EPOS Status at M18: assessing the Preparatory Phase

Slide 1

EPOS Status at M18:assessing the Preparatory PhaseAdvisory Board MeetingRome, May 31st 2012Proposed Meeting Agenda10:30-11:30 EPOS PP Achievements, Status of the PP, bottlenecks andreporting procedure (M. Cocco)11:30-12:30 Questions and Discussion 12:30-13:00 Future Activities & Next Challenges (short presentation & discussion)13:00:13:30 The Advisory Board evaluation:Electronic form & procedure(presentation of the document & discussion)

13:30 Lunch

14:30-15:00 The Research Infrastructures Data base for EPOS: RIDE showing the EPOS contents.15:00- 15:30 Free Discussion15:30-16:00 Planning the next actions to finalize the evaluation report New Meeting Agenda10:30-11:00 The Research Infrastructures Data base for EPOS: RIDE showing the EPOS contents.11:00-11:30 The Advisory Board evaluation:Electronic form & procedure(presentation of the document & discussion)11:30-12:30 EPOS PP Achievements, Status of the PP, bottlenecks andreporting procedure (M. Cocco)12:30-13:00 Questions and Discussion

13:00 Lunch

14:30-15:00 Future Activities & Next Challenges (short presentation & discussion)15:00- 15:30 Free Discussion15:30-16:00 Planning the next actions to finalize the evaluation report EPOS challengesGeological and Surface Dynamics dataOther Geosciences dataAnalytical and Experimental LaboratoriesGeodetic dataVolcano ObservationsSeismological Observatories & Research InfrastructuresICT & e-RI FacilitiesSatellite Information data

EPOS challengesGeological and Surface Dynamics dataOther Geosciences dataAnalytical and Experimental LaboratoriesGeodetic dataVolcano ObservationsSeismological Observatories & Research InfrastructuresICT & e-RI FacilitiesSatellite Information dataEPOS is one of the most complex and ambitious projects of all ESFRI initiatives!

Why EPOS?Integration of the existing national and trans-national RISs

Interoperability and services to a broad community of users

Open access to a multidisciplinary research infrastructure

Progress in Science by providing prompt and continuous availability of high quality data and the means to process and interpret them

Data infrastructures and novel core services, which will contribute to information, dissemination, education and training.

Implementation plans, which require strategic investment in research infrastructures at national and international levels.

Societal contributions: hazard assessment and risk mitigationEPOS Framework

M1-18EPOS gov. structure

The EPOS PP governing structure TheProject Development Board(PDB)

TheInter-Activity Preparatory Council (IAPC)

Board of Governmental Representatives(BGR)

The Project Management Office

The Advisory Board

TheData Providers and Users Commission

TheICT BoardHow EPOS works?WP7 EPOS ARCHITECTUREWP8 OUTREACH & DISSEMINATIONEPOS RoadmapMay 2012July 2013May 2014Technical & financial requirementsPromotion & participationThe EPOS PP objectivesManagement of the preparatory phase

Legal & Governance models

Financial work

Technical work

Strategic work

Outreach & Dissemination

Preliminary AchievementsWe have involved the data providers and identified and partially involved users (our stakeholders categories I &II).

We have completed the first inventory of the RIs we are going to integrate in EPOS. The revision and the update of the database are in progress (> 230 questionnaires collected so far)

Most of monitoring infrastructures and existing facilities are operational. Data are already available and data centres exist. Several web-services are operational (see ORFEUS/EIDA for seismology).

We are approaching Governmental stakeholders, funding agencies and industry (categories III & IV).

We are working to design of the EPOS Core Services.

We are promoting a community building by structuring our community.Preliminary AchievementsWe have officially involved EuroGeoSurveys in WG3.

We have involved national space agencies and ESA in WG8.

EPOS has established effective links to several European Projects (NERA, REAKT, SHARE, QUEST, TopoMod, TopoEurope, MEMoVolc, ....).

EPOS is a GEO participating institution and it is directly involved in the Supersites Task in the GEO Work Plan.

EPOS is involved in a bilateral transatlantic cooperation with US National Science Foundation and in particular with EarthScope.

EPOS is collaborating with other Global initiatives for Data Infrastructures and for hazard and risk (FDSN in GEO, GEM, ....).

