e-IRGSP Governance Report

\chapter{Introduction}

\label{chapter:2}

Governance in Research Infrastructures, and \ei{}s in

particular, is of growing importance, as the importance of the

infrastructures themselves is growing. There are many important

scientific problems that can be resolved only by using such

infrastructures. Several factors underpin this drive, such as:

\begin{itemize}

\item The availability of larger and more extensive datasets.

\item The construction of bigger and more detailed models of natural

  systems, which need to be simulated on high-end computers or on

  computer clusters. 

\item The need for computing and networking infrastructure in order to

  support new large scale scientific instruments.

\item The increasing trend in science publishers to demands that

  researchers make available and publish their research data online,

  so that their results can be easily checked and replicated.

\item The entering into the scientific workforce of young scientists

  who have grown up in digital environments, and whose natural habitat

  is one of an \ei{}.

\item The transitions, going back to several decades, from single

  researchers to teams of researchers, which are nowadays

  geographically dispersed around the globe, yet need to collaborate

  on a timely basis.

\item The rise of new scientific powerhouses in countries outside the

  West (for instance, South East Asia and China), and their needs for

  connectivity with existing research and scientific hubs.

\end{itemize}

\ei{}s exhibit more dynamic relationships with their users in

comparison to traditional infrastructures such as roads and

electricity providers. The latter provide standardised bulk services

under established and stable governance arrangements. \ei{}s, however,

bring together competing providers in an attempt to create synergies

that would increase the value of the infrastructure. Effective

governance is an indispensable component of sustainability and

success. The specificities of \ei{} governance require novel and

innovative approaches.

Recognising the importance of \ei{} governance, different

initiatives discussed \ei{} governance in 2010. The \ac{ecri}

ran a session on governance in its spring 2010 meeting in Barcelona

(March 23--24, 2010). The e-IRG workshop in Brussels (October 13--14,

2010) ran one session on ``\ei{} Governance: Management and

International Aspects'' and another one on ``\ei{}

Governance: Legal and Financial Issues''.

If a common strand could be identified in these discussions, it would

be that there is no solution that fits every \ei{}.

Different countries and different projects adopt different solutions;

even if the new \ac{ecri} legal entity gains ground as the preferred

legal vehicle for \ei{}s in the future, the legal

foundation is only a part of the whole governance picture. For

example, on the one hand we encounter \ei{} that follow a

governance model evolved during several years of precursor projects

(see~\ac{egi}); on the other hand, countries such as Denmark are

experimenting with new user-oriented models, where the funding

institutions no longer support \ei{} projects directly, but

rather give funds to users, who are free to pay their \ei{}

provider of choice.

In this context, the global financial crisis and belt-tightening in

most scientific budgets in Europe and the United States have pressed

\ei{} providers to make their case more forcefully, in

order to justify the expenses to taxpayers. It has therefore become

more necessary than ever to connect with the users of

\ei{}s and ensure that \ei{}s serve them, and

not their operators, and that they are operated in the best interest

of the public that trusts them for carrying out their everyday work.

This push towards greater efficiency and accountability has a long

history in a related, but different field, that of \ac{it} governance.

In \ac{it} governance, entities such as corporations, companies, and

organisations have worked over the years models and norms to ensure

that their \ac{it} infrastructure serves their needs, is responsive

and cost-effective, instead of serving the \ac{it} department and its

relative standing in organisational hierarchies and value. Governance

mechanisms, methods for promoting effective governance and avoiding

agency problems, decision making regarding \ac{it} infrastructure

policies and development, have been researched at length both in

the academic and the business literature. 

\ei{} governance could benefit from the rich understanding of

governance developed in the area of \ac{it}. Multiple distinctions

between different government forms and their correlation with decision

areas, drivers behind specific governance models, as well as the

structural, process and relational governance mechanisms provide a

wealth of concepts and evidence to draw on.

In this report we endeavour to bring this material closer to the

\ei{} milieu: specifically, to go over work in \ac{it}

governance, highlight similarities and possible points of contact

between \ac{it} governance and \ei{} governance, and

examine some particulars example of \ei{}s. Along these

lines, in Chapter~\ref{chapter:3}, we provide a literature review of

\ac{it} governance, followed by a counterpoint between

\ei{} governance and \ac{it} governance in

Chapter~\ref{chapter:4}. Then we go in some depth in three large

\ei{}s in Europe in Chapter ~\ref{chapter:5}, which concludes the

present report with a more general discussion.

%%% Local Variables: 

%%% mode: latex

%%% TeX-master: "governance"

%%% End: