/ - Diff - e-IRGSP Governance Report - Greek Research and Technology Network's projects

Revision 28:be66d105f0cb

     This model is very rare and only appropriate when it is necessary to
     react quickly to change.
     \begin{table}
     \caption{Key \ac{it} Governance Decision Areas and \ac{it} Governance Archetypes \cite{WeillRoss2004b}}
         	\begin{tabular}{ p{0.5cm} | p{1.7cm} | p{2cm} | p{2cm} | p{2cm} | p{2cm} | p{2cm} | }
           \multicolumn{7}{c}{\textbf{\ac{it} Decisions}} \\ \cline{2-7}
           \multirow{7}{*}{\begin{sideways}\textbf{\ac{it} Governance Archetypes}\end{sideways}} & & \ac{it} principles & \ac{it} Architecture & \ac{it} Infrastructure Strategies & Business Applications Needs & \ac{it} Investment \\ \cline{2-7}
           \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & Business Monarchy & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}
           \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \ac{it} Monarchy & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}
           \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & Feudal & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}
           \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & Federal & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}
           \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \ac{it} Duopoly & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}
           \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & Anarchy & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}
         \end{tabular}
     \end{table}
     As organisations expand geographically and diversify their activities,
     organisational structures are not adequate to reconcile conflicting
     needs and objectives and \ac{it} governance becomes indispensable. A

     \chapter{e-Infrastructure Governance and IT Governance}
     \chapter{\ei{} Governance and IT Governance}
     \label{chapter:4}
     In general, e-Infrastructure governance may not be identical with IT
     governance. In this Chapter we investigate the main points of
     e-Infrastructure and where they may differ from corresponding IT
     governance. Although sibling fields, it is not obvious that findings
     in the IT governance literature apply directly to e-Infrastructure
     \ei{} governance is identical with IT governance. In this Chapter we
     investigate the main points of \ei{} and where they may differ from
     corresponding IT governance. To begin with, there are differences in
     subject matter between \ei{} and \ac{it}:
     \begin{itemize}
     \item \ei{} encompasses a much wider scope than \ac{it}; it includes
       \ac{it} systems, but may also include other physical infrastructure,
       scientific instruments, collaboration networks, and so on.
     \item \ei{} usually demand a high level of public funding, usually on
       an international scale; \ac{it} systems are usually smaller and less
       expensive.
     \item \ei{} are non-profit entities; \ac{it} infrastructure may
       support profit or non-profit entities, depending on its deployment
       context.
     \end{itemize}
     Despite the differences, however, our premise is that there are
     similaries worth pursuing, as both \ei{} and \ac{it} face similar
     challenges, among others:
     \begin{itemize}
     \item Both are tools that are used by a wider entity to carry out its
       function.
     \item In both there are tensions between the operators and the users.
     \item Both have to prove their value to their users.
     \item Both have to continuously adapt in a rapidly changing
       technological landscape.
     \end{itemize}
     Starting with some general discussion in \ei{} governance, we will
     proceed to a description of proposed actors and \ei{} governance
     models and to a comparison between \ei{} governance and \ac{it}
     governance.
     \section{\ei{} Governance}
     \section{e-Infrastructure Governance}
     e-Infrastructure governance has been discussed in the 7th
     e-Infrastructure Concertation Meeting and the e-IRG Workshop in
     \ei{} governance has been discussed in the 7th
     \ei{} Concertation Meeting and the e-IRG Workshop in
     Brussels, in 2009 and 2010 respectively. It is framed as pertinent to
     funding sustainability and promotion of shared interests but at the
     same time it is not clearly defined. The discussion around governance
-...
     provision, policy definition and implementation,
     centralised/decentralised structures, balance between providers and
     users, as well as trust between all stakeholders \cite{Sawley}.
     e-Infrastructure governance is also called to resolve intellectual
     \ei{} governance is also called to resolve intellectual
     property and liability issues \cite{PARADE}, to promote open access
     principles, common standards while supporting the distributed nature
     of information \cite{ConcertationReport}. Although these elements can
     only be interrelated, a stronger definition and demarcation of the
     different domains of e-Infrastructure governance is required to
     different domains of \ei{} governance is required to
     provide a strong basis for discussion. At the same time, different
     levels of national or organisational governance, as well as the
     diverse requirements emerging from the rich landscape of
     e-Infrastructure types add to the complexity.
     \ei{} types add to the complexity.
