1 / 49

EarthCube Governance Steering Committee ESIP Federation Summer Workshop July 19, 2012

Earthcube : How do we organize, manage, & govern?. EarthCube Governance Steering Committee ESIP Federation Summer Workshop July 19, 2012. What is EarthCube ?. EarthCube is…. An approach to respond to daunting science and CI challenges An outcome and a process

dinh
Télécharger la présentation

EarthCube Governance Steering Committee ESIP Federation Summer Workshop July 19, 2012

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. Earthcube: How do we organize, manage, & govern? EarthCube Governance Steering Committee ESIP Federation Summer Workshop July 19, 2012

  2. What is EarthCube?

  3. EarthCube is… • An approach to respond to daunting science and CI challenges • An outcome and a process • A knowledge management system • An infrastructure • An integrated framework • An integrated system • A cyberinfrastructure • An integrated set of services • An architectural framework

  4. We are here

  5. Spring 2015 WorkingGroups Early EC?? CommunityMeeting Prototype1 Prototype2 WorkingGroups Spring 2014 Prototypes Community Meeting WorkingGroups Late 2012-2013 Charrette 2 Roadmaps & Design Concept Prototyping Jun. 2012 Charrette 1 Requirements Analysis Community Groups Capability Projects Mar. 2012 Nov. 2011 Cliff Jacobs, 2012, NSF GEO Directorate

  6. EarthCube: System of Systems – some parts we need, some parts we have Project Sponsors Portals / CyberInfrastructures Communities of Interest / Communities of Practice • EarthCube Enterprise Support • Collaboration support(calendar, mail lists, webcast, wiki) • Registries • Life Cycle tools and mgmt • Science Domains • Research Priorities/Allocation • Use Cases Selection • Interoperability Incubator NASA NSF USGS NOAA Who makes the decisions Who sets the standards? Who allocates resources? DOE DOD EU INSPIRE … Technical Advisory EarthCube groups TeraGrid/XSEDE Digital Government Collaboration Support Data Discovery, Mining, & Access GEOSS Digital Libraries … Org2 Org1 Communities of Interest / Communities of Practice Semantics & Ontologies Atmosphere Oceans Cryosphere Hydrology Brokering Strategic and tactical oversight? Coordination for the enterprise? Ensure community needs met? Biology Ecosystems Climate Geology Software Workflow Unidata NCEAS NEON EarthScope DataONE REST/Web services OOI CUAHSI IEDA iPlant … ESIP OGC Layered Architecture Education and Workforce Earth System Models “Long tail” sciences • Academia • Government • Industry • NGOs, Societies • International Groups ESIP OGC … Data Citation/Publishing Model Citation/Publishing • Standards Development W3C ISO IEEE WMO OGC … ESIP OGC …

  7. Governance • “aligning an organization’s practices and procedures with its goals, purposes, and values. Definitions vary, but in general governance involves overseeing, steering, and articulating organizational norms and processes (as opposed to managerial activities such as detailed planning and allocation of effort). Styles of governance range from authoritarian to communalist to anarchical, each with advantages and drawbacks.” “Governance,” EarthSystem Commodity Governance Project, last modified 2012, http://earthsystemcog.org/projects/cog/governance_object

  8. Our definition of governance Governance refers to the processes, structure and organizational elements that determine, within an organization or system of organizations, how power is exercised, how stakeholders have their say, how decisions are made, and how decision makers are held accountable.

  9. Historical infrastructures • Many builders • Planning not always intentional • Incremental and modular • Final version usually very different from initial vision • Science, theory, inquiry created locally and grow as new communities brought in • Facilitate emergence of common sense and partially shared understanding

  10. Governance needs evolve as infrastructure matures and spreads DARPA (Edwards et al. 2007)

  11. Systems of systems

  12. Concept architecture

  13. Governance Models

  14. Case studies - 255 organizations - IT governance

  15. Unit Fiefdom/Unit Unit Unit Unit Benevolent Dictator Unit Unit Group of Leaders Unit Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit Centralized Control Fiefdom/Unit Fiefdom/Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Governing earthcube Fiefdom/Unit Fiefdom/Unit Fiefdom/Unit

  16. Cross-Domain Interoperability Governance Framework Geoscience Interoperability Institute Science Advisory & Liaison Technical Advisory & Liaison Executive Committee Technology EC Education & Workforce Outreach and Engagement Pilot Project Teams Inventory/ Catalog Pilot Project Teams Catalogs EC Semantics Web Presence Vocabularies/Semantics Reference Architecture /CI Platform Guidance & Education Readiness Assessments Geoscience Commons Services EC Semantics Info Models EC Cross Domain OGC, ESIP, etc. EC Workflows EC Brokering EC Layered Architecture EC DDMA Reproduction and modification of figure 9.14, Management Functions for Cross-Domain Interoperability Project, X-Domain Roadmap, p. 101

  17. Current model

  18. Centralized governance …but just who and what is being “governed”? EarthCube Office

  19. “The Internet has no centralized governance in either technological implementation or policies for access and usage; each constituent network sets its own standards” Decentralized governance Light touch vs heavy hand Other funding sources EarthCube

  20. Big Data CIF21 Digital Government

  21. June ‘12 Charretteoutcomes • Difference in understanding of what governance means • Governance group came to Charrette asking what other groups needed in terms of governance • Other groups assumed Governance group had already chosen a framework • Governance is much more comprehensive than committees and consensus….