EPOS is participating to EC e-science projects (EESI, EUDAT, ENVRI, COOPEUS).

EPOS supported the VERCE EC project on data massive applications.

2. Legal & Governance modelsWP2, WP3Summing up WP2/3/4WPObjectivesOutcomeLegal work (WP 2)Propose the most suitable legal option, tailored to the EPOS science plan & suitable for EPOS partners Regulate & frame the relations between the EPOS structure and the national networks, RIs and

Legal recommandationsGovernance (WP 3)Propose a structure that is workable while reflecting the complexity of EPOSGuarantee that the different interests (national, disciplinary) are represented and balancedEnsure that this structure not only deals with the daily management but also enforces a scientific visionGovernance structureFinancial Plan (WP 4)Estimate of the global budget of the national networks in order to demonstrate the added value of EPOS Core Services Budget the costs and elaborate a funding model for the Core Services Financial Business Plan#2 Legal & Governance modelsSteps for setting up a pan-European infrastructure: achieved Identification of the scientific and technical needs

Mapping of the stakeholders and existing national infrastructures

Choice of the most appropriate legal structure

Tailoring the governance to the scientific and technical needsChoice of a legal structure

Selection criteria for a legal structure

ERIC legal structureThe European Research Infrastructure Consortium results from the COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC).

Recognition as an International body to some regards (VAT, procurement, ). Another advantage of the ERIC is the flexibility of its management, as the regulation only requires that the statutes provide:- An assembly of members having full decision-making powers including the budget- A director or a board of directors as the executive body and legal representative of the ERIC

To set-up an ERIC, there has to be at least three EU Member States ERIC membershipOnly States (EU Member States, Associate States, Third countries) can be members of an ERIC (i.e. governmental level) Research organizations cannot be membersThe work of the EPOS RI will be undertaken by research organizations, and may include organizations from non-ERIC-member StatesCore Services can be organised inside or outside the ERIC according to budgetary and practical considerationsExternal advisory board(external experts in science, finance & management)General Assembly (GA)EPOS ERICExecutive OfficeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant

Coordination CommitteeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB

Simple EPOS ERIC model with external Core ServicesTechnical Expertise BoardHigh level engineers

Scientific Expertise BoardThematic expertsNational consortia representatives

Core ServicesData description & QCData interoperability

National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; Data CentersDiscussionContract for services

Provides data & servicesrecommendscoordinationEPOS-ERIC: A more practical model

Intermediate objective nDateAction or documentActingObjective1Sept 2012 (M23)Draft EPOS Design Report (short Science plan, legal and governance scheme, data policy, business plan, socio-economic impacts) WP2,3,4,6Submit EPOS project to governmental representatives, raise awareness and achieve wide recognition2Nov 2012 (M25)1st meeting with governmental representatives (day after IAPC)WP2,4 (convener) Decide on decision-making process for establishing EPOS-ERIC and possibly an Interim Governing Board (gov. representatives)3Oct 2012-Feb 2013 (M24-30)Application of ERIC hosting country Ministry of that countryDecision on the EPOS-ERIC seat4April 2013(M30)Draft EPOS-ERIC statutesWP2Feedback from all countries5April 2013 (M30)Revised EPOS Design Report WP2,3,4,6,7Feedback from all countriesTimeline for setting up EPOS-ERIC (1/2) Intermediate objective nDateAction or documentActingObjective6April 2013 (M30)Draft MoU or Letter of intent for collaborating in setting up EPOS-ERICWP2Commitment of the Member States7Oct 2013 (M36)2nd meeting with governmental representatives (day after IAPC)Hosting country (convener)Signature of MoU or LoI, hosting country providing all guarantees regarding ERIC and given mandate to negotiate on behalf of the Consortium8April 2014 (M42)Final ERIC statutes and bylaws, Final business plan for construction and operation phaseWP2,3,4,7Approval by countries having signed the MoU or LoI9April 2014(M42)Hosting country entering negotiation with EC for ERIC applicationHosting countryApproval of EPOS-ERIC by EC10Oct 2014 (M48)Signature of EPOS-ERIC AgreementMember States and ECCreation of EPOS-ERICTimeline for setting up EPOS ERIC (2/2)ConclusionGovernance is not just about designing power and money flow, accountability

Governance is crucial for realizing added scientific value.

Structures must be designed according to the scientific needs.

