diff -r cf9ba51361fd -r be66d105f0cb chapter3.tex
--- a/chapter3.tex
+++ b/chapter3.tex
@@ -268,21 +268,6 @@
 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
diff -r cf9ba51361fd -r be66d105f0cb chapter4.tex
--- a/chapter4.tex
+++ b/chapter4.tex
@@ -1,18 +1,43 @@
-\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
@@ -22,23 +47,23 @@
 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
@@ -47,15 +72,52 @@
 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}
@@ -74,150 +136,152 @@
 
 
 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 ÔflatÕ 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
@@ -228,34 +292,33 @@
   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
@@ -263,57 +326,57 @@
 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}
 
@@ -321,12 +384,13 @@
 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
@@ -338,118 +402,122 @@
 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
diff -r cf9ba51361fd -r be66d105f0cb governance.tex
--- a/governance.tex
+++ b/governance.tex
@@ -6,11 +6,24 @@
 \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}}
@@ -41,7 +54,7 @@
 \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}