     \section{Actors and Proposed e-Infrastructure Governance Models}
     \section{Actors and Proposed \ei{} Governance Models}
     There seems to be general consensus regarding the actors involved in
     e-Infrastructure governance. The \ac{parade} suggests three
     \ei{} governance. The \ac{parade} suggests three
     stakeholder groups involved in high-level, strategic decision-making
     (see Figure below): (1) user communities providing input on required
     (see Figure~\ref{fig:parade}): (1) user communities providing input on required
     activities, (2) service providers responsible for the technological
     issues, (3) funding bodies and research agencies ensuring
     cost-effective and sustainable operation. In their proposed governance
-...
     implementation, supported by a project team and an International
     Advisory Board \cite{PARADE}.
     (PARADE proposed governance structure here)
     \begin{figure}
     \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=2cm, path fading=south]
       \node (EB) [default]
+      {
         \textbf{Executive Board}
       };
       \node (PO) [default, left=of EB]
+      {
         \textbf{Project Office}
       } edge [->] (EB);
       \node (OB) [dark, below=of EB]
+      {
         \textbf{Operations' Board}
       } edge [->] (EB);
       \node (UB) [dark, left=of OB]
+      {
         \textbf{Users' Board}
       } edge [->] (EB);
       \node (PB) [dark, right=of OB]
+      {
         \textbf{Policy Board}
       } edge [->] (EB);
       \node (UC) [cyl, below=of UB]
+      {
         \textbf{User \\ Communities}
       } edge [->] (UB);
       \node (SP) [cyl, below=of OB]
+      {
         \textbf{Service Providers}
       } edge [->] (OB);
       \node (FB) [cyl, below=of PB]
+      {
         \textbf{Funding Bodies}
       } edge [->] (PB);
     \end{tikzpicture}
     \caption{\ac{parade} proposed governance structure}
     \label{fig:parade}
     \end{figure}
     During the 7th e-Infrastructure Concertation Meeting, three governance
     During the 7th \ei{} Concertation Meeting, three governance
     models were proposed, distinguishing between different types of
     e-Infrastructures: \acp{nren}, Grids/Clouds and \ac{hpc} facilities
     \ei{}s: \acp{nren}, Grids/Clouds, and \ac{hpc} facilities
     \cite{Sawley}. The governing bodies and mechanisms in different
     decisions areas, some of which map to the five key IT governance
     decision areas, are outlined in
     Table~\ref{tab:3communities}~\cite{Sawley} :
     Table~\ref{tab:3communities}~\cite{Sawley}.
     \begin{figure}
     \begin{center}
-...
     At a national level, the UK Research Councils' report on
     e-Infrastructures promotes leadership and coordination along the lines
     \ei{}s promotes leadership and coordination along the lines
     of the e-IRG. They recommend that ``[t]he leadership of the UK's
     Research and Innovation e-infrastructure should be delivered by a
     Director of e-infrastructure, overseen by a Strategic Board with
     members drawn from areas closely related to e-infrastructure, such as
     software specialists, research technologists, and specialists in data
     management''~\cite{UKResearchCouncils}. This report makes evident the
     need for collaboration between different e-Infrastructures and their
     need for collaboration between different \ei{}s and their
     associated organisations at a national level. Countries attempt
     cost-effective development of national infrastructures with the aim to
     become leaders in the field. However, in e-Infrastructures funding
     become leaders in the field. However, in \ei{}s funding
     bodies can be diverse and do not necessarily coordinate their efforts
     or align their objectives. Appropriate governance would provide for
     the required synergy in investment, ensure interoperability between
     the installed base and new e-Infrastructures, as well as maximise
     the installed base and new \ei{}s, as well as maximise
     re-use of available tools by different research disciplines, although
     there is no one approach suitable for all cases \cite{Baxevanidis,
       eResearch2020, UKResearchCouncils}. Overall, these characteristics
     distinguish e-Infrastructure governance from traditional IT governance
     distinguish \ei{} governance from traditional \ac{it} governance
     that focuses on internal governance arrangements. Other national
     programmes of interest include the Dutch e-Infrastructure programme
     programmes of interest include the Dutch \ei{} programme
     and the legal framework developed in Germany \cite{Dutch, Dutch2,
       Karagiannis}.