This is an iterative process of fine tuning and needs input from scientists as well as legal experts.#2 Legal & Governance modelsdeliverables, bottlenecks & problemsDeliverables: D2.1, D2.2, D3.1Milestones: MS9 (MS2.1), MS21 (MS5.3)

Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives

Problems: countries response to EPOS depends on the different governmental preparedness, interests, & national competition

Solution: we have delayed the appointment and fixed the first meeting at M24 + Draft EPOS Design Report 3. Financial workWP4Costs for construction, operation and decommissioning, indications on project financingThe overall EPOS RIs total value (17 RIs are missing for the calculation) reaches a bit more than 290 million euros (290.357.340 ).

If we focus on the results per EPOS partner, UiB (Norway) has the biggest total value on average per infrastructure (slightly above 20 million euros per RI) - a number which is largely pulled by NORSAR - whereas IG ASCR has the smallest total value per RI in average: 389 thousand euros.

If we look at the total value per country (sum of the total value of all the RIs belonging to an EPOS partner), the ranking is modified. INGV (Italy) thus comes first with a total value of 63.45 million euros, followed by UiB for Norway (60.95 million euros) and CSIC for Spain (45.32 million euros).

The overall RIs total value is obviously much higher in seismology (142 millions) as this discipline has declared more RIs than the others. The analytical and experimental laboratories arrive in second position (43 millions). Again, the Geology and surface dynamics RIs account for the smallest amount (1.9 million). Impact on financesThree levels of funding: 1. Head Quarters Costs of the HQs = 250 000 < > 400 000 (including 3 FTEs + annual running cost of the office)Two Options A) majority contribution by the hosting Member StateB) common funding, proportional to ?2. Core Services Costs of the Core Services = still to be defined !!Funding model : in cash / in kind contributions3. National networks and RIsFunding conditions to give a RI the EPOS label (i.e. secured national funding approx. 5 years)?and other scientific and technical requirements#3 Financial workdeliverables, bottlenecks & problemsDeliverables: D4.1Milestones: MS17 (MS4.1)

Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives

Problems: No roundtable discussion yet with governments & funding agencies

Solution: we have delayed the milestone and fixed the first meeting at M245. Strategic workWP5 (WP7)WP5: StrategyThis complex project with many partners spanning many interests requires a strong strategy!

To build the community, we have to:

Identify the capabilities of the data provider and needs of the user community; Coordinate and implement each national effort;Evaluate gaps in the solid Earth community landscape and define the optimal path forward, and;Strengthen ties with similar European and Global projects.

WP5 analyzes the landscape and designs a path towards long-term sustainability for the EPOS infrastructure.WP5: What is achieved?National Efforts: RI identification + Roadmap

RIs provided technical, legal + financial descriptionNational + regional consortia createdNational promotion of EPOS on RoadmapProgress summary provided to national initiativesRI -> Working groups

Active Working Groups that span the solid Earth monitoring community set up within WP6Identification of Data Provider and User Community (in cooperation with WP6 and WP8)

Identification the existing gaps in the distributed reseach infrastructures contributing to EPOS Crucial for IT framework (WG7)

Coordination with similar initiatives (in cooperation with WP8)

ENVRI partnership with other ESFRI projectsParallel goals with NERA, REAKT, GEM, etc.Global collaboration with GEOCOOPEUS: Bilateral collaboration with USLinks with training programs QUEST, TOPOMODWP5: Coordination of other initiatives(in cooperation with WP8)

Formal involvement in GEO(SS)Coordination role for the Supersite InitiativeCooperation with EarthScope (COOPEUS)Regional Federation for Data InfrastructuresJoint participation to EC e-science projects: EESI, EUDAT, ENVRI, COOPEUS, Coordination of projects: VERCE, etc.Participation to the Global Data Infrastructure initiative (G8+05, GRDI2020)Successful proposition of EPOS use cases for data infrastructures

In preparation for the construction phase:

Definition of the socio-economic added value of EPOS

Promotion of trans-national access and mobility across the EPOS Research Infrastructures

Establishment of pan-European data infrastructures, acting as centres of excellence for the solid Earth community

Design of the next generation of Research Infrastructures

WP5: What is planned?WP7: EPOS Architecture & implementation planThe Preparatory Phase will bring the project to a level of maturity required to implement the EPOS construction Therefore WP7 will take care of:

The integration of main outcomes from the legal work (WP2), governance (WP3) and the financial plan (WP4),

WP7 will aim for a robust implementation plan for the construction of an effective architecture for EPOS.Following the strategic EPOS roadmap envisioned in WP5 (strategy);According to the technical work done in WP6.Promoting and coordinating (with WP6) the design of the EPOS Data infrastructures and Core Services

Involving different stakeholders and capacity building

Designing and approving the EPOS architecture

Contributing to defining the socio-economic impact of RIs

Meeting with the ICT BoardWP7: What is planned?#5 STRATEGIC WORKdeliverables, bottlenecks & problemsDeliverables: D5.1, D5.2, (D8.1)Milestones: MS19,MS20, MS21, MS37, MS38, MS42

Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representativesStrategy to contact core group of users Risk management planNeed to update the Science plan

Solutions: meeting at M24, use of e-forms & surveys (ICT tools), Risk Management ready for M22 (summer 2012)4. Technical workWP6Work Package 6: TasksTask 1 Interoperability of national research infra-structures and requirements analysis GFZ , ORFEUS, CNRS, TUBITAK, NERC(BGS), UUTask 2 Integration of EPOS data providers: access to Data Centres and technical facilitiesNERC, ORFEUS, CNRS, GFZ, INGV, NOATask 3IT standardization and e-infrastructure implementation: EPOS Core ServicesORFEUS, NERC(BGS), GFZ, CNRS, INGV, IG ASCRTask 4Development and implementation of an EPOS e-infrastructure prototype GFZ, ORFEUS, CNRS, NERC(BGS), IG ASCR WP6 - What has been achieved so far?Establishment of 8 technical Working Groups (WGs)Technical survey: data from 240 European RIsScreening and sorting of the survey results into 8 WGsInitial review and analysis of the survey resultsEPOS ftp-server for quick access to documentsCouchDB for web-based RIDE inventory data base (RIDE Research Infrastructure Descriptive Database for EPOS)use cases for the EPOS database describe user needs (geo-scientist, tourist, emergency response, architect, student, policy maker)STRAWMAN architecture to form a basis for the development of a more complex EPOS architectural modelCore Services: discussion paper on EPOS core servicesEPOS PP WGsWG1 Seismological Observatories and RIsWG2 Volcano ObservationsWG3 Geological and Surface Dynamics DataWG4 Geodetic DataWG5 Other Geoscience DataWG6 Analytical and Experimental LaboratoriesWG7 ICT and e-IR FacilitiesWG8 Satellite Information Data

Working Group 1: Seismological Observatories & Research InfrastructuresCore group (7), WG members (47) from 24 countries

Resources: RI overview, user feedback, project/provider coordination(from ORFEUS & EMSC organisations)Integrating/coordination developments:

E-infrastructure planning [NERA, VERCE, SHARE, ]Distributed archives and data access [EIDA, NERA, ORFEUS/EMSC, ]Mobile off-shore and on-shore deployments [AlpArray, ]Science plan (step one: white paper on-/off shore experiments)

Workshops/meetings (examples):

Series of IT development coordination workshops (~ 2/3 months)Global challenges for seismological data analysis May 25-30, 2012. EriceObservatory coordination meeting Nov 12-14, 2012. IstanbulSessions and discussions at EGU and ESC meetings47Volcano Observations Working Group (WG 2)To optimize the best architecture for the multidisciplinary distributed Research Infrastructure among the observatories;To guarantee the technical interoperability of the distributed Research Infrastructures;To guarantee the adoption of common standards and practices for the implementation phase;To facilitate the access to data centres and to the use of modelling and processing tools.WG2 Objectives:1. Integrated infrastructure of European Volcano Observatories: to identify the roadmap (steps, initiatives for the promotion, design, etc.) to create the infrastructure. 2. Definition and role of the WG2 stakeholders: to identify the stakeholders in the domain of volcanological data (National Research Organizations, funding agencies, data providers, data users, ); guidelines for stakeholder interactions; possible stakeholder contacts and commitments; etc. 3. Volcanological DB and relationship with WP7: This Task is aimed at contributing to the implementation of the EPOS Core Service. 4. Data Policy: This task is complementary to the previous one and would give the guidelines for the data policy of volcanological products (i.e., data types, data availability, type of access, etc.). WG2 Tasks:European community: ~ 20 observatories; ~ 70 research institutions; 23 RIs surveyed48Baseline informationOneGeology Europe: bedrock geology Now 1:1M, in most countries better (1:250K 1:25K), and diverse geoscientific mapsEuroGeoSurveys (EGS) plan to move to a complete European coverage with a minimum bestresolution at 1:250K for all countriesTo create key layers for EPOS research layers may include active faults, detailed geology of infrastructure projects and observatoriesOther layers through EGS focused on EU incentives (soils, groundwater, raw materials etc.)Other baseline data relevant for geoscientific assessmentstopography (DEM), point databases (e.g. geochemical & age analyses, drill hole locations)

