egida project towards a sustainable geoss: the egida methodology and its assessment
DESCRIPTION
EGIDA Project Towards a sustainable GEOSS: the EGIDA methodology and its assessment P. Mazzetti (CNR-IIA). Outline. EGIDA Methodology objectives and structure Design process Assessment process and overview of results Conclusions and next steps. the egida methodology. Rationale. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
EGIDA Project
Towards a sustainable GEOSS:the EGIDA methodology and its assessment
P. Mazzetti (CNR-IIA)
Outline
• EGIDA Methodology objectives and structure
• Design process
• Assessment process and overview of results
• Conclusions and next steps
THE EGIDA METHODOLOGY
Rationale
The GEO provides a general framework for the GEOSS implementation, e.g. through the GEO Workplan and GEO Boards activities. However, due to its voluntary-based approach, GEO does not directly fund its activities and must leverage members’ efforts.
There are on-going and planned initiatives funded in the context of national and regional projects which contribute or might contribute to the GEOSS implementation (e.g. FP7 projects).
GEOSSGEOSS
Top-down Top-down actionsactions
Bottom-up Bottom-up actionsactions
Objective
• The FP7 EGIDA project aimed to combine the top-down approach from GEO (GEO STC Roadmap support) and the bottom-up approach from national/regional initiatives.
• The EGIDA Methodology consolidates the EGIDA project experience for future exploitation by defining a general methodological approach which can be adopted by national/regional S&T communities
Definition
• The EGIDA Methodology is a general methodological general methodological approachapproach for implementing a (re-)engineering process (re-)engineering process of the S&T national infrastructures and systems, which can be adopted by national/regional S&T communitiesnational/regional S&T communities, for a sustainable contribution to the GEOSS sustainable contribution to the GEOSS and relevant European initiatives based on a SoS approach, through the mobilization of resources mobilization of resources made available from the participation in national, European and international initiatives and projects.
DESIGN OF THE EGIDA METHODOLOGY
General approach for the design of the EGIDA Methodology
GEO Capacity Building StrategyGEO STC Roadmap
EGIDA analysis of national and European initiativesEGIDA use-cases
EGIDA activities in support of GEO STC Roadmap
EGIDA Deliverable D4.2, D4.8
Structure
• The EGIDA Methodology is structured as a set of guidelines for activities aligning the on-going and planned national/regional actions with the GEOSS objectives, addressing:– Technical Activities for:
• Capacity building (System-of-Systems Engineering, lowering entry barriers,…) according to a SoS (re-)engineering process
– Networking Activities• National/Regional S&T communities engagement• Sustainability
Activities in the EGIDA Methodology
Document structure
Section
Activity
Sub-ActivityDescription
Example box
ASSESSMENT OF THE EGIDA METHODOLOGY
Assessment: use-cases (1/2)
1. “Hot-spot pollution in the Mediterranean” [S. Cinnirella, CNR-IIA]– EM transfer in a FP7 project (Knowseas)– regional, involving developing countries, thematic;
2. “Mediterranean region” [N. Bonora, ISPRA]– EM transfer the context of regional initiatives
(UNEP-MAP/InfoRAC, ENPI/South - SEIS) – regional, involving developing countries, multi-thematic;
3. “Air Quality for Health” [A. Vik, NILU]– EM transfer in a network of European projects– pan-European, thematic;
Assessment: use-cases (1/2)
4. “Slovenia” [S. Lojen, IJS] – EM transfer in a small country– national, multi-thematic (then focused on hazards in the Soça
catchment);
5. “GEO-Spain” [J. Maso, CREAF]– EM transfer for restarting a national GEO initiative– national, multi-thematic
Evaluation and Assessment of the EGIDA Methodology in the five use-cases
Event, - Place, Dte
Assessment results: general outcomes
• Positive feedbacks– The five use-cases were in general able to demonstrate the
feasibility of the EGIDA Methodology transfer in a set of very different contexts.
– This implicitly demonstrates the validity of the EGIDA Methodology idea, approach and current implementation.
– Some of the use-case reports, explicitly confirm this, highlighting its flexibility
“methodology proved to be a useful general methodological approach, which can easily be adopted or amended regarding the specific needs of a topical use case” [“Slovenia” use case report].
Assessment results: general outcomes
• Negative feedbacks– Need of more balance between activities.
