EarthCube Governance Steering CommitteeESIP Federation Summer Workshop July 19, 2012

An approach to respond to daunting science and CI challengesAn outcome and a processA knowledge management systemAn infrastructureAn integrated frameworkAn integrated systemA cyberinfrastructureAn integrated set of servicesAn architectural framework

We are here

Spring 2015Community GroupsCapability ProjectsMar. 2012Spring 2014Late 2012-2013Working GroupsConcept PrototypingPrototypesCliff Jacobs, 2012, NSF GEO Directorate

Project Sponsors

Portals / CyberInfrastructures

Communities of Interest / Communities of Practice

Science Domains Research Priorities/AllocationUse Cases SelectionInteroperability IncubatorDigital GovernmentNSFTechnical Advisory

Layered ArchitectureEarth System ModelsWorkflowBrokeringREST/Web servicesData Discovery, Mining, & AccessSemantics & OntologiesEarthCube: System of Systems some parts we need, some parts we haveStandards Development

W3CISOWMOOGCESIPIEEEDOENOAAUSGSDODTeraGrid/XSEDEEU INSPIREGEOSSDigital LibrariesCommunities of Interest / Communities of PracticeEducation and WorkforceAcademiaGovernmentIndustryNGOs, SocietiesInternational GroupsLong tail sciencesData Citation/PublishingModel Citation/PublishingEarthCube Enterprise SupportCollaboration support (calendar, mail lists, webcast, wiki)RegistriesLife Cycle tools and mgmtOGCESIPOGCNCEASUnidataNASAOGCESIPNEONEarthScopeDataONECUAHSIIEDAiPlantCollaboration SupportOrg2Org1OOIStrategic and tactical oversight?Coordination for the enterprise?Ensure community needs met?EarthCube groupsWho makes the decisionsWho sets the standards?Who allocates resources?

aligning an organizations 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

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.

Many buildersPlanning not always intentionalIncremental and modularFinal version usually very different from initial visionScience, theory, inquiry created locally and grow as new communities brought inFacilitate emergence of common sense and partially shared understanding

(Edwards et al. 2007)DARPAGovernance needs evolve as infrastructure matures and spreads

WHO MAKES DECISIONS?Benevolent DictatorshipSingle leader who makes decisionsEarthCube MonarchyGroup of leaders. Could include advisory committees and boards; by-laws Science and IT MonarchiesIndividuals or groups of domain scientists or IT expertsFederalEquivalent of the central and state governments working togetherDuopolyInteractions between any two system elementsFeudalIndependent fiefdomsAnarchyIndividual, user-driven

Case studies - 255 organizations - IT governance

Geoscience Interoperability InstituteScience Advisory & LiaisonExecutive CommitteeTechnical Advisory & LiaisonCross-Domain Interoperability Governance FrameworkCatalogsWeb PresenceVocabularies/SemanticsServicesInfo ModelsGuidance & EducationInventory/ CatalogReadiness AssessmentsPilot Project TeamsReference Architecture /CI PlatformPilot Project TeamsOutreach and EngagementTechnologyEC Education & WorkforceEC WorkflowsEC BrokeringEC Layered ArchitectureEC DDMAEC SemanticsEC SemanticsGeoscience CommonsOGC, ESIP, etc.EC Cross DomainReproduction and modification of figure 9.14, Management Functions for Cross-Domain Interoperability Project, X-Domain Roadmap, p. 101

Current model

EarthCube OfficeCentralized governancebut just who and what is being governed?

The Internet has no centralized governance in either technological implementation or policies for access and usage; each constituent network sets its own standardsDecentralizedgovernanceOther funding sourcesEarthCubeLight touch vs heavy hand

CIF21Big DataDigital Government

Difference in understanding of what governance meansGovernance group came to Charrette asking what other groups needed in terms of governanceOther groups assumed Governance group had already chosen a frameworkGovernance is much more comprehensive than committees and consensus.