     \section{e-Infrastructure Governance and IT Governance}
     \section{\ei{} Governance and IT Governance}
     \subsection{Governance Forms}
     The eResearch2020 project (\url{http://www.eresearch2020.eu/}) was
     funded by the European Commission to study the role of
     e-Infrastructures in the creation of global virtual research
     communities, from an organisational, collaborative and technological
     \ei{}s in the creation of global virtual research
     communities from an organisational, collaborative and technological
     perspective. The research consortium consisted of empirica
     Communication and Technology Research in Germany, Fachhochschule
     Nordwestschweiz in Switzerland, the Oxford Internet Institute in the
     United Kingdom and the National Opinion Research Centre at the
     University of Chicago in the United States. Their final report
     acknowledges, among other things, the significance of e-Infrastructure
     acknowledges, among other things, the significance of \ei{}
     governance and its impact on research communities. Drawing on in-depth
     qualitative interviews and archival analysis, the eResearch2020 report
     presents, among other findings, information on the governance
     arrangements of 18 e-Infrastructures and related
     organisations~\cite{eResearch2020}. \footnote{The e-Infrastructures
       studied include: \ac{deisa}, \ac{eela-2}, \ac{egee}, \ac{geant},
     arrangements of 18 \ei{}s and related
     organisations~\cite{eResearch2020}. \footnote{The entities
       studied include: \ac{deisa}, \ac{eela-2}, \ac{egee}, \acs{geant},
       \ac{osg}, TeraGrid, Swedish National Data Service, \ac{c3grid},
       CineGrid, \ac{clarin}, \ac{d4science}, \ac{dariah}, \ac{driver},
       \ac{etsf}, MediGrid, \ac{nvo}, Swiss BioGrid and \ac{ogf} as a
       \ac{etsf}, MediGrid, \ac{nvo}, Swiss BioGrid and the \ac{ogf} as a
       standardisation organisation.}
     Similarly to the IT governance literature, it is recognized that the
     diversity of e-Infrastructures creates a variety of governance forms.
     Similarly to the \ac{it} governance literature, it is recognized that
     the diversity of \ei{}s creates a variety of governance forms.
     Governance strategies emerge in different shapes, ``from the small and
     informally organized (CineGrid is an example) to larger multi-tiered
     and more elaborate and complex structure[s] (\ac{geant})''
     \cite{eResearch2020}. However, it is noted that only large
     e-Infrastructures distinguish between strategic oversight and
     management.
     and more elaborate and complex structure[s] (\acs{geant})''
     \cite{eResearch2020}. However, it is noted that only large \ei{}s
     distinguish between strategic oversight and management.
     The centralisation debate is part of the discussion on
     e-Infrastructure governance as well. In the 7th e-Infrastructure
     Concertation Meeting, grid and research network governance models,
     especially that of \ac{geant} and \acp{nren}, were compared and
     contrasted to \ac{hpc} models such as \ac{prace}. In the case of
     \ac{prace} a fine balance is achieved between decentralised and
     centralised arrangements, since decisions are taken at the lowest
     levels possible, using local expertise and funding, but at the same
     time there is a single contact point to ensure stability of the
     infrastructure and coherent procurement plans based on pan-European
     peer reviews \cite{Eickermann}.
     The centralisation debate is indeed part of the discussions taking
     place among \ei{}s. In the 7th \ei{} Concertation Meeting, grid and
     research network governance models, especially that of \acs{geant} and
     \acp{nren}, were compared and contrasted to \ac{hpc} models such as
     \ac{prace}. In the case of \ac{prace} it is judged that a fine balance
     is achieved between decentralised and centralised arrangements, since
     decisions are taken at the lowest levels possible, using local
     expertise and funding, but at the same time there is a single contact
     point to ensure stability of the infrastructure and coherent
     procurement plans based on pan-European peer reviews
     \cite{Eickermann}.
     The empirical work of the eResearch2020 project found more centralised
     forms of governance with either a few central coordinators or a
     governing body, usually in larger projects. Federated organisations
     governing body usually in larger projects. Federated organisations
     were also encountered as in the case of \ac{ogf}, TeraGrid, and
     \ac{osg} with different coordinators for different tasks but it should
     \ac{osg} with different coordinators for different tasks, but it should
     be noted that such arrangements exist also at lower levels in more
     centralised forms (\ac{ogf} is included here as a standardisation body
     coordinating the efforts of different e-Infrastructures, rather than
     as an actual e-Infrastructure in itself). The authors of the report
     coordinating the efforts of different \ei{}s, rather than
     as an actual \ei{} in itself). The authors of the report
     conclude: ``What we see organizationally is a range from highly
     centralized and hierarchical governance to more ?flat? or federated
     governance which may have multiple centres'' \cite{eResearch2020}.
     Although the variety of forms is recognised, there is no other
     classification apart from the centralised/decentralised continuum, as
     in the IT governance literature. Further study is required to
     distinguish more nuanced e-Infrastructure governance forms.
     distinguish more nuanced \ei{} governance forms.
