National Academies Press: OpenBook

Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop (1998)

Chapter: 3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation

« Previous: 2 Working Group Summaries
Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×

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.
Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×

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

 

Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"3 Models for an Earth Science Enterprise Federation." National Research Council. 1998. Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6151.
×
Page 18
Next: References »
Toward an Earth Science Enterprise Federation: Results from a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!