Timothy Stryker/CEO Kerry Sawyer/DCEO

1. Discussion of CEOS Capacity, Priorities, and Decision-Making Processes • Agenda Item 29 Timothy Stryker/CEO Kerry Sawyer/DCEO

2. Overview • Objective: CEOS adoption of a systematic and useable corporate decision-making process for new initiatives and proposals • Topics Addressed • Initial CSS recommendations on CEOS strategic planning and decision-making • Possible decision-making criteria and processes for new initiatives and projects • Categorization and possible Agency-level cooperation and resource characterization for large-scale initiatives and smaller-scale projects

3. CEOS Self-Study Findings and Recommendations • CEOS should maintain its ability to meeting its existing commitments • Current ad hoc decision-making approach no longer suffices for CEOS • A clear, fair, systematic and reliable mechanism is required to assist CEOS in determining which new initiatives/projects should be undertaken

4. Strategic Plan • Statement of CEOS’ Strategic Objectives • Expression of CEOS’ short-, medium-, and long-term priorities • Consideration/ranking of overarching CEOS themes • climate, carbon, Data Democracy, GCI, disasters, food/water security • possible linkages among them • Framework for initiatives/tasks that are closely aligned with CEOS priorities • ongoing activities • new activities that • augment an existing high-priority CEOS initiative • draw on similar CEOS mechanisms already devoted to an existing high-priority CEOS initiative (e.g., new use of existing FCT/GFOI-generated data access mechanisms and relationships)

5. If a Proposal is Well-Aligned with CEOS Priorities … • Is a response more appropriate by other coordination groups or private sector entities/associations? • Is the proposal well-aligned with a sufficient number of individual CEOS Agencies’ EO priorities? • Can a sufficient number of CEOS Agencies successfully respond based on existing technical/financial resources? • If Agencies have sufficient technical capacity and interest, are there additional policy considerations that would encourage or discourage their involvement – e.g., overarching data policies or prevailing public/private partnerships?

6. Current Informal Criteriafor CEOS-GEO Tasks • Alignment with “One of the top CEOS Priorities” (see CEOS WP) • Require the interest of and cooperation between at least two CEOS Agencies • “Significant” level of efforts and good coordination (e.g., publication of a journal article does not need to be classified as, nor followed as an action) • Significant and citable benefits towards meeting societal needs (also, presumably in line with CEOS Agency capabilities) • “Actionable” • properly described • feasible with Lead Agency/Agencies (or CEOS WG or VC) • at least one CEOS Agency Contributor • clear milestones and deliverables • clear indications of Agency support

7. Categories of Support:Questions Posed by CEOS Chair Rep • Prior to deciding on support for new initiatives • What information products would CEOS generate in support of this initiative/task? • To whom would the products be provided? • When would products be made available? • How would information products be transmitted/provided? • Prior to continued support for existing initiatives • Which CEOS Agencies are providing remote sensing data/information? • To whom is CEOS Agencies’ data/information being provided? • When and how is this data/information being provided? • What is the feedback from CEOS “customers”? • Are there plans to continue the project?

8. Many Shapes and Sizesof “CEOS Support” • Major initiatives • Involving a large number of CEOS Agencies • Supporting a global, resource-intensive, long-term task • Often initiated at a high administrative level • Implemented in a “top-down” manner • FCT/GFOI • ECV support • Smaller-scale projects • Smaller number of CEOS Agencies • Shorter-term tasks, fewer resources • Agency- or stakeholder-expert-initiated, in more of a “bottoms up” manner • SWERA • LSI moderate-resolution optical imaging guidelines • ACC gap assessment • Many activities may fall somewhere in the middle • Greater/lesser numbers of CEOS Agencies/resources considered, case-by-case • Apply same analysis of priority and criteria

9. CEOS Must Remain Dynamic • Concern for overextension justifies more rigorous CEOS consideration of proposals for both major initiatives and smaller-scale projects • Yet CEOS priorities should not become static and unresponsive to new internal or external developments • Consider minimum number of CEOS Agencies needed to successfully support a new activity • Members should not prevent a proposal’s adoption if • it is aligned with CEOS and CEOS Agencies’ priorities • it meets CEOS Agencies’ criteria for participation • the interested agencies have sufficient internal resources, and • these Agencies believe that CEOS provides a valuable focal point for their collaboration • If a proposal would require major resources and multiple Agency commitments to succeed, broader Agency support/higher threshold for CEOS approval should be required • Some flexibility helps CEOS remain dynamic and responsive, willing and able to change with the times

10. Knowledge and Communication are Essential • CEOS must have a good understanding of required Agency participation and resource commitments, matched against overall CEOS priorities • “Scope creep” should not fully occupy CEOS Agencies’ and their resources, and crowd out the ability for CEOS to entertain new ideas and proposals • CEOS should periodically re-evaluate its activities • ensure alignment with CEOS priorities, Agencies’ criteria, and resources • willingness to prune off low-priority or low-return activities to focus on more important work • Continual communication of CEOS priorities needed to prevent inappropriate or unrealistic expectations • internal bodies • external stakeholders

11. Examples of Proposed Implementation Strategies • Adoption of CEOS Strategic Plan (CSS recommendation) • In concert with Strategic Plan, formulate open and systematic review process • Adopt CEOS checklist or similar tool for review/approval/disapproval of all its (annual) activities, based on objective criteria

12. Examples of Proposed Implementation Strategies (cont’d) • Consider a policy of granting acceptance of any proposal that is supported by some minimum number of its Members/Associates • if that proposal is aligned with CEOS priorities • if CEOS is the appropriate medium for their collaboration • if those Members/Associates have sufficient resources to successfully conduct the initiative/project with their own personnel and resources • Periodic re-evaluation of all CEOS initiatives to ensure alignment with CEOS priorities, Agencies’ criteria, and resources • CEOS must be willing to terminate low-priority or low-return activities. • Continual CEOS communication its priorities, internally and externally, to prevent inappropriate or unrealistic expectations

13. Possible Checklist for Review and Decision-Making on Proposals for CEOS Support • Is the proposed activity appropriate for CEOS, rather than for another existing coordination group or private sector organization/association? (Yes/No; if Yes, then continue) • Is the proposed activity closely aligned with CEOS priorities, as stated in the CEOS Strategic Plan? (Yes/No; if Yes, then continue) • Is the proposed activity well-aligned with a sufficient number of individual CEOS Agencies’ Earth Observation priorities? (Yes/No; if Yes, then continue)

14. Possible Checklist (cont’d) • Can a sufficient number of CEOS Agencies successfully respond based on their existing technical and financial resources? (Note: A “sufficient number” of CEOS Agencies could vary widely, based on the size and scope of the proposed activity ) (Yes/No; if Yes, then continue) • If Agencies have sufficient technical capacity and interest, are there additional policy considerations that would encourage or discourage their involvement – e.g., overarching data policies or prevailing public/private partnerships? (If no additional policy barriers exist, then support proposed activity)