|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. 3
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Page 13 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 13
-->
3
Models For An Earth Science Enterprise Federation
This chapter compares federation models presented at the workshop and elsewhere, and presents lessons that may be applicable to an ESE federation. The Steering Committee examined six federation models, which are described in Appendix A and compared in Table 3.1. The rows in Table 3.1 are the key issues identified in Chapter 2.
Overview Of Federation Models
All of the federation models examined have the following elements in common:
the objectives of the federation are well defined and are described in a mission statement;
the federation knows its constituents;
priorities are established and reviewed regularly, which helps the federation respond to new needs;
shared values and principles;
dues or discretionary funds to operate the federation;
well-established procedures for operating the federation, including admission criteria;
a board of directors, committee, or secretariat to manage the routine operations of the federation; and
partners have a voice in the community.
On the other hand, the federation models have the following major differences:
the amount of power vested at the lowest levels varies widely;
management styles range from relatively authoritarian to relatively democratic, with the latter tending to slow decision making;
leadership is visible at several levels—by a prestigious person at the top (e.g., Harvard Libraries, NATO), a dynamic, capable person from within (e.g., Unidata), or both (e.g., Chevron);
one or two levels (categories) of membership, with the likelihood for tension increasing when there is more than one level;
membership ranges from open to closed, although most federations are open to their particular constituency; legal standing varies from highly regulated to informal; and the host sponsor, if one exists (e.g., NSF for UCAR, Harvard University for Harvard Libraries), exercises a level of control that varies widely.
OCR for page 14
-->
Table 3.1 Comparison of Federation Models
Attribute
ARL
Harvard
ATO PfP
Chevron
Federal
UCAR
Objectives
Goals
in mission statement
recognition by Harvard as an operating unit
in mission statement
in mission statement
in Constitution
in mission statement
Constituents
teaching and research community
university community
national governments
geophysical and petrochemical community
states and people
atmospheric science-community
Legal standing
not-for-profit corporation
informal, director is faculty member
non-binding political agreement
U.S. Constitution
not-for-profit corporation
Governance
Management
Role of host
not applicable
provides institutional support
not applicable
provides financing and infrastructure
not applicable
NSF-review of all programs and management
Autonomy
little loss of autonomy
little loss of autonomy
no loss of autonomy
no loss of autonomy
gives up autonomy on national issues, retains autonomy on local issues
multiple funding sources increase autonomy from NSF
Sharing authority
board can fire the manager
decisions with consent of the members
consensus decisions
Chevron maintains authority
states have local authority, federal government has general authority
board can fire the manager
Priorities
improve scholarly communication, stewardship
improve library system
defense, national security
long-term profitability
justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, common welfare, liberty
atmospheric research
Resources
member fees
university endowment, fees from faculties and federal grants
member taxes
Chevron operational funds
natural (territory), financial (taxes), and human (e.g., jury duty, selective service)
member fees
Interoperability
HOLLIS
Unidata
Leadership
director holds prestigious chair
ambassador
linker
elected officials and plebiscite
president and board
OCR for page 15
-->
Membership
Qualifications
by invitation
open to all Harvard affiliated libraries
elaborate conditions
Chevron sets conditions
potential new members apply to Congress
by invitation
Classes of membership
equal/one level
equal/one level
NATO members (voting) and partners (non-voting)
equal/one level
states (full rights) and territories (partial rights)
full members and at large members
Evolution
reviews of priorities lead to evolution
reviews of priorities lead to evolution
NATO slow to add new members, cumbersome decision making, thus slow evolution
federation sunsets when goal is accomplished
continual adjustment within constitutional framework
from NSF to multiagency support, some projects sunset, continual adjustment
Responsibilities
dual citizenship
dual citizenship
dual citizenship
dual citizenship
dual citizenship
dual citizenship
Gov. Body Tasks
Models
elected board of directors
appointed director and staff
secretary general and staff
full-time managers
three branches
board of directors and committees
Procedures and processes
bylaws
harmonization of systems and standards
common language and way of doing business, standards
activities subject to approval by Chevron senior management
existing body of law
bylaws
Benefits
For host
not applicable
economies of scale, integrates information, resources
not applicable
enhanced access to science and technology, flexibility
not applicable
dominant role in atmospheric sciences
For federation
collaboration with peer institutions, voice, leveraged funds
integrates information resources, economies of scale
promotes security and stability
advances research and development
distributed burdens, power base
voice in setting directions and access to major facilities
For partners
voice, receipt of funds
integrates information resources, economies of scale
voice, prepares some for NATO membership, political and military advice
funding, access to new challenges, committed partner
security, stature, transportation infrastructure, interstate commerce, funding
access to facilities, voice, convening function
Costs
For host
not applicable
operating expenses
not applicable
project support
not applicable
development direction
For federation
tensions with and among states
OCR for page 16
-->
Attribute
ARL
Harvard
NATO PfP
Chevron
Federal
UCAR
For partners
dues and funding of individual projects, time spent on committees
less customization of library functions
dues, support own participation
tensions with federal government and other states, taxes
loss of autonomy, loss of competitive opportunity, UCAR costs the community money, time spent on committees, dues
