EGIDA Project Towards a sustainable GEOSS: the EGIDA methodology and its assessment

1. EGIDA Project Towards a sustainable GEOSS: the EGIDA methodology and its assessment P. Mazzetti (CNR-IIA)

2. Outline • EGIDA Methodology objectives and structure • Design process • Assessment process and overview of results • Conclusions and next steps

3. the egida methodology

4. Rationale The GEO provides a general framework for the GEOSS implementation, e.g. through the GEO Workplan and GEO Boards activities. However, due to its voluntary-based approach, GEO does not directly fund its activities and must leverage members’ efforts. Top-downactions GEOSS Bottom-upactions There are on-going and planned initiatives funded in the context of national and regional projects which contribute or might contribute to the GEOSS implementation (e.g. FP7 projects).

5. Objective • The FP7 EGIDA project aimed to combine the top-down approach from GEO (GEO STC Roadmap support) and the bottom-up approach from national/regional initiatives. • The EGIDA Methodology consolidates the EGIDA project experience for future exploitation by defining a general methodological approach which can be adopted by national/regional S&T communities

6. Definition • The EGIDA Methodology is a general methodological approach for implementing a (re-)engineering process of the S&T national infrastructures and systems, which can be adopted by national/regional S&T communities, for a sustainable contribution to the GEOSS and relevant European initiatives based on a SoS approach, through the mobilization of resources made available from the participation in national, European and international initiatives and projects.

7. Design of the EGIDA Methodology

8. General approach for the design of the EGIDA Methodology EGIDA analysis of national and European initiatives EGIDA use-cases GEO Capacity Building Strategy GEO STC Roadmap EGIDA activities in support of GEO STC Roadmap EGIDA Deliverable D4.2, D4.8

9. Structure • The EGIDA Methodology is structured as a set of guidelines for activities aligning the on-going and planned national/regional actions with the GEOSS objectives, addressing: • Technical Activities for: • Capacity building (System-of-Systems Engineering, lowering entry barriers,…) according to a SoS (re-)engineering process • Networking Activities • National/Regional S&T communities engagement • Sustainability

10. Activities in the EGIDA Methodology

11. Document structure Activity Description Sub-Activity Section Example box

12. ASSESSMENT of the EGIDA Methodology

13. Assessment: use-cases (1/2) • “Hot-spot pollution in the Mediterranean” [S. Cinnirella, CNR-IIA] • EM transfer in a FP7 project (Knowseas) • regional, involving developing countries, thematic; • “Mediterranean region” [N. Bonora, ISPRA] • EM transfer the context of regional initiatives (UNEP-MAP/InfoRAC, ENPI/South - SEIS) • regional, involving developing countries, multi-thematic; • “Air Quality for Health” [A. Vik, NILU] • EM transfer in a network of European projects • pan-European, thematic;

14. Assessment: use-cases (1/2) • “Slovenia” [S. Lojen, IJS] • EM transfer in a small country • national, multi-thematic (then focused on hazards in the Soça catchment); • “GEO-Spain” [J. Maso, CREAF] • EM transfer for restarting a national GEO initiative • national, multi-thematic

15. Evaluation and Assessment of the EGIDA Methodology in the five use-cases

17. Assessment results: general outcomes • Positive feedbacks • The five use-cases were in general able to demonstrate the feasibility of the EGIDA Methodology transfer in a set of very different contexts. • This implicitly demonstrates the validity of the EGIDA Methodology idea, approach and current implementation. • Some of the use-case reports, explicitly confirm this, highlighting its flexibility “methodology proved to be a useful general methodological approach, which can easily be adopted or amended regarding the specific needs of a topical use case” [“Slovenia” use case report].

18. Assessment results: general outcomes • Negative feedbacks • Need of more balance between activities. • Indeed the first version did not include results from the second year of activities in the EGIDA Project • Need to improve clarity • Indeed the EGIDA Methodology is currently described in a project deliverable with all its constraints. Other layouts investigated (book, web site) “A more user friendly lay-out of the document may be helpful in this respect” [“Air Quality for Health” use case report].

