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

3. 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

5. We are here

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

7. Project Sponsors Portals / CyberInfrastructures Communities of Interest / Communities of Practice Project Sponsors Portals / CyberInfrastructures Communities of Interest / Communities of Practice Science Domains -Research Priorities/Allocation -Use Cases Selection -Interoperability Incubator Digital Government NSF Technical Advisory Layered Architecture Earth System Models Workflow Brokering REST/Web services Data Discovery, Mining, & Access Semantics & Ontologies EarthCube: System of Systems – some parts we need, some parts we have Standards Development W3CISOWMOOGC… ESIP IEEE DOE NOAAUSGS …DOD TeraGrid/XSEDE EU INSPIRE GEOSSDigital Libraries… Communities of Interest / Communities of Practice Oceans Geology AtmosphereCryosphere Biology Hydrology ClimateEcosystemsSoftware Education and Workforce -Academia -Government -Industry -NGOs, Societies -International Groups “Long tail” sciences Data Citation/Publishing Model Citation/Publishing EarthCube Enterprise Support -Collaboration support (calendar, mail lists, webcast, wiki) -Registries -Life Cycle tools and mgmt OGC…ESIP OGC… NCEASUnidata NASA OGC…ESIP NEONEarthScopeDataONE CUAHSIIEDAiPlant Collaboration Support Org 2 Org 1 OOI Strategic and tactical oversight? Coordination for the enterprise? Ensure community needs met? EarthCube groups Who makes the decisions Who sets the standards? Who allocates resources?

8. “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

9. 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.

10. 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

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

14. WHO MAKES DECISIONS? Benevolent DictatorshipSingle leader who makes decisions EarthCube Monarchy Group of leaders. Could include advisory committees and boards; by-laws Science and IT MonarchiesIndividuals or groups of domain scientists or IT experts Federal Equivalent of the central and state governments working together DuopolyInteractions between any two system elements FeudalIndependent “fiefdoms” AnarchyIndividual, user-driven

15. How Enterprises Govern DECISION GOVERNANCE ARCHETYPE IT PrinciplesIT Architecture IT Infrastructure Strategies Business Application Needs IT Investment InputDecisionInputDecisionInputDecisionInputDecisionInputDecision Business Monarchy0270607112130 IT Monarchy118207310590809 Feudal03001211803 Federal831446459681309327 Duopoly1536341530231727630 Anarchy0001010301 No Data or Don't Know1201020200 Most common input pattern for all enterprises. Most common decision patterns for all enterprises. The numbers in each cell are percentages of the 256 enterprises studied in twenty-three countries. The columns add to 100 percent. Case studies - 255 organizations - IT governance

16. Benevolent Dictator Un it Group of Leaders Uni t Fiefd om/ Unit UnitUnit UnitUnit UnitUnit UnitUnit UnitUnit Central ized Control UnitUnit UnitUnit UnitUnit Unit 1Unit 2 U ni t Fief do m/ Unit

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

18. Current model

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

20. “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 Other funding sources EarthCube Light touch vs heavy hand

21. CIF21 Big Data Digital Government

22. 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….

23. 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 15 th (steps 1 and 2 of Roadmap)

24. 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

25. 1.Determine scope of responsibilities and authorities of Governance Framework for EarthCube 2.Identify interim governance committee to implement roadmap in collaboration with stakeholder community 3.Determine the initial Governance Framework and charter by August 15, 2012 4.Implement the EarthCube Governance Framework by December 31, 2012

26. 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 initial EarthCube Governance Framework Implement the EarthCube Governance Charter Year end

27. 1.Analyze June 2012 charrette outcomes 2.Analyze other roadmaps and identify governance needs 3.Identify EarthCube-wide governance functions and related processes 4.Develop a community engagement plan 5.Develop governance scenarios and use cases 6.Leverage existing workshops to vet governance recommendations with community

28. 1.Identify: 1.Current components of cyberinfrastructure (data and service providers) 2.Their organizational paradigms & governance needs 3.Interactions among CI components and between them 4.Interactions with systems outside of EarthCube, and the needs of EarthCube consumers Including 'long tail' of scientists

29. Three-step development process: 1.Define 5-10 initial enterprise-level governance functions 2.Identify processes to carry out these governance functions 3.Compare these processes to different governance models

30. 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

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

32. 1.Strategy: Vision, mission, goals, metrics 2.Administration: Sustainability, leadership, problem solving 3.Facilitating data, services infrastructure, and software capabilities 4.Engagement with science domains 5.Interaction with stakeholders/community building

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

34. FunctionDecision process Alignment process Communication process Governance Archetype Strategy, vision, goals Management, sustainability Data, Services Infrastructure, Software Stakeholder interaction Engagement with science domains

35. FunctionDecision processAlignment process Communication – Engagement process Governance Archetype Data, Services Infrastructure, Software Identify 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 funders Systems Engineering, Development and Integration of Architecture Architecture maintenance and systems support Identify and manage the touch points

36. 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

37. 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

38. 1.Organization (“umbrella”, or coordinating, or service) body or set of bodies to coordinate and support CI components and EarthCube groups during the incubation stage 2.Specific approach to carrying out specific processes may take many different forms, but must be compatible with EC goals and EC community 3.Guiding principles to inform how framework will be realized

39. 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

40. IMPLEMENTATION OF EARTHCUBE GOVERNANCE Scope of Work for EC Gov Framework Identify interim governance committee Determine the initial Governance Framework Implement the initial EarthCube Governance Framework Implement the EarthCube Governance Charter

41. 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

43. 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?

44. End of presentation

45. 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

46. Community Engagement Process

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

49. 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