Geological metadata (an ideas portal)EU wide geological projects such as TopoEuropeInterface georeferenced metadata from archivesdrill-core storages, sample archives, collectionsInterface to IGSN (International GeoSample Number)Physical infrastructure database = Collection of information aboutmajor geoscientific infrastructure that is of general interest for theEPOS community but not easily integrated in EPOS (e.g. drill rigs)Working group 3 Geological DataWorking Group 4 - GNSS data and other geodetic data

Main questions being addressed:Types of data (GNSS or also others; permanent, monument, rate acquisition)?Involvement of commercial partners?Centralized or seamless storage? Data preservation!Metadata handling.Data provider or also solution provider?Development of Tools (e.g., time-series computation)?Cooperation with other European Projects (EUREF, E-GVAP, EUVN, BKG-Real Time, etc.

WG5 - Other Geoscience Data:Geo-Magnetic ObservatoriesInfrastructures for Geo-ResourcesUp to now, 31 RI Questionnaires were submitted. The collection is rather inhomogeneous, which results already from the definition of the WG. Some infrastructures would better fit to another Working Group. The RIs can be sorted out (with some simplifications) into 5 clusters: Geomagnetic observatories Research vessels and marine research Groundwater and CO2 monitoring Databases and GIS Multidisciplinary facilities

Concluding remarks:The treatment of multidisciplinary facilities requires communication with other working groups. In some cases the multidisciplinary facilities could be split into more homogeneous parts.The question how the geomagnetic data will be included into (or affiliate with) EPOS is still open.Some infrastructures would better fit to other working groups.The WG5 team needs to be recruited in order to better cover the broad spectrum of infrastructures.WG 6 Analytical and Experimental Laboratories

STRUCTUREDelegates and Laboratories of 14 countries involved in EPOSThe group is coordinated by a chair and three co-chairs, representing the main research activities of the group:

Rock Physics, including Palaeo-magnetismAnalytical and Experimental Petrology and VolcanologyTectonic Modeling

AIMTurn small scale infrastructures into a coherent, effective, and collaborative structure for scientists

WG8 - Satellite Information Data

WG8 Objectives To ensure the availability of EO data and softwares/tools for data processing and handlingTo define clear and shared data formats to facilitate the delivery and data exchange with the other communities To discuss the data policies of data providers (Space Agencies and Private Companies) To define the requirements of the user communities To enforce the link of EO Community and the Earth Science community

WG8 Structure Delegates from 4 Space Agencies of those present in Europe Three Geological Surveys Delegates also members of International initiatives dealing with EO & in situ data (GEO, Geohazard Supersites, GMES, Terrafirma, Pangeo, SubCoast, EVOSS, DORIS, GEM)

WG8 TasksTask-1 internal to the WG8, it concerns the definition of a comprehensive portfolio of the data repository and the computing facilities available today (led by S. Marsh)Task-2 outside WG8, it should establish a link with the other WGs and the EPOS User Community (led by S. Hosford)53EPOSWP6-WG7 Status & PlanJanuary 2012 to March 2012: SG1: To complete the inventory database of existing RIs;March 2012 to May 2012: SG1 and SG2: To extract detailed requirements;March 2012 to May 2012: SG2 and SG1: To design and implement an extended Inventory database for use as the metadata catalog;May 2012 to July 2012: SG2 and SG3: Design and develop a woodman; implementable architecture dependent on metadata;May 2012-September 2012: SG3: Design, develop, implement and demonstrate a prototype for a single domain (seismic) with homogeneous access to >1 heterogeneous sources;SG1, SG2, SG3: Continue to track developments in ICT;

