EarthCube Governance Steering CommitteeESIP Federation Summer Workshop July 19, 2012

• 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

We are here

CommunityMeeting

Spring 2015 Early EC??Early EC??

Nov. 2011

Charrette 1Requirements Analysis

Community Groups

Capability ProjectsMar. 2012

CommunityMeeting

Spring 2014

Charrette 2Roadmaps & Design

Jun. 2012

Late 2012-2013Working Groups

Working Groups

Working Groups

Concept Prototyping

Prototypes

Cliff Jacobs, 2012, NSF GEO Directorate

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 AdvisoryTechnical 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

W3C ISO WMO OGC …

ESIP

IEEE

DOE

NOAAUSGS

…DOD

TeraGrid/XSEDE

EU INSPIRE

GEOSS Digital Libraries …

Communities of Interest / Communities of PracticeCommunities of Interest / Communities of Practice

Oceans

Geology

Atmosphere Cryosphere

Biology

Hydrology

ClimateEcosystems Software

Education and WorkforceEducation 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

NEON EarthScope DataONE

CUAHSI IEDA iPlant

Collaboration SupportCollaboration Support

Org2

Org1

OOI

Strategic and tactical oversight?Coordination for the enterprise?Ensure community needs met?

EarthCube groups

Who makes the decisionsWho sets the standards?Who allocates resources?

• “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

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 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

(Edwards et al. 2007)

DARPA

Governance needs evolve as infrastructure matures and spreads

WHO MAKES DECISIONS?

Benevolent Dictatorship Single leader who makes decisions

EarthCube MonarchyGroup of leaders. Could include advisory committees and boards; by-laws

Science and IT Monarchies Individuals or groups of domain scientists or IT experts

FederalEquivalent of the central and state governments working together

Duopoly Interactions between any two system elements

Feudal Independent “fiefdoms”

Anarchy Individual, user-driven

Case studies - 255 organizations - IT governance

Benevolent Dictator

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Group of Leaders

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Fiefdom/Unit

Fiefdom/Unit

Fiefdom/Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Centralized

Control

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit

Unit

Unit U

nit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

Fiefdom/

Unit

Fiefdom/

Unit

Fiefdom/

Unit

Geoscience Interoperability InstituteScience

Advisory & Liaison

Executive Committee

Technical Advisory &

Liaison

Cross-Domain Interoperability Governance Framework

CatalogsWeb

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

TechnologyEC Education

& Workforce

EC Workflows EC Brokering EC Layered Architecture EC DDMA

EC Semantics

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

Current model

EarthCube Office

Centralized governance

…but 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 standards”

Decentralizedgovernance

Other funding sources

EarthCube

Light touch vs heavy hand

CIF21

Big Data

Digital Government

• 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….

• 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)

• 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

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

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

1. Analyze June 2012 charrette outcomes2. Analyze other roadmaps and identify

governance needs3. Identify EarthCube-wide governance functions

and related processes4. Develop a community engagement plan5. Develop governance scenarios and use cases6. Leverage existing workshops to vet

governance recommendations with community

1. Identify:1. Current components of cyberinfrastructure

(data and service providers) 2. Their organizational paradigms & governance

needs3. 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

• Three-step development process:1. Define 5-10 initial enterprise-level

governance functions2. Identify processes to carry out these

governance functions3. Compare these processes to different

governance models

Interaction withColleagues

Interaction with Data and Services

Discover

Access

Collaborate Teach/Mentor Train

Employ

Publish

Integrate

Visualize

Archive

Orchestration

Compute

Process

QA/QC Modeling

Analysis

Workflow

Manage

Command

Control

Security

Connectivity

SemanticInterop.

SyntacticInterop.

Subsetting

Cloud/HPC

Sense/Collect

Fusion

AuthoritativeSource

5-D

DecisionSupport

Retention

Disposition

CrossCalibration

Registries

Governance

Rules

CollectionProtocols

Longitudinal

Collections

= Common Services= Touch Points

= Domain Specific

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

Common

ServiceTouch Point

Enterprise-level services community

community

community

Locally optimized

Locally operated & maintained

1. Strategy: Vision, mission, goals, metrics2. Administration: Sustainability, leadership,

problem solving3. Facilitating data, services

infrastructure, and software capabilities

4. Engagement with science domains5. Interaction with

stakeholders/community building

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

Function Decision process

Alignment process

Communication process

Governance Archetype

Strategy, vision, goals

Management, sustainability

Data, Services Infrastructure, Software

Stakeholder interaction

Engagement with science domains

Function Decision process Alignment 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

• 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

• 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

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

• 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

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

• 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

• 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 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

Community Engagement Process

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

Interaction withColleagues

Interaction with Data and Services

Discover

Access

Collaborate Teach/Mentor Train

Employ

Publish

Integrate

Visualize

Archive

Compute

Process

QA/QC Modeling

Analysis

Workflow

Manage

Command

Control

Security

Connectivity

SemanticInterop.

SyntacticInterop.

Subsetting

Cloud/HPC

Sense/Collect

Fusion

AuthoritativeSource

DecisionSupport

Retention

CrossCalibration

Registries

Governance

Rules

CollectionProtocols

Longitudinal

Collections

5-D

Orchestration

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