Measures of success
For host
not applicable
realizes economies of scale
not applicable
new science and technology
not applicable
For federation
baseline for measuring success, community's interests are advanced
HOLLIS serves the community well, federation project (preservation center) is a national leader
membership has grown
extended reach, stability, citizen contentment, unified direction for general matters
30 years of successful accomplishments, attracted new funding, growth of activities
For partners
enhanced research library quality
patron satisfaction, enhanced quality of the research enterprise
alliances established under the NATO umbrella
scientific/technical progress
extended reach, local control over local matters, stability, citizen contentment
enhanced research progress; continued voice sets directions
Lessons learned
shared values, well-defined tasks, and active involvement of partners are essential; governance structure allows agile response; priority reviews enhance flexibility; collaboration strengthens the federation
it is possible to link libraries to better serve the community
size is limit On consensus decisions, tensions from two levels of members
linker is critical; management must dedicate time initially; team ownership of the goal; culture is important; give and take on intellectual property; agree to rules before partner ship begins; may lose valuable people
an interactive, participant-defined system can accommodate public and private interests over the long term with multiple and shifting centers of authority
Triad of individual investigators, major center and federal agencies can function successfully; tensions between member and federation programs over funding can be managed; potential competition with private sector
OCR for page 17
-->
Lessons For An ESE Federation
There is no ideal model for any federation; a strength for one organization may be a weakness for another. As Irwin Feller warned at the workshop, a federation model for industry may not be appropriate for science. Nonetheless, there are lessons to be learned from all of them. Based on comparison of the similarities and differences described above, and the needs of the four ESE constituencies, the Steering Committee for a Workshop on an Earth Science Enterprise Federation selected the following lessons from existing federations, which may be helpful in the design and development of an ESE federation:
Lesson 1. To be successful, a federation must be a community-driven, grass-roots effort with empowerment at the individual member level. The ESE community is broader than ESIPs Type 2 and 3; it includes many other types of data and information users and providers. Therefore, the prototype ESE federation should be planned with this broader community in mind. A step toward ensuring that the interests of all the ESE constituents are represented is to include the Type 1 ESIPs in the prototype federation.
Lesson 2. A bottom-up approach should be carried into the governance of federations to ensure that the priorities of the broader community are honored. However, some centralized management is necessary for making major decisions on behalf of the partners, for representing the federation's interests, and for conducting day-to-day operations. The instrument of centralized management, however, should be used sparingly (i.e., the ''light touch" management approach is preferred). It is essential for an ESE federation and NASA to agree on the reserve powers of the partners; that is, those prerogatives that cannot be moved to central control or to NASA.
Lesson 3. A cornerstone of federations is flexibility. In order for an ESE federation to respond to changing needs, the initial rules and procedures should not be overspecified.
Lesson 4. In an ideal federation, partners come together to achieve ends they could not achieve alone. However, since the ESIPs were chosen through a competition based on product deliverables, these common values, or the federation glue, will have to be developed by the partners. This is an essential step in forming a successful federation.
Lesson 5. It is important for any organization to decide how it will be evaluated before it is created. Quantitative metrics include measures of success and a baseline from which to measure performance on a regular basis. However, the intangible and qualitative learning that is likely to occur as the experiment proceeds is just as critical to the evaluation of the experiment. Some of the most important institutional elements are unlikely to fall within easily quantifiable categories. In the case of an ESE federation, it is incumbent on the ESIPs to determine (and NASA to agree to) the elements of this evaluation.
Lesson 6. Tensions can arise when partners in a federation have different privileges. While an ESE federation is small, equal status among prototype federation partners would help ensure that all constituents have an equal voice.
Lesson 7. There are major differences among the ESE constituents, which will lead to tensions and differing expectations. For example, there are major philosophical differences (e.g., commercialization policy) among the ESIPs. These differences must be accommodated in the mission of an ESE federation.
Conclusions
The ESIPs are facilitators for ensuring that the Earth Science Enterprise meets its scientific goals. For the federation to succeed in increasing the productivity of the science, NASA has to ensure that the individual ESIPs are truly responsive to the needs and opportunities of the communities they claim to serve. NASA will need to develop innovative review mechanisms and contractual arrangements, metrics of performance, and rewards (contracts or otherwise). It will also need to retain a broad-minded view of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative approaches.
To date, there is no agreed federation model for managing data from NASA's ESE program, but the issues surrounding the development of the model are expected to be resolved through meetings of the prototype federation ESIPs. Designing a federation, which is an iterative process, will be time consuming and frustrating. Moreover, it may take years to realize the benefits of the federation.
OCR for page 18
-->
But because the federation will be designed by the ESIPs and NASA, it will likely prove more flexible, adaptable, and responsive to the priorities of the ESE constituents.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
federation models