Governance Steering Committee will implement Governance RoadmapAd-hoc Governance SC will continue leadership roleWill decide upon EarthCube governance framework and determine stakeholder community by August 15th (steps 1 and 2 of Roadmap)

Most roadmaps assumed committees and consensus would be employed to implement governanceFocused mostly on decision-makingSome roadmaps barely mentioned governanceOthers focused only on internal governance within their roadmap topicMost roadmaps did not explicitly state their enterprise-level governance needs

Determine scope of responsibilities and authorities of Governance Framework for EarthCubeIdentify interim governance committee to implement roadmap in collaboration with stakeholder communityDetermine the initial Governance Framework and charter by August 15, 2012Implement the EarthCube Governance Framework by December 31, 2012

IMPLEMENTATION OF EARTHCUBE GOVERNANCE MILESTONES AND TASKSScope of Work for EC Gov FrameworkIdentify interim governance committee Determine the initial Governance FrameworkImplement the initial EarthCube Governance FrameworkImplement the EarthCube Governance Charter Year end

Analyze June 2012 charrette outcomesAnalyze other roadmaps and identify governance needsIdentify EarthCube-wide governance functions and related processesDevelop a community engagement planDevelop governance scenarios and use casesLeverage existing workshops to vet governance recommendations with community

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

Three-step development process:Define 5-10 initial enterprise-level governance functionsIdentify processes to carry out these governance functionsCompare these processes to different governance models

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

Carroll Hood, Raytheon

Enterprise-level servicescommunitycommunitycommunityLocally optimizedLocally operated & maintained

Strategy: Vision, mission, goals, metricsAdministration: Sustainability, leadership, problem solvingFacilitating data, services infrastructure, and software capabilitiesEngagement with science domainsInteraction with stakeholders/community building

Each of the over-arching governance functions is carried out by a series of processes:Decision-makingAlignmentCommunication

FunctionDecision processAlignment processCommunication processGovernance ArchetypeStrategy, vision, goalsManagement, sustainabilityData, Services Infrastructure, SoftwareStakeholder interactionEngagement with science domains

FunctionDecision processAlignment processCommunication Engagement processGovernance ArchetypeData, Services Infrastructure, SoftwareIdentify and adopt EarthCube guidelines or what it means to be compliant Incentives to participate in and use EarthCube; influence evaluation criteria Facilitate discussions; seek community needs, priorities, gaps; promote to fundersSystems Engineering, Development and Integration of ArchitectureArchitecture maintenance and systems supportIdentify and manage the touch points

Science-driven objectives and developmentOpen and transparent processesGlobally-distributed and diverse developer baseSustainability, reduce environmental footprint as much as possibleScalabilitySearch for and apply the best ideas, regardless of sourceCollaboration among the computer, domain, and information scientists

Community engagement at every opportunityCommunity-based governance for direction and priority settingFree and open sharing of data and software Platform-independent tools and interoperable frameworksUse of open and community standardsAdopt, adapt, and only as a last resort, duplicate existing or develop new capabilities

Organization (umbrella, or coordinating, or service) body or set of bodies to coordinate and support CI components and EarthCube groups during the incubation stageSpecific approach to carrying out specific processes may take many different forms, butmust be compatible with EC goals and EC communityGuiding principles to inform how framework will be realized

Governance Framework to NSF Aug 15NSF solicitation governance amendment Fall 2012Bidders propose organizational model to carry out functions, achieve goalsNSF evaluators choose best proposal for interim governance Governing body in place early 2013

IMPLEMENTATION OF EARTHCUBE GOVERNANCEScope of Work for EC Gov FrameworkIdentify interim governance committee Determine the initial Governance FrameworkImplement the initial EarthCube Governance FrameworkImplement the EarthCube Governance Charter

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

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?

End of presentation

Conflicting visions of EarthCube goalsTimely implementation of governance frameworkSufficient funding and NSF commitmentCommunity buy-in and commitmentIsolation from other infrastructure activities Bridging governance archetypes and communities

Community Engagement Process

Create a knowledge management system and infrastructure that integrates all geosciences data in an open, transparent and inclusive manner

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

This image depicts EarthCube as a cyberinfrastructure that is the centerpiece of and is connected to anumber of other NSF-funded or sponsored initiatives (the balls), Two important items to note (1) thenature of the connections between EarthCube and the other initiatives is not specified, and (2) littleif any connectivity exists between the individual balls.

Carroll Hood, Raytheon, July 2012*EarthCube Working Group and Concept Team structure so far*So for the long term, we have set up a framework for community engagement in building earthcube. We do reserve the right to change this in the future, adjust what we support based on community input, accelerate or decelerate components. The important thing is that these groups feed into community events but also engage in significant dialog with the NSF.*EarthCube Elements that must be taken into consideration when crafting a governance framework.