• Indeed the first version did not include results from the second year of activities in the EGIDA Project
– Need to improve clarity• Indeed the EGIDA Methodology is currently described in a project
deliverable with all its constraints. Other layouts investigated (book, web site)
“A more user friendly lay-out of the document may be helpful in this respect” [“Air Quality for Health” use case report].
Assessment results
• Assessment reports include:– Suggestions on the most critical actions in the process– Requests for more guidelines on some actions – Proposal of new guidelines based on use-case activities proven
to be effective;– Feedbacks on which actions/sub-actions/guidelines aspects
should be stressed and highlighted
• All the suggestions fit in the existing actions/sub-actions structure– No need for revising the current EGIDA Methodology structure,
just modifying/adding new guidelines and good practices
Assessment results
• Many approaches tested and proposed– study the national legal
framework and the national R&D funding system;
– mobilize project groups, professional and technical associations in search for potential stakeholders;
– study the national approach to NSDI (e.g. for INSPIRE);
– explore the national participation in GEO European projects;
• Collaboration with international initiatives to be stressed.
Assessment results
• A general lack of awareness of GEO/GEOSS initiative and/or benefits has been found.
• Sometimes this depends on a more general lack of awareness in the data sharing and interoperability issues.
Assessment results
• Personal contacts found to be effective
“personal communication proved to be the most efficient in the first phases of the networking process, in particular in activities of identification of stakeholders and motivating them to participate in the network”
“clearly recommend the personal contact as the most effective way to get people involved”.
Assessment results
• One of the most cited points
“a comprehensive list of recommended ways how to assure a long term funding for a sustainable re-engineering process should be compiled and possibly included in the methodology”.
“A national/international central coordination point like the national GEO secretariats could be a first step towards organising a sustainable GEOSS contribution, which especially means supporting the search for funding.”
Assessment results
• Involvement of personnel with skill and interest in IT needed
• Need of suggestions on how to overcome common legal barriers
– International legal frameworks to be considered
– Embargo period for scientific publications
• Economical barriers are common
– To fund efforts to provide metadata
Assessment results
• Concerns expressed about:– Metadata and data
standards adoption– Contribution to multiple
data sharing initiatives
• Links back to the lack of awareness on interoperability solution and GEOSS architecture– SoS and brokering
approach
TA.4•Implementation of the system
Conclusion and next steps
• The EGIDA Project released a first version of the EGIDA Methodology in November 2011
• In 2012 the EM was evaluated in the context of five different use-cases
• Feedbacks have been collected and elaborated, and a final improved version of the EGIDA Methodology will be released in December 2012
• Different ways to publish and disseminate the EGIDA Methodology will be investigated
EGIDA Project
http://www.egida-project.eu
Event, - Place, Dte
BACKUP SLIDES
THE DESIGN PROCESS
Design of the EGIDA Methodology
D3.D3.44
EGIDA EGIDA MethodoloMethodolo
gygy
THE EGIDA METHODOLOGY
By typology:•Research•Industry•Public Administrations•Citizens•Standardization Bodies•Experts•Other prgrammes/initiatives
By role:• (Intermediate and final) Users•Information Providers•Technology Providers•Advisors
By scope:•Priority setting•User Requirements identification and refinement•Assessment and validation through the running of pilot projects and case studies•Consultation on specific issues (e.g. interoperability)•Exploitation•Sustainability
Selection of relevant stakeholdersHow to address/engage them
Build on the outcomes of activities to “Show GEOSS at work “ (Activity 2d)
GEOSS PortfolioOther Compelling examplesPossibly post-poned after the first TAs
Strongly depending on the type of initiative:
•Workshops•Mailing –lists•…
Mobilization of resources from relevant on-going initiatives
Addressing national and supranational fundings
Build on the outcomes of activities to “Catalyze research and development resources” (Activity 2g)
Governance of the (re-) engineering actionsIntegration of top-down and bottom-up approaches
Internal structuring of the working groups
Identification of relevant themes•Data policy
Barriers to information sharing:•Behavioral•Legal•Economical•Technical
Re-engineering of existing systems
Identify what is missing:•Infrastructures•Resources
Re-use approach
A portal provides visibility to the initiative
Usually there is no objection to metadata sharingOpen tools/specifications availableVisibility to the initiative
As for the catalog
Lack of data policies often considered a barrier to resource sharing
If the policy is clear the deployment of access services is straightforward
MediationProcessingWorkflow…
Evaluate and assess the result of the (re-) engineering process for refinement
Interoperability testsRegistration of components