Keith G Jeffery [email protected] acknowledgements to Alberto Michelini, Jean-Pierre Vilotte & Thomas HoffmannEPOS-WP6-WG7 Plan 2011-12

Data with Detailed MetadataSG = SubGroup of WG7Achievement of this Track of WG7

Data with DETAILED metadata WP6: STEPS IN YEAR 2

Feeding additional survey data into CouchDBAnalysis of the survey data by the Working GroupsGap-Analysis (geographic, instrumental, metadata, software) based on current survey dataCompletion of data set through 2nd web-based surveyInteraction with identified National RIs and data providers for detailed specifications (data policies, data formats, interface specification, meta data description) Core Services: definition of EPOS functionality and services in collaboraton of WGs and the ITC Working Group 7 Derive follow-up Woodman architectural model

ExpertsKnowledgeDataProductsInformationIntegrationKnowledge-PoolNationalRIEPOSOfferRequestTargetgroupsSocietyResearchPoliticsPublicEducationEconomyRequirementsDialogCore ServicesAnother view of EPOS#4 TECHNICAL WORKdeliverables, bottlenecks & problemsDeliverables: D6.1, D6.2, D6.3, D6.4, D6.7Milestones: MS24, MS25,MS26, MS27,

Bottlenecks: RIDE implementation still not completedStrategy to contact core group of users IT Requirements for WG7 are urgently needed

Problems: Shared understanding of core services

Solutions: Adopt a roadmap for RIDE and finalize the database, use of ICT tools for contacting users.6. Outreach & DisseminationWP8WP8: Stakeholder interactions & disseminationThis complex project needs a good story!

Therefore we will define & communicate:

The science plan, with science case for EPOS Research Infrastructure;The long-term IT integration plan with broad back-up of stakeholders.A transparent organisational structure;An EPOS infrastructure integration roadmap with priorities;The projects coordinating structure for related but independent initiatives.

WP8 disseminates the EPOS story both within and outside the consortium.WP8: What is achieved?

Web portal & user interfacesPromotional actions / meetings:

General promotion (EC, EGI, etc)National promotionData providers promotion (Lisbon OBS/Mobile, Nordic meeting, etc)Users promotion (EGU, AGU, ESC, etc)Project coordination (NERA, VERCE, ENVRI, EUDAT, COOPEUS)EPOS booth exhibition panel availableAppointment of the P&U commissionStakeholder dynamic overview

Providers: workshops & meetings (survey WP6)Users: promotional meetings (Science Plan, WGs)Governments & Industry: stakeholder questionnaire

WP8: What is achieved?

The EPOS Newsletter

We have a new editorial procedureWe have established an editorial board We are circulating an e-letterInvolve other communitiesWP8: What is planned?Finalization of stakeholder dynamic overviewCollection and analysis of results Stakeholder Questionnaire

Stakeholder promotion: users & data providersGeneral promotion: EGU2012, ESC2012, ICRI2012, EC meetings, etc.Specific activities such as ORFEUS meetings in Erice and Istanbul

Cooperation with and coordination of EPOS related projects and initiativesOther ESFRI projects, national and international initiatives related to EPOSThrough dedicated workshops, development and activities overview, etc.

DP&U Commission integration in EPOS activities

Website & newsletterImplementation of further improvements to better meet user needs

#6 Outreach & Disseminationdeliverables, bottlenecks & problemsDeliverables: D8.1, D8.2, Milestones: MS37, MS39, MS40, MS42,

Bottlenecks: Strategy to contact core group of usersEngagement of partners in activitiesEmpower partners for disseminating EPOS

Problems:

Solutions: Better use of ICT tools, training within EPOS community1. Management of the preparatory phase

WP1Important MeetingsIAPC MeetingsRome November 2010 (kickoff)Utrecht November 2011 (M12)Vienna EGU April 2012 (M18, first reporting deadline)NEXT Paris November 2012BGR Meetings FIRST Paris November 2012Advising Boards MeetingsAB Teleconferences ICT B TeleconferenceDP&U C TeleconferenceEPOS PP Web-presenceWebsite new updated versionNewsletterCollaborative AreaWorkflow and Resources