     \subsection{Governance Mechanisms}
     Explicit identification of formal and informal governance mechanisms
     employed in e-Infrastructures could bring to light and systematise
     employed in \ei{}s could bring to light and systematise
     practices that are not already appreciated as governance efforts per
     se.
     The e-Infrastructures studied in the eResearch2020 project usually
     employed advisory and/or steering committees to provide guidance or
     guarantee that all interests are represented. This was defined as the
     The \ei{}s studied in the eResearch2020 project usually employed
     advisory and/or steering committees to provide guidance or guarantee
     that all interests are represented. This was defined as the
     metagovernance layer or ``governance which coordinates the governance
     of individual efforts'' across institutional boundaries. Again, there
     are many variations in different cases ``informal and flexible (Swiss
     BioGrid is an example) or highly complex, formally institutionalized
     and hierarchical (\ac{egee} serves as an example)''
     \cite{eResearch2020}. Governing bodies consist of researchers from
     within the same, such as the \ac{nvo} or different disciplines
     (Swedish National Data Service) and they are either permanent or
     involve their members in ``episodic governance'' \cite{eResearch2020}.
     \cite{eResearch2020}. Governing bodies consist of researchers from the
     same, such as the \ac{nvo}, or different disciplines (Swedish National
     Data Service) and they are either permanent or involve their members
     in ``episodic governance''~\cite{eResearch2020}.
     Internal and external communication are frequently discussed as
     important aspects of e-Infrastructures, but they are usually mentioned
     as separate efforts, not as clearly defined elements of governance.
     More emphasis is placed on structures such as governing bodies and
     advisory groups, rather than on their actual functioning and
     coordination. Although communication is taking place in various ways,
     especially in larger e-Infrastructures, there remains the question
     whether these are designed to be strategically aligned to the
     objectives, investment efforts and other needs. It might be useful to
     adopt the approach of the IT business literature, where internal and
     external communication are described as explicit governance
     mechanisms, part of carefully planned, strategic governance
     arrangements.
     important aspects of \ei{}s, but they are usually mentioned as
     separate efforts, not as clearly defined elements of governance. More
     emphasis is placed on structures such as governing bodies and advisory
     groups, rather than on their actual functioning and coordination.
     Although communication is taking place in various ways, especially in
     larger \ei{}s, there remains the question whether these are designed
     to be strategically aligned to the objectives, investment efforts and
     other needs. It might be useful to adopt the approach of the \ac{it}
     business literature, where internal and external communication are
     described as explicit governance mechanisms, part of carefully
     planned, strategic governance arrangements.
     With regards to internal project communication, the eResearch2020
     project reports the use of basic mechanisms like teleconferencing and
     With regards to internal project communication, eResearch2020
     reports the use of basic mechanisms like teleconferencing and
     emails as in the case of SwissBioGrid, but also finds examples where
     more regular communication and extensive meetings are taking place.
     Differences in culture, and more specifically field affiliation and
     organisational identity, pose obstacles to effective collaboration
     between internal partners and organisations working on the same
     e-Infrastructure, while competitive behaviours reduce trust and
     productivity. In addition, technological specificities can hinder
     inter-organisational integration. Of course, the extent of these
     problems depends on the level of involvement required by the partners.
     In long term collaborations less friction is observed, while improved
     coordination and communication (which can be attributed to successful
     governance mechanisms) contribute to enhanced collaboration. Complex
     arrangements such as those of TeraGrid are reported as most
     effective \cite{eResearch2020}. TeraGrid is primarily governed by two bodies: the TeraGrid Forum and the Grid Infrastructure Group. Principal investigators from the 11 partners set governance and policy in the former, while the latter comprises of the management team, Area Directors and expert working groups to plan, manage and coordinate the work. These distributed governance arrangements provide for non-direct supervision of individuals in different sites \cite{eResearch2020}.
     between internal partners and organisations working on the same \ei{},
     while competitive behaviours reduce trust and productivity. In
     addition, technological specificities can hinder inter-organisational
     integration. Of course, the extent of these problems depends on the
     level of involvement required by the partners. In long term
     collaborations less friction is observed, while improved coordination
     and communication (which can be attributed to successful governance
     mechanisms) contribute to enhanced collaboration. Complex arrangements
     such as those of TeraGrid are reported as most effective
     \cite{eResearch2020}. TeraGrid is primarily governed by two bodies:
     the TeraGrid Forum and the Grid Infrastructure Group. Principal
     investigators from the eleven partners set governance and policy in the
     former, while the latter comprises of the management team, area
     directors and expert working groups to plan, manage and coordinate the
     work. These distributed governance arrangements provide for non-direct
     supervision of individuals in different sites \cite{eResearch2020}.