19. Assessment results • Assessment reports include: • Suggestions on the most critical actions in the process • Requests for more guidelines on some actions • Proposal of new guidelines based on use-case activities proven to be effective; • Feedbacks on which actions/sub-actions/guidelines aspects should be stressed and highlighted • All the suggestions fit in the existing actions/sub-actions structure • No need for revising the current EGIDA Methodology structure, just modifying/adding new guidelines and good practices

20. Assessment results • Many approaches tested and proposed • study the national legal framework and the national R&D funding system; • mobilize project groups, professional and technical associations in search for potential stakeholders; • study the national approach to NSDI (e.g. for INSPIRE); • explore the national participation in GEO European projects; • Collaboration with international initiatives to be stressed.

21. Assessment results • A general lack of awareness of GEO/GEOSS initiative and/or benefits has been found. • Sometimes this depends on a more general lack of awareness in the data sharing and interoperability issues.

22. Assessment results • Personal contacts found to be effective “personal communication proved to be the most efficient in the first phases of the networking process, in particular in activities of identification of stakeholders and motivating them to participate in the network” “clearly recommend the personal contact as the most effective way to get people involved”.

23. Assessment results • One of the most cited points “a comprehensive list of recommended ways how to assure a long term funding for a sustainable re-engineering process should be compiled and possibly included in the methodology”. “A national/international central coordination point like the national GEO secretariats could be a first step towards organising a sustainable GEOSS contribution, which especially means supporting the search for funding.”

24. Assessment results • Involvement of personnel with skill and interest in IT needed • Need of suggestions on how to overcome common legal barriers • International legal frameworks to be considered • Embargo period for scientific publications • Economical barriers are common • To fund efforts to provide metadata

25. Assessment results • Concerns expressed about: • Metadata and data standards adoption • Contribution to multiple data sharing initiatives • Links back to the lack of awareness on interoperability solution and GEOSS architecture • SoS and brokering approach • Implementation of the system TA.4

26. Conclusion and next steps • The EGIDA Project released a first version of the EGIDA Methodology in November 2011 • In 2012 the EM was evaluated in the context of five different use-cases • Feedbacks have been collected and elaborated, and a final improved version of the EGIDA Methodology will be released in December 2012 • Different ways to publish and disseminate the EGIDA Methodology will be investigated

27. EGIDA Project http://www.egida-project.eu

28. Thankyouforyourattention!

29. Backup sLides

30. The design process

31. Design of the EGIDA Methodology D3.4 EGIDA Methodology

32. The egida methodology

34. Bytypology: • Research • Industry • Public Administrations • Citizens • StandardizationBodies • Experts • Otherprgrammes/initiatives • Byrole: • (Intermediate and final) Users • Information Providers • TechnologyProviders • Advisors • By scope: • Prioritysetting • UserRequirementsidentification and refinement • Assessment and validationthrough the runningofpilotprojects and case studies • Consultation on specificissues (e.g. interoperability) • Exploitation • Sustainability Selectionofrelevantstakeholders Howtoaddress/engagethem

35. Build on the outcomes of activities to “Show GEOSS at work “ (Activity 2d) GEOSS Portfolio OtherCompellingexamples Possiblypost-ponedafter the first TAs

36. Stronglydepending on the typeofinitiative: • Workshops • Mailing –lists • …

37. Mobilization of resources from relevant on-going initiatives Addressing national and supranational fundings Build on the outcomes of activities to “Catalyze research and development resources” (Activity 2g)

39. Governanceof the (re-) engineeringactions Integrationof top-down and bottom-upapproaches Internalstructuringof the workinggroups • Identificationofrelevantthemes • Data policy

40. Barriersto information sharing: • Behavioral • Legal • Economical • Technical

41. Re-engineeringofexistingsystems • Identifywhatismissing: • Infrastructures • Resources Re-useapproach

42. A portalprovidesvisibilityto the initiative Usuallythereis no objectiontometadatasharing Open tools/specificationsavailable Visibilityto the initiative As for the catalog Lackof data policiesoftenconsidered a barriertoresourcesharing If the policy isclear the deploymentofaccessservicesisstraightforward Mediation Processing Workflow …

43. Evaluate and assess the resultof the (re-) engineeringprocessforrefinement

44. Interoperabilitytests Registrationofcomponents