Science planAssignment of deliverables to partnersSocio-economic impactRI identification #1 Management of the preparatory phasedeliverables, bottlenecks & problemsDeliverables: D1.1, D1.2, D1.3, D1.4,Milestones: MS1, MS2,MS3, MS4, MS5, MS38

Bottlenecks: Partners involvement in activitiesLack of human resourcesComplex coordination framework with other initiatives

Problems: Partners involvement & Risk Management plan (delayed)

Solutions: Risk Management ready for summer 2012Challenges & Opportunities for EPOSFinalize and open the RIDE databaseUpdate/revise information (technical-legal-financial)Update info for new RIsFinalize the Identification PhaseIdentify legal & governance models & financial scheduleClarifying needs and meaning of Core ServivesDefine EPOS technical requirements & Science PlanStart the Design PhaseThe Science PlanInteract with users and meet their needsConclusions We have to do a lot of backbreaking work

External advisory board(external experts in science, finance & management)General Assembly (GA)EPOS ERICExecutive OfficeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant

Coordination CommitteeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB& TEBGeneric EPOS ERIC model with servicesTechnical Expertise BoardHigh level engineers


EPOS Core Services

EPOS activities and services outside the EPOS ERIC

National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; and Data CentersContract for servicesrecommendsrecommendsProvides data & servicesRecommends and coordinatesDiscussionrecommendsimplementsreportsdecidesExternal advisory board(external experts in science, finance & management)General Assembly (GA)EPOS ERICExecutive OfficeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant

Coordination CommitteeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB

EPOS ERIC model 1EPOS function: defining Core ServicesTechnical Expertise BoardHigh level engineers


Core ServicesData description & QCData interoperability

National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; Data CentersDiscussionContract for services

Provides data & servicesrecommendscoordinationExternal advisory board(external experts in science, finance & management)General Assembly (GA)EPOS ERICExecutive OfficeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant

Implementation CommitteeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB

EPOS ERIC model 2EPOS functions: defining and operating the Core ServicesTechnical Expertise BoardHigh level engineers


National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; Data CentersCore ServicesData description & QCData interoperability

DiscussionContract for servicesProvides data & servicesrecommendsimplementsExternal advisory board(external experts in science, finance & management)General Assembly (GA)EPOS ERICExecutive OfficeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant

Implementation CommitteeGeneral Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB

EPOS ERIC model 3EPOS functions: defining and operating the Core Services and the Data CentersTechnical Expertise BoardHigh level engineers


National networks & RIs; Organisations and companiesCore Services & Data Centers

DiscussionContract for servicesProvides data & servicesrecommendsimplementsImpact on Intellectual property rightsOwnership of the different kinds of data:

Raw data owned by national networks

Data processed by core services owned by EPOS ERIC or national networks?

Modelling tools and software owned by?Graph12758.627851614.25009505250NERC20316.674743.33708568.571562.76856.2533163400405389.352431.18

INGV CNRS VUA ORFEUS IMO ETHZ NERC UIB TUBITAK MAM GSI IST CSIC NOA UU IGF PAS UCPH IG ASCR INCDFP RAAverage total value of the national RIs by EPOS partner

Feuil1TOTALTotal valueTotal Labour costsAnnual running costRatio running cost / labour costsTotal costINGV63447.914935.21423428%19169.2CNRS111406633.84145922% (not fair **)8092.84VUA80712749.33488.6218%3243.99ORFEUS50048011023%590IMO2850450.07333.4174%785.43ETHZ210001042.9550048%388.74NERC1456.741095.4075%2565.65UIB609502424.401288.7553%3720.75TUBITAK MAM14230784.501015.80129.5%2800.3GSI3540702.898392.071193%(not fair because information missing)1048.98IST39801417.7940128%1820.94CSIC453209850726474%17114NOA68501862.507140383%9003UU1658016761936%3612IGF PAS3400406.3030074%709UCPH2430923.94230.3525% (not fair because one RI missing)1200IG ASCR66191364.75439.60%1804INCDFP RA19449.462717.20AVERAGETotal valueTotal Labour costsAnnual running costRatio running cost / labour costsTotal costAVERAGE2133.13346.21259.77%555.18INGV2758.6649.36184.0928%833.4CNRS27851326.77364.7527.5%1618.57VUA1614.2343.6761.0818%405.5ORFEUS50048011023%590IMO950150.02111.1474%261.81ETHZ5250260.7412548%1554.95NERC1456.741095.4075%2565.65UIB20316.67606.1322.1953%930.16TUBITAK MAM4743.33261.5338.60129.5%933.43GSI708100.41932.45928% (not fair because information missing)149.87IST568.57177.2250.1228%227.62CSIC1562.76339.65250.4874%590NOA856.25232.81892.50383%1125UU3316335.2387.20%722IGF PAS3400406.330074%709UCPH405153.9957.5937%200IG ASCR389.3575.8224.42%100INCDFP RA2431.18339.65