     External communication with users is deemed to be a more complicated
     issue and one of the topics discussed in the e-IRG Blue Paper
     \cite{BluePaper}. There is no uniform approach to external
     communication in e-Infrastructures, although it is of great importance
     communication in \ei{}s, although it is of great importance
     to project sustainability and success. Some projects have
     sophisticated user engagement plans even in their development phase
     (e.g. \ac{clarin}, \ac{egee}, \ac{osg}), when others pay much less
-...
       eResearch2020}.
     Related to external communication is the process of user recruitment.
     Although users determine the sustainability of e-Infrastructures, the
     Although users determine the sustainability of \ei{}s, the
     eResearch2020 project finds that user relationships are not always
     prioritised. Reasons cited include: focusing on pure technology
     development and delaying user engagement, perceiving the
     e-Infrastructure mission as one that excludes take-up, as well as
     \ei{} mission as one that excludes take-up, as well as
     estimating a great probability of project discontinuation.
     A parallel to IT governance can be found here in terms of how IT
     departments in companies communicate with business units who are
     usually the users of IT systems and infrastructures. Such user
     A parallel to \ac{it} governance can be found here in terms of how
     \ac{it} departments in companies communicate with business units who
     are usually the users of \ac{it} systems and infrastructures. Such user
     engagement might contribute to avoid technology push and similar
     problems. User recruitment can also be encountered in corporate
     settings, when IT departments attempt to persuade business units to
     settings, when \ac{it} departments attempt to persuade business units to
     use certain technologies rather than requiring the development the new
     tools or purchasing their own solutions. Appropriate positioning on
     the governance forms continuum as well as the adoption of effective
     governance mechanisms would further the objectives of
     e-Infrastructures in terms of user recruitment, engagement and
     sustainability.
     governance mechanisms would further the objectives of \ei{}s in terms
     of user recruitment, engagement and sustainability.
     External communication is also taking place between different
     e-Infrastructures which coordinate their work and standards to develop
     \ei{}s that coordinate their work and standards to develop
     interoperable platforms \cite{eResearch2020}. One example is provided
     by \ac{geant} which ``facilitates discussion between the co-operating
     by \acs{geant}, which ``facilitates discussion between the co-operating
     \acp{nren} and with the responsibles for the equivalent
     e-Infrastructures outside of Europe to ensure a harmonised,
     \ei{}s outside of Europe to ensure a harmonised,
     interoperable evolution of the networks, management and monitoring
     tools and end-to-end services'' \cite{ConcertationReport}.The
     tools and end-to-end services'' \cite{ConcertationReport}. The
     \ac{ogf}, as a coordinating standardisation body, employs a
     ``\emph{formal} liaison function'' with individuals from member
     organisations monitoring developments in other bodies where
-...
     Furthermore, \emph{informal} relationships and collaboration play a
     major role in the development of interoperable specifications and
     standards, in order to provide seamless access to distributed
     resources (e.g. \ac{nvo} and similar astronomical infrastructures).
     resources (e.g., \ac{nvo} and similar astronomical infrastructures).
     However, provider interoperability is not always feasible through such
     mechanisms. In cases where e-Infrastructures have developed distinct
     mechanisms. In cases where \ei{}s have developed distinct
     software or middleware, higher levels of technological complexity need
     to be overcome with common tools or portals (e.g. ``Science Gateways''
     in TeraGrid)~\cite{eResearch2020}.
     Absence or inadequacy of governance mechanisms might exacerbate issues
     such as limited communication and understanding between technical
     developers and research communities, creating problems in eliciting
     user requirements, something commonly encountered by the eResearch2020
     project. Further, governance uncertainty is one of the reasons data
     sharing remains restricted in repositories and similar infrastructures
     \cite{eResearch2020}.
     The absence or inadequacy of governance mechanisms might exacerbate
     issues such as limited communication and understanding between
     technical developers and research communities, creating problems in
     eliciting user requirements, something commonly encountered by the
     eResearch2020 project. Furthermore, governance uncertainty is one of
     the reasons data sharing remains restricted in repositories and
     similar infrastructures \cite{eResearch2020}.
     \subsection{Drivers of e-Infrastructure Governance Forms}
     \subsection{Drivers of \ei{} Governance Forms}
     As criteria on e-Infrastructure governance forms remain uncertain, the
     As criteria on \ei{} governance forms remain uncertain, the
     business literature on multiple contingencies can provide a useful
     starting point when adapted towards this direction.