How can we apply what weve learned about governance and historical infrastructures to EarthCube?*Moving beyond governance within a single entity, we looked at how historical infrastructures have developed, and how they are governed.

First, some background information on historical infrastructures.*Governance evolves from concept to construction to operation/implementation

It takes 40-50 years for infrastructure to reach 80-90% of the population.*How is an infrastructure governed?

There is no single entity responsible for the U.S. electrical grid. It is considered one of the greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century and is remarkable for its pervasive deployment and phenomenal reliability. It is a type case of a successful infrastructure.

Something this complex, both technically and organizationally, cannot be governed by one single model nor one encompassing entity. A second tenet is that something this important cannot be managed by a single entity. In our research, we have not found an infrastructure that is governed by a single entity let alone a single governance archetype.

*Several governance models (clockwise from top left): benevolent dictatorship, anarchy, monarchy, duopoly, federalism, feudalism*Several governance models (clockwise from top left): benevolent dictatorship, anarchy, monarchy, duopoly, federalism, feudalism*

X-Domain interop proposed internal governance framework this one has the most complete thinking on governance of any of the roadmaps*Current governance model*This is a surprise to most but before you dismiss it, realize it is the model for the Internet*Not sure how you want to word this***State that 1-2 will be started at Charrette**2nd round roadmap is implemented through continued and enhanced community engagement

Talking to audience today:People here in this room represent components identified thus farWhat are your organizational needs and governance paradigms?How do you interact with other people in the room?How do we in this room interact with the rest of the world outside (systems outside of EarthCube and EarthCube conumers)

Gap analysis people here today will help us identify gaps, etc.**dark blue line: enterprise level service managed by something outside of the individual communities (e.g, EarthCube). Dotted red line is service that is managed at an enterprise level, is logically connected, but is locally optimized within each individual community. The blue ovals continue to be operated and maintained locally. Note that each community maintains its local science autonomy; each merely allows common and logical services to be integrated into their fabric.*Strategy: Vision, mission, goals, metricsAdministration: sustainability, leadership, problem solvingFunding, resource allocation and sustainabilityData, Services Infrastructure and SoftwareSystems Engineering, Development and Integration of ArchitectureArchitecture maintenance and systems supportIdentify and manage the touch pointsReadiness levels and inventoriesInteraction with stakeholdersCommunity building and processes to solicit and incorporate community feedbackFacilitate stakeholder alignment with EarthCube galsInteraction with science domainsinventory of use casesManaging adoption of infrastructure by science domains

*Decision-Making Structures: Organizational units and roles responsible for making IT decisions, including committees, executive teams, and business/IT relationship managers.Alignment Processes: Formal processes that ensure daily behaviors are consistent with IT policies, and provide input for IT decisions. They include IT investment proposal and evaluation processes, architecture exception processes, service-level agreements, chargeback, and metrics.Communication Processes: Announcements, advocate, channels, and education efforts that inform the organization of IT governance principles and policies, and outcomes of IT decision-making processes.

*What are the science drivers for you to accomplish what you want to do?

What is your guidance on the governance models that will work or wont work? What are your preferences?*Risk MitigationRoadmap processAchieving EarthCube goals

*This graphic represents the 4 steps mentioned in the previous slide.

1st round: creation of roadmapResearch review and community engagement 2nd Round: Developing the governance framework

3rd Round: Implement Framework from RFPTeam likely to be different than interim committee*Carroll Hood, Raytheon, July 2012*Each of the blue ovals can be categorized as one of the following:Common functions/services: these are functions that are common across the various initiatives. Compute: e.g, single, scalable cloud Visualize: e.g., common core capability with domain-specific extensions Publish: defined by best practices 2) Touch Points: these are functions that share a common architecture, they can be logicallyconnected but will likely be tailored with each domain. Discover: Distributed but logically connection registries Archive: Distributed but logically connected repositories Access/integrate: multiple solutions that depend on interoperability3) Domain-specific: these are function that are unique and provided/managed within a particularinitiative or domain. Sense/collect: unique data type and collection protocols Manage: different local governance archetypes for different communities*