  22. June ‘12 Charrette outcomes • Governance Steering Committee will implement Governance Roadmap • Ad-hoc Governance SC will continue leadership role • Will decide upon EarthCube governance framework and determine stakeholder community by August 15th (steps 1 and 2 of Roadmap)

  23. Governance needs from roadmaps • Most roadmaps assumed committees and consensus would be employed to implement governance • Focused mostly on decision-making • Some roadmaps barely mentioned governance • Others focused only on internal governance within their roadmap topic • Most roadmaps did not explicitly state their enterprise-level governance needs

  24. Roadmap milestones • Determine scope of responsibilities and authorities of Governance Framework for EarthCube • Identify interim governance committee to implement roadmap in collaboration with stakeholder community • Determine theinitial Governance Framework and charter by August 15, 2012 • Implement the EarthCube Governance Framework by December 31, 2012

  25. implementation of EarthCube governance Milestones and tasks Scope of Work for EC Gov Framework Identify interim governance committee Determine the initial Governance Framework Implement the EarthCube Governance Charter Implement the initial EarthCube Governance Framework Year end

  26. Governance roadmap implementation • Analyze June 2012 charrette outcomes • Analyze other roadmaps and identify governance needs • Identify EarthCube-wide governance functions and related processes • Develop a community engagement plan • Develop governance scenarios and use cases • Leverage existing workshops to vet governance recommendations with community

  27. Community Engagement • Identify: • Current components of cyberinfrastructure (data and service providers) • Their organizational paradigms & governance needs • Interactions among CI components and between them • Interactions with systems outside of EarthCube, and the needs of EarthCube consumers • Including 'long tail' of scientists

  28. Governance Framework • Three-step development process: • Define 5-10 initial enterprise-level governance functions • Identify processes to carry out these governance functions • Compare these processes to different governance models

  29. Common functions/services across the various initiatives Touch Points functions that share a common architecture, logically connected but likely tailored with each domain Domain-specific functions that are unique and provided/managed within a particular initiative or domain Carroll Hood, Raytheon

  30. Locally optimized Enterprise-level services community community community Locally operated & maintained

  31. Governance functions • Strategy: Vision, mission, goals, metrics • Administration: Sustainability, leadership, problem solving • Facilitating data, services infrastructure, and software capabilities • Engagement with science domains • Interaction with stakeholders/community building

  32. Governance processes • Each of the over-arching governance functions is carried out by a series of processes: • Decision-making • Alignment • Communication

  33. Governance framework

  34. Governance framework

  35. Guiding principles • Science-driven objectives and development • Open and transparent processes • Globally-distributed and diverse developer base • Sustainability, reduce environmental footprint as much as possible • Scalability • Search for and apply the best ideas, regardless of source • Collaboration among the computer, domain, and information scientists

  36. Guiding principles (cont’d) • Community engagement at every opportunity • Community-based governance for direction and priority setting • Free and open sharing of data and software • Platform-independent tools and interoperable frameworks • Use of open and community standards • Adopt, adapt, and only as a last resort, duplicate existing or develop new capabilities

  37. Framework Recommendations • Organization (“umbrella”, or coordinating, or service) body or set of bodies to coordinate and support CI components and EarthCube groups during the incubation stage • Specific approach to carrying out specific processes may take many different forms, but must be compatible with EC goals and EC community • Guiding principles to inform how framework will be realized

  38. Implementing the governance roadmap • Governance Framework to NSF – Aug 15 • NSF solicitation “governance amendment” – Fall 2012 • Bidders propose organizational model to carry out functions, achieve goals • NSF evaluators choose best proposal for interim governance • Governing body in place early 2013

  39. implementation of EarthCube governance Scope of Work for EC Gov Framework Identify interim governance committee Determine the initial Governance Framework Implement the EarthCube Governance Charter Implement the initial EarthCube Governance Framework

  40. timeline • 6-month plan to keep EarthCube and NSF moving forward • Synthesize governance functions and processes as framework to NSF by August 15 • Community vetting of governance framework is an on-going process and part of community outreach plan • Engage EarthCube groups to help them consider their governance needs for internal and interdependent functions

  41. Questions, comments and community discussion

  42. Questions to the Audience • What additional governance functions should be addressed by EarthCube? • What do you think about the process, the recommendations and guiding principles? • How should EarthCube interact with the ESIP community and your organization?

  43. End of presentation

  44. Risks • Conflicting visions of EarthCube goals • Timely implementation of governance framework • Sufficient funding and NSF commitment • Community buy-in and commitment • Isolation from other infrastructure activities • Bridging governance archetypes and communities

  45. Community Engagement Process

  46. Earthcube goals • Create a knowledge management system and infrastructure that integrates all geosciences data in an open, transparent and inclusive manner

  47. Common functions/services across the various initiatives Touch Points functions that share a common architecture, logically connected but likely tailored with each domain Domain-specific functions that are unique and provided/managed within a particular initiative or domain

More Related