1 / 25

Organisational & Governance Study

This study aims to investigate and address issues in the organisation and governance domain of European research and education networking. It will suggest ways to develop organisation and governance models that meet the service aspirations of the research and education communities.

sesco
Télécharger la présentation

Organisational & Governance Study

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. Organisational & Governance Study Robin G. Arak Archway Computer Associates Ltd Bratislava 27 April 2007 The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  2. Aims of the Study To investigate what issues need to be addressed in the organisation and governance domain and to suggest ways in which the organisation and governance models for European research and education networking can be developed so that the service aspirations of the entire research and education communities in Europe and beyond can be met. • Move away from just “best efforts” services • Effective delivery of end to end services across multiple domains • Automatic end user provisioning of end to end services The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  3. Aims of the Study • The funding and charging models and funding levels used by the different organisations in the chain of delivery of network services • The level of autonomy that the various individual network organisations (NREN organisations, regional network operators, universities, colleges and research institutions) wish to maintain in deciding on the standards that they will adopt and the methods used to implement and support their network services. • The variability of network support and service availability in different network domains. • The variability of network performance in different network domains and the methods by which performance issues can be and are addressed. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  4. Aims of the Study • The variability of the policies in situ for the provisioning of services that can support end-to-end services. e.g. VPN • The differing attitudes of NREN organisations and user groups to the self-provisioning of networking, not following current models. e.g. use of cross border fibre • The way in which NREN organisations support projects that need "special" facilities or arrangements when projects are: • Within their own NREN domain • Span multiple NRENs • The arrangements that NREN organisations have for communicating with their user base, particularly with those users that may require specialised services, some of which may rely on guaranteed end-to-end services. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  5. Questionnaire • Sent out to 45 NRENs or emerging NRENs • Responses received from 31 • Responses very variable • Not all questions answered • Good sample of different NRENs • Small & large • From different parts of Europe & beyond The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  6. Questionnaire Results Examples of results • Q12 Future funding for GÉANT a) Like now through 50% DG-INFSO (18 responses) d) Through 50% E.C. Infrastructure funding (2 responses) a+d – (2 responses) Suggestion that dependency on E.C. funding should be reduced? The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  7. Questionnaire Results Q13 How is your NREN governed? Very different models but 3 most common models: • Legal entity controlled by stakeholder committee 11 • Part of a government department with stakeholder committee 6 • Not a government department but controlled by government department 5 The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  8. Questionnaire Results –Representation Q14 The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  9. Questionnaire Results Q15 Policy development & agreement a)Developed and agreed by NREN organisation management team (11) • Developed and agreed by the NREN organisation management team and the management committee of the NREN’s organisation legal entity e.g. the “board” of the legal entity. (9) • Developed by NREN management team and the management committee of the NREN’s organisation legal entity and agreed by a committee representing universities and research institutions (9) • Developed and agreed by a committee representing universities and research institutions (2) • Developed and agreed by the government department of education or research • None of the above (3) The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  10. Questionnaire Results Q16 Technical policy development & agreement • Developed and agreed by NREN management team (20) • Developed by NREN management team and agreed by a committee representing universities and research institutions (10) • Developed and agreed by a committee representing universities and research institutions (1) • Developed and agreed by the government department of education or research The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  11. Questionnaire Results Q17 & Q18 Decision to connect new user types (20 Yes 11 No) • The NREN senior management team can make the decision 7 (6) • The NREN governing body e.g. the legal entity governing body or committee 2 (8) • The NREN has to seek approval from the government to make the decision 0 (6) • The NREN has to seek approval from its existing education and research user base to make the decision by consulting with a representative committee 0 (0) • The NREN has to seek approval from all the organisations that currently provide funding to the NREN to provide the network and the network services 0 (1) • The decision process could be made quickly 1 (7) • The decision process will take a long time because of a long consultation process 0 (2) • The decision process will take a long time because the body that has the power to take the decision generally is slow at taking decisions 1 (2) • The national telecommunications regulator has to be involved in the decision to connect new types of user institution outside those involving education and research. 0 (1) The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  12. Questionnaire Results Q19 Delivery to SLA? • YES 5 • NO there is no defined service levels at all. 3 • NO there is no formal service level agreement but “best efforts” are made to deliver a reliable service. 23 • by the organisations providing funding for the network 0 • by negotiations with the connected institutions or a group representing the connected institutions and their end users 3 • by none of the above 2 • NREN management team with user guidance • technical standards obtained from basic components The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  13. Questionnaire Results Q20 NREN liaison with pan-European Networking • The NREN fully participates in the development and setting of policies at a European level and implements the agreed and recommended policies. 