     As discussed in Chapter~\ref{chapter:3}, single contingencies cannot
     adequately explain the adoption of certain governance forms. The
     explain adequately the adoption of certain governance forms. The
     theory of multiple contingencies relates IT governance to drivers
     grouped in the larger categories of corporate governance, economies of
     scope and absorptive capacity. In e-Infrastructures, especially
     smaller ones, corporate governance might overlap with e-Infrastructure
     governance as a concept and practice and therefore, it cannot be perceived as a determinant of e-Infrastructure governance. Of course, an overlap between IT and corporate governance can also be encountered in other organisations apart from e-Infrastructures
     \cite{Grembergen2003}. The size of e-Infrastructures might be another
     factor correlating to more mature e-Infrastructure governance,
     similarly to what we see in IT governance, but it would not predict a
     tendency towards more or less centralised forms. CineGrid and
     \ac{geant} are both large e-Infrastructures with significantly
     different governance arrangements \cite{eResearch2020}. Economies of
     scope might be relevant to e-Infrastructures when looking at how the
     infrastructure and its tools are used by more than one research
     communities or fields, leading to either decentralised or centralised
     decision rights. In addition, absorptive capacity relates to the
     expertise of the members at the various levels of e-Infrastructures
     development and use. Less technically sophisticated users might favour
     centralised modes of governance, whereas in highly technical fields
     decentralised forms might be more relevant.
     scope, and absorptive capacity. In \ei{}s, especially smaller ones,
     corporate governance might overlap with \ei{} governance as a concept
     and practice (of course, an overlap between \ac{it} and corporate
     governance can also be encountered in other organisations apart from
     \ei{}s \cite{Grembergen2003}). The size of \ei{}s might be another
     factor correlating to more mature \ei{} governance, similarly to what
     we see in \ac{it} governance, but it would not predict a tendency towards
     more or less centralised forms. CineGrid and \acs{geant} are both large
     \ei{}s with significantly different governance arrangements
     \cite{eResearch2020}. Economies of scope might be relevant to \ei{}s
     when looking at how the infrastructure and its tools are used by more
     than one research communities or fields, leading to either
     decentralised or centralised decision rights. In addition, absorptive
     capacity relates to the expertise of the members at the various levels
     of \ei{}s development and use. Less technically sophisticated users
     might favour centralised modes of governance, whereas in highly
     technical fields decentralised forms might be more relevant.
     However, these hypotheses are difficult to validate with the data
     currently available and further research could highlight the multiple
     interacting drivers behind e-Infrastructure governance forms and
     mechanisms. Drivers that are e-Infrastructure specific and might be
     interacting drivers behind \ei{} governance forms and
     mechanisms. Drivers that are \ei{} specific and might be
     more relevant to explain and further recommend appropriate governance
     forms include funding sources, research objectives, research fields,
     interdisciplinary collaboration or partnerships between academia and
     industry etc.
     industry, etc.
     \subsection{Further Similarities and Differences}
-...
     and not-for-profit organisations, they recognise similarities with
     for-profits but also acknowledge that there are difficulties,
     especially in assessing performance and value, as well as in
     justifying IT infrastructures and investments. Within a political or
     similarly restricting environment, there are usually mandates over and
     above business value and cost-benefit considerations, such as value
     creation in terms of public good or other objectives~\cite{WeillRoss2004b}.
     justifying \ac{it} infrastructures and investments. Within a political
     or similarly restricting environment, there are usually mandates over
     and above business value and cost-benefit considerations, such as
     value creation in terms of public good or other
     objectives~\cite{WeillRoss2004b}.
     Funding sources are inextricably linked to e-Infrastructure governance
     Funding sources are inextricably linked to \ei{} governance
     arrangements. The governance panel at the 7th Concertation Meeting
     discussed how the public funding model restricts options and how
     further complexity stems from the interconnection of local and
-...
     In addition, dependency on external stakeholders and beneficiaries to
     use and contribute to the infrastructure, dataset or service may mean
     increased input from these parties in decision-making structures, such
     as e-Infrastructure governance forms or mechanisms. In this domain,
     it is observed that top not-for-profit performers clarify how
     their organisation creates value, recognise the capabilities required
     and strive to achieve alignment with governance. To this end,
     guidelines drawn from their five key decision areas and adapted for
     effective e-Infrastructure governance include~\cite{WeillRoss2004b}:
     as \ei{} governance forms or mechanisms. In this domain, it is
     observed that top not-for-profit performers clarify how their
     organisation creates value, recognise the capabilities required, and
     strive to achieve alignment with governance. To this end, guidelines
     drawn from their five key decision areas (see
     Section~\ref{sec:key-it-governance-decisions}) and adapted for
       effective \ei{} governance include~\cite{WeillRoss2004b}:
     \begin{itemize}
     \item making joint user and technical decisions around
       e-Infrastructure principles and investment
       \ei{} principles and investment
     \item viewing e-Infrastructure decisions as strategic decisions and
     \item viewing \ei{} decisions as strategic decisions, and
     \item avoiding feudal, autonomous decentralising models for research
       communities needs
       communities needs.
