Earth Cube Governance Steering Committee ESIP Federation Summer

Earth. Cube Governance Steering Committee ESIP 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

e r a e W re e h

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

Earth. Cube: System of Systems – some parts we need, some parts we have Earth. Cube Enterprise Support -Collaboration support (calendar, mail lists, webcast, wiki) -Registries -Life Cycle tools and mgmt Project Sponsors Science Domains - Research Priorities/Allocation - Use Cases Selection - Interoperability Incubator NASA Who makes the decisions Who sets the standards? Earth. Cube groups Who allocates resources? Collaboration Support DOE NSF DOD USGS NOAA EU INSPIRE … Portals / Cyber. Infrastructures Technical Advisory Tera. Grid/XSEDE Data Discovery, Mining, & Access GEOSS Org 1 Org 2 Digital Government Digital Libraries Communities of Interest / Communities of Practice Semantics & Ontologies Atmosphere Brokering Hydrology Oceans Strategic and tactical oversight? Coordination for the enterprise? Ensure community needs met? Biology Workflow OOI Layered Architecture Earth System Models OGC ISO … IEEE NCEAS CUAHSI Climate NEON IEDA Data Citation/Publishing Model Citation/Publishing WMO OGC … ESIP OGC … Cryosphere Geology Earth. Scope i. Plant “Long tail” sciences Standards Development W 3 C Ecosystems Unidata REST/Web services ESIP … … Software Data. ONE ESIP OGC Education and Workforce - Academia Government Industry NGOs, Societies International Groups

• “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, ” Earth. System 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

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

WHO MAKES DECISIONS? Benevolent Dictatorship Single leader who makes decisions Earth. Cube Monarchy Group of leaders. Could include advisory committees and boards; by-laws Science and IT Monarchies Individuals or groups of domain scientists or IT experts Federal Equivalent 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 How Enterprises Govern DECISION GOVERNANCE ARCHETYPE IT Principles IT Architecture IT Infrastructure Strategies Business Application Needs IT Investment Input Decision Input Decision Business Monarchy 0 27 0 6 0 7 1 12 1 30 IT Monarchy 1 18 20 73 10 59 0 8 0 9 Feudal Federal Duopoly Anarchy 0 83 15 0 3 14 36 0 0 46 34 0 0 4 15 1 1 59 30 0 2 6 23 1 1 81 17 0 18 30 27 3 0 93 6 0 3 27 30 1 No Data or Don't Know 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 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.

U nit Un it U nit Fiefd om/ Unit U n it Fief dom /Uni t Fiefd om/ Unit Fief dom /Uni t U n it U nit Fiefd om/ Unit Fief dom /Uni t U n it Benevolent Dictator U n i t U n it U n i t U n it Group of Leaders Uni t U n i t Central ized Control U n i t Unit 1 Unit 2 Uni t

Cross-Domain Interoperability Governance Framework Geoscience Interoperability Institute Science Advisory & Liaison EC Education & Workforce Outreach and Engagement Web Presence Geoscience Commons Technical Advisory & Liaison Executive Committee Guidance & Education Technology Inventory/ Catalog Pilot Project Teams EC Semantics Vocabularies /Semantics Readiness Assessments Reference Architecture /CI Platform Services Info Models EC Cross Domain EC Workflows Catalogs EC Brokering EC Layered Architecture EC DDMA EC Semantics OGC, ESIP, etc. Reproduction and modification of figure 9. 14, Management Functions for Cross-Domain Interoperability Project, X-Domain Roadmap, p. 101

Current model

Centralized governance Earth. Cube Office …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” Decentralized governance Light touch vs heavy hand Other funding sources Earth. Cube

Big Data CIF 21 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 Earth. Cube governance framework and determine stakeholder community by August 15 th (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 Earth. Cube 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 Earth. Cube 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 Earth. Cube Governance Charter Implement the initial Earth. Cube Governance Framework Year end

1. Analyze June 2012 charrette outcomes 2. Analyze other roadmaps and identify governance needs 3. Identify Earth. Cube-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

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 Earth. Cube, and the needs of Earth. Cube consumers • Including 'long tail' of scientists

• 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

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

Enterprise-level services Locally optimized community Locally operated & maintained

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

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

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

Function Decision process Alignment process Communication – Engagement process Data, Services Infrastructure, Software Identify and adopt Earth. Cube guidelines or what it means to be “compliant” Incentives to participate in and use Earth. Cube; influence evaluation criteria Facilitate discussions; seek community needs, priorities, gaps; promote to funders Systems Engineering, Development and Integration of Architecture maintenance and systems support Identify and manage the touch points Governance Archetype

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 Earth. Cube 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 Earth. Cube Governance Charter Implement the initial Earth. Cube Governance Framework

• 6 -month plan to keep Earth. Cube and NSF moving forward – Synthesize governance functions and processes as framework to NSF by August 15 – Community vetting of governance framework is an ongoing process and part of community outreach plan – Engage Earth. Cube groups to help them consider their governance needs for internal and interdependent functions

• What additional governance functions should be addressed by Earth. Cube? • What do you think about the process, the recommendations and guiding principles? • How should Earth. Cube interact with the ESIP community and your organization?

End of presentation

• Conflicting visions of Earth. Cube 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

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