Feuil1


Feuil2

INGV CNRS VUA ORFEUS IMO ETHZ NERC UIB TUBITAK MAM GSI IST CSIC NOA UU IGF PAS UCPH IG ASCR INCDFP RAAverage total costs of the national RIs by EPOS partner

Feuil3

INGV CNRS VUA ORFEUS IMO ETHZ NERC UIB TUBITAK MAM GSI IST CSIC NOA UU IGF PAS UCPH IG ASCR INCDFP RATotal value of the RIs per EPOS partners

INGV CNRS VUA ORFEUS IMO ETHZ NERC UIB TUBITAK MAM GSI IST CSIC NOA UU IGF PAS UCPH IG ASCR INCDFP RATotal costs of RIs per EPOS partners

Graph163447.9111408071500285021000NERC6095014230354039804532068501658034002430661919449.46



Feuil1


Feuil2


Feuil3


Graph1142161.6527547188017504.6826014.5343198.5

Overall total value per discipline


Feuil1


Feuil2


Feuil3


INGV CNRS VUA ORFEUS IMO ETHZ NERC UIB TUBITAK MAM GSI IST CSIC NOA UU IGF PAS UCPH IG ASCR INCDFP RATotal costs of RIs per EPOS partners

WG1TOTAL VALUETotal costsAVERAGETotalAveragetotalCategories of costsNumbers of RI identifiedTotal value*Total Labour costsAnnual running cost**Ratio running cost / labour costsTotal costSeismologyWG13161.34135939.1Lower/19414/50VolcanologyWG22725.96196266.88Higher/60003716.481050/4766.50Geology and surface dynamicsWG32256.19214337.88Average/3161.40474.30202.3343%668Geodesy and GPSWG42167.88216787.88Total44135939.1020869.09849840% (not fair)29401Other GeosciencesWG52200.41220040.88Analytical and experimental laboratoriesWG62080.23255867.88ITC & e-infrastructuresWG73030SatelliteWG826.9126.91WG21831.1151239297.41Categories of costsNumbers of RI identifiedTotal value*Total Labour costsAnnual running cost*Ratio running cost / labour costsTotal costLower/34031.1314/70.20Higher/54222456.40440/2456.40Average/2725.96419.03324.6577%666.40Total18196266.8836036.4128244.4078%57309WG3Lower/2757239.50/111.50Higher/305132105.50/237.50Average/2256.19372.98285.8477%592.89Total3214337.8841027.4131156.4076%65217.73WG4Lower/3846.403.60/61.01Higher/56009401660/2600Average/2167.88367.26276.5375%580.82Total18216787.8842235.4131524.9075%66794.23WG5Lower/108.7010/18.70Higher/60001140813.33/1528.53Average/2200.41385.11286.1274%607.61Total13220040.8843902.7832331.4074%69268.11WG6Lower/305.841.5/20.84Higher/63651579.521000/1925.50Average/2080.23345.81263.8076%557.22Total20255867.8847721.213614176%76896.13WG71302480%54WG8126.914.5017%31.41

Average total value of RIs per discipline

Total value of Ris per discipline

Total Valuetotal costsAVERAGETOTALAVERAGETOTALSeismologyWG13230.95142161.65681.5630670.45VolcanologyWG21620.427547490.18822.3Geology and surface dynamicsWG34701880139556Geodesy and GPSWG41029.6917504.68419.67972.33Other GeosciencesWG51734.326014.53393.476688.96Analytical and experimental laboratoriesWG62273.6143198.5515.4210823.88ITC & e-infrastructuresWG75454SatelliteWG831.4131.41

Average total value of RI per discipline

Overall total value per discipline

Average total costs of RIs per discipline

Overall total costs of RIs per discipline

Documents

EPOS Status at M18: assessing the Preparatory Phase