     \end{itemize}
     Although governance forms differ between e-Infrastructures, it is not
     clear how the same e-Infrastructure might use different governance
     structures and mechanisms. A nuanced classification of governance
     forms that can be applied at the same time within one e-Infrastructure
     to address issues in different decision areas might be a useful step
     forward. As in IT governance, an organisation might use centralised
     models to decide on IT principles and decentralised models to solve
     business applications needs.
     Although governance forms differ between \ei{}s, it is not clear how
     the same \ei{} might use different governance structures and
     mechanisms. A nuanced classification of governance forms that can be
     applied at the same time within one \ei{} to address issues in
     different decision areas might be a useful step forward. As in \ac{it}
     governance, an organisation might use centralised models to decide on
     \ac{it} principles and decentralised models to solve business
     applications needs.
     In addition, IT governance benefits from processes and control
     frameworks like \ac{cobit}, \ac{itil} etc. It might be possible to
     adapt these frameworks to serve the purposes of e-Infrastructures or
     to develop other specific tools to support decision-making and
     monitoring in a formalised manner. Furthermore, larger
     e-Infrastructures might lead the way in creating maturity stages and
     models of e-Infrastructure governance, against which new or less
     developed projects might benchmark themselves. Related to the problem
     of user communication, balanced scorecard have long been implemented
     in organisations to measure user satisfaction and strategic alignment.
     Such a practice might be useful to e-Infrastructures and their
     communication with the usage base.
     In addition, \ac{it} governance benefits from processes and control
     frameworks like \ac{cobit}, \ac{itil}, etc. It might be possible to
     adapt these frameworks to serve the purposes of \ei{}s or to develop
     other specific tools to support decision-making and monitoring in a
     formalised manner. Furthermore, larger \ei{}s might lead the way in
     creating maturity stages and models of \ei{} governance, against which
     new or less developed projects might benchmark themselves. Related to
     the problem of user communication, balanced scorecards have long been
     implemented in organisations to measure user satisfaction and
     strategic alignment. Such a practice might be useful to \ei{}s and
     their communication with the usage base.
     Relational mechanisms such as direct informal contacts, common locations and ``virtual meeting points'', lobbying, joint performance incentives, shared learning or more formal senior management involvement as mobilised in IT governance (see Chapter~\ref{chapter:3}) might prove helpful in collaboration and expertise transfer in e-Infrastructures,
     most of all in what relates to tacit differences between fields and
     specialisations. Formal and informal communication of strategic
     objectives and associated governance mechanisms would also contribute
     to problems currently encountered.
     Relational mechanisms such as direct informal contacts, common
     locations and ``virtual meeting points'', lobbying, joint performance
     incentives, shared learning or more formal senior management
     involvement as mobilised in \ac{it} governance (see
     Chapter~\ref{chapter:3}) might prove helpful in collaboration and
     expertise transfer in \ei{}s, most of all in what relates to tacit
     differences between fields and specialisations. Formal and informal
     communication of strategic objectives and associated governance
     mechanisms would also contribute to problems currently encountered.
     \subsection {\ac{eric}}
     Governance lessons from business and managerial areas might contribute
     to e-Infrastructure governance. However, more issues remain to be
     to \ei{} governance. However, more issues remain to be
     solved, such as the inadequacy of legal frameworks for
     e-Infrastructures, which has an impact on governance, among other
     \ei{}s, which has an impact on governance, among other
     things.
     Different European legal forms for e-Infrastructures have been
     Different European legal forms for \ei{}s have been
     discussed in the first e-IRGSP2 Legal Issues Report \cite{SP2ReportA}.
     Among these the~\ac{eric} model has been described as a legal
     instrument to facilitate the establishment and operation of
     e-Infrastructures in Europe. Together with specifying a legal
     \ei{}s in Europe. Together with specifying a legal
     personality and tax benefits, \ac{eric} also includes provisions for
     e-Infrastructure governance. A significant amount of flexibility and
     \ei{} governance. A significant amount of flexibility and
     adaptability is provided to respond to the needs of European
     e-Infrastructures. In terms of internal governance, the creation of
     \ei{}s. In terms of internal governance, the creation of
     only two bodies is mandatory~ \cite{SP2ReportA, Thies2009}:
     \begin{itemize}
     \item the members' assembly with full
     decision-making rights, also with regards to budget decisions,
     \item the
     director or board of directors, which would be appointed by the
     assembly of members to legally represent the e-Infrastructure and
     assembly of members to legally represent the \ei{} and
     function as its executive body.
     \end{itemize}
     Although these two governing bodies seem to impose a centralised form
     to e-Infrastructure governance, their actual implementation and
     to \ei{} governance, their actual implementation and
     complementation with other structures and mechanisms in different
     layers would determine the final result.
     According to the eResearch2020 report, \ac{eric} does not address all
     obstacles and is primarily suited to non-commercial entities.
     Therefore the authors recommend further policy development to overcome
     The authors recommend further policy development to overcome
     remaining issues. How the legal framework will be adopted and in what
     ways it will work in practice to enforce governance arrangements still
     remains to be seen.
     \section{Conclusion}
     This Chapter presents e-Infrastructure governance as discussed in the
     e-Infrastructure community and draws on IT governance literature to
     This Chapter presented \ei{} governance as discussed in the
     \ei{} community and drew on \ac{it} governance literature to
     find parallel developments and divergence regarding the adoption of
     appropriate forms and the mobilization of relevant mechanisms.
     Although the IT governance field can provide e-Infrastructure
     Although the \ac{it} governance field can provide \ei{}
     governance with useful ideas, these may not be directly applicable but
     require contextualisation and adaptation in different cases. The
     nature of e-Infrastructures and their technical and organisational
     nature of \ei{}s and their technical and organisational
     characteristics may diverge from more clearly delineated internal
     organisational IT systems. However, it should be noted that the
     literature on IT governance also refers to and derives from empirical
     organisational \ac{it} systems. However, it should be noted that the
     literature on \ac{it} governance also refers to and derives from empirical
     data and research in multinational conglomerates and business
     ecosystems that might present more similarities with
     e-Infrastructures. As in the case of different companies where the
     \ei{}s. As in the case of different companies where the
     same governance model or mechanism may bring opposite outcomes when
     implemented in different contexts, specific e-Infrastructures need to
     implemented in different contexts, specific \ei{}s need to
     find appropriate solutions that work within their own domain of
     opportunities and limitations, while realising that governance
     arrangements and needs are not static but evolve and grow. Towards the
     effort for effective e-Infrastructure governance, the IT literature
     effort for effective \ei{} governance, the \ac{it} literature
     contributes its emphasis on the importance of clear and coherent
     planning, while at the same time providing a wealth of previous
     experience on forms and mechanisms to draw on.
     experience on forms and mechanisms to draw upon.
     %%% Local Variables:
     %%% mode: latex

     \usepackage{url}
     \usepackage{graphicx}
     \usepackage{hyphenat}
     \usepackage{tikz}
     \usetikzlibrary{positioning,shapes,shadows,arrows}
     \hyphenation{e-In-fra-stru-ctu-re e-In-fra-stru-ctu-res}
     \begin{document}
     \tikzstyle{default}=[rectangle, draw=black, rounded corners,
     fill=blue!40, drop shadow, text centered, anchor=north, text=white,
     text width=3cm]
     \tikzstyle{dark}=[rectangle, draw=black, rounded corners,
     fill=blue!80, drop shadow, text centered, anchor=north, text=white,
     text width=3cm]
     \tikzstyle{cyl}=[cylinder, shape border rotate=90, shape aspect=0.2, draw=black, rounded corners,
     fill=blue!40, drop shadow, text centered, anchor=north, text=white,
     text width=3cm]
     \tikzstyle{line} = [draw, -latex']
     \newcommand{\ei}{e\hyp{}Infrastructure}
     \renewcommand*{\acsfont}[1]{{\sc #1}}
-...
     \acrodef{na}{Networking Activity}
     \acrodefplural{na}{Networking Activities}
     \acrodef{c3grid}[c3{\rm grid}]{Collaborative Climate Community Data and Processing Grid}
     \acrodef{d4science}[d4s{\rm science}]{Distributed Collaboratories Infrastructure on Grid Enabled Technology 4 Science}
     \acrodef{d4science}[d4S{\rm cience}]{Distributed Collaboratories Infrastructure on Grid Enabled Technology 4 Science}
     \acrodef{driver}{Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research}
     \acrodef{eela-2}{E-science Grid facility for Europe and Latin America}
     \acrodef{etsf}{European Theoretical Spectroscopy Facility}

Also available in: Unified diff