\chapter{e-Infrastructure 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
governance. 


\section{e-Infrastructure Governance}

e-Infrastructure governance has been discussed in the 7th
e-Infrastructure 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
has been fragmented around legal frameworks, financial investment,
management, data ownership and decision-making \cite{Potts}. It is
further associated to transparency and accountability in resource
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
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
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.

\section{Actors and Proposed e-Infrastructure Governance Models}

There seems to be general consensus regarding the actors involved in
e-Infrastructure 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
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
structure, the Executive Board consists of members from all three
groups and retains the responsibility for daily operations and
implementation, supported by a project team and an International
Advisory Board \cite{PARADE}.

(PARADE proposed governance structure here)

During the 7th e-Infrastructure Concertation Meeting, three governance
models were proposed, distinguishing between different types of
e-Infrastructures: \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} :

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\caption{Proposed governance models for 3 communities} 
\label{tab:3communities}
    \begin{tabular}{ | p{2,5cm} | p{2,5cm} | p{2,5cm} | p{2,5cm} |}
      \hline
      & National \acp{nren}s & Grids/clouds & \ac{hpc} facilities \\ \hline
      Investment & National & Facility operator & Public grants, public/private partnerships \\ \hline
      Technology choices & Coordination bodies & Facility operator & Facility operator (mandate from the community, less general purpose) \\ \hline
      Access to the resources & Negotiation with contractual institutions & Voucher system & Community (peer review), facility operator for the implementation \\ \hline
      Interoperability & Maximal, Transnational coordination & Professional: Accreditation through standardizing bodies, SLAs & Not more than required by scientific needs \\ \hline
    \end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{figure}


At a national level, the UK Research Councils' report on
e-Infrastructures 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
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
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
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
that focuses on internal governance arrangements. Other national
programmes of interest include the Dutch e-Infrastructure programme
and the legal framework developed in Germany \cite{Dutch, Dutch2,
  Karagiannis}.

\section{e-Infrastructure 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
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
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},
  \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
  standardisation organisation.}

Similarly to the IT governance literature, it is recognized that the
diversity of e-Infrastructures 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.

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 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
were also encountered as in the case of \ac{ogf}, TeraGrid, and
\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
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.



\subsection{Governance Mechanisms}

Explicit identification of formal and informal governance mechanisms
employed in e-Infrastructures 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
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}.

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.

With regards to internal project communication, the eResearch2020
project 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}. 

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
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
attention to these issues \cite{eResearch2020}. Moreover, there are
challenges in intra- and inter-disciplinary collaboration between
developers and users, between actors in different research areas, or
even between developers in different domains \cite{Barjak,
  eResearch2020}.

Related to external communication is the process of user recruitment.
Although users determine the sustainability of e-Infrastructures, 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
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
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
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.

External communication is also taking place between different
e-Infrastructures which 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
\acp{nren} and with the responsibles for the equivalent
e-Infrastructures outside of Europe to ensure a harmonised,
interoperable evolution of the networks, management and monitoring
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
standardisation work evolves in parallel or competing areas.
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).
However, provider interoperability is not always feasible through such
mechanisms. In cases where e-Infrastructures 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}.

\subsection{Drivers of e-Infrastructure Governance Forms}

As criteria on e-Infrastructure 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
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.

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
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.

\subsection{Further Similarities and Differences}

When Weill and Ross discuss governance arrangements in governmental
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}.

Funding sources are inextricably linked to e-Infrastructure 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
national systems and networks, which might already be centrally
controlled. Other points raised include the need to emphasise on
return on investment, especially when commercial involvement is
desirable~\cite{ConcertationReport}.

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}:

\begin{itemize}

\item making joint user and technical decisions around
  e-Infrastructure principles and investment

\item viewing e-Infrastructure decisions as strategic decisions and

\item avoiding feudal, autonomous decentralising models for research
  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.

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.

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.

\subsection {\ac{eric}}

Governance lessons from business and managerial areas might contribute
to e-Infrastructure 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
things.

Different European legal forms for e-Infrastructures 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
personality and tax benefits, \ac{eric} also includes provisions for
e-Infrastructure 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
same governance model or mechanism may bring opposite outcomes when
implemented in different contexts, specific e-Infrastructures 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
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.

%%% Local Variables: 
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: "governance"
%%% End: 