6 • The NREN participates in the development and setting of policies at a European level and implements the agreed and recommended policies only when these policies are in-line with the existing or future policies of the NREN or government. 9 • The NREN participates in the development and setting of policies at a European level and implements the agreed and recommended policies only when these policies are in-line with the existing NREN or government policies. 1 • The NREN monitors European policy setting and does generally not implement European policies unless they have a direct relevance to networking services in existing use on the NREN.) 7 The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  14. Questionnaire Results Q24 Responsibility for end-to-end service set up • NREN staff 11 • Outsourced to a commercial company 3 • Combination of both NREN staff and outsourced 2 • Provided by institution staff from universities and research establishments 3 • Combination of NREN staff and institution staff from universities and research establishments. 14 • Provided by a lead institution(s) responsible for supporting the NREN • Totally automated under the control of the NREN organisation • Totally automated with devolution of control to end institutions within a policy framework set by the NREN organisation • Totally automated with devolution of control to nominated end users within institutions within a policy framework set by the NREN organisation The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  15. Questionnaire Results Q25 Self Provisioning Plans (VPN) • Technical staff responsible for the network in a university/college/research institution 9 • General information technology support staff of the university/college/research establishment 0 • Trained end users 2 • Any end users 2 • No plans 18 • Already doing it 1 The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  16. Questionnaire Results Q26 Self Provisioning Plans (QoS) • Technical staff responsible for the network in a university/college/research institution 5 • General information technology support staff of the university/college/research establishment 0 • Trained end users 1 • Any end users 2 • No plans 22 • Already doing it The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  17. Questionnaire Results Q27 Funding for special projects • When an NREN organisation is not funded to support a special project the organisations running the special project should be allowed to acquire and run their own networking services. 17 • When an NREN organisation could be funded to support and is technically able to support networking services required for special projects the NREN should always be offered the option to do so. 22 • Using alternative arrangements to the use of GEANT when developing pan-European collaboration projects or links to other countries NRENs when more cost effective. 14 • Using alternative arrangements to the use of GEANT when developing pan-European collaboration projects or links to other countries NRENs when costs of the alternative arrangements are similar to those for using GEANT. 7 • Using alternative arrangements to the use of GEANT when developing pan-European collaboration projects or links to other countries NRENs when costs of the alternative arrangements are higher than those for using GEANT. 5 The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  18. Questionnaire Results Q28 Technical support for special projects in the NREN 28 YES 3 NO • A project team with NREN staff and the user community staff is set up to manage the project 15 • Informal dialogue with the user community staff takes place. 15 • Other arrangements are put in place 6 The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  19. Questionnaire Results Q28b Funding for special projects within the NREN • The user community who benefits by the project pays 8 • The NREN and user community (benefiting by the project) pay 8 • The NREN pays 8 • All participants pay their own expenses 7 • None of the above The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  20. Questionnaire Results Q29 Technical support for special projects (multiple NRENs) 25 YES 6 NO • A project team with NREN staff and the user community staff is set up to manage the project 8 • Informal dialogue with the user community staff takes place. 5 • Other arrangements are put in place 11 The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  21. Questionnaire Results Q29b Funding for special projects with multiple NRENs • The user community who benefits by the project pays 9 • The NREN and user community (benefiting by the project) pay 6 • The NREN pays 6 • All participants pay their own expenses 3 • None of the above The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  22. Questionnaire Results Q30 Support for Wider strategic developments 31 YES 0 NO Examples: • Grid, identity management, middleware, high performance computing, mobility, advanced applications, VoIP, video conferencing, e-Libraries, dynamic lightpath provisioning, information services for R&E The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  23. Questionnaire Results Conclusions so far • All NRENs are involved in wider strategic developments • The majority of NRENs who expressed an opinion want GEANT to be funded using the current 50:50 model with the E.C. • The most common governance model is a legal entity with stakeholder committees (35%) or part of a government department (19%) or controlled by a government department (16%) • Most common method of developing and agreeing policy is by the NREN management team alone (35%) or ratified by the “board” of the legal entity.(29%) Others ratify policy through stakeholder committees. (29%) • Most common method of developing and agreeing technical policy is by the NREN management team alone (65%) or in agreement with a stakeholder committee (32%) • Most common method of deciding to connect new users is by the NREN management team with stakeholders (50%) or with the “board” and stakeholders (30%) • NRENs are involved in many projects other than just delivering “standard” network services. • Very few NRENs deliver to an agreed SLA. (16%) The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  24. Key Questions • How can organisational arrangements and governance be improved so that end-to-end services can be effectively delivered across Europe & beyond? • What two things would you do? • Which governance model is likely to be most effective? The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

  25. Organisational & Governance Study • Thanks to those who filled in questionnaires • Please send any further ideas and suggestions to: Robin.Arak@btinternet.com The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

More Related