Corporate issues • Academic issues • Other ideas, comments, (constructive) criticisms • Can your sponsors buy into something like this? • Identify and develop other possible options • Establish costs, players, etc. • Evaluate pros and cons

More Related