the earnest foresight study 2006 - 2007 organisational & governance study robin g. arak archway...

The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

Organisational & Governance Study

Robin G. ArakArchway Computer Associates Ltd

Bratislava27 April 2007


Aims of the Study

To investigate what issues need to be addressed in the organisation and governance domain and to suggest ways in which the organisation and governance models for European research and education networking can be developed so that the service aspirations of the entire research and education communities in Europe and beyond can be met.– Move away from just “best efforts” services– Effective delivery of end to end services across

multiple domains– Automatic end user provisioning of end to end

services


Aims of the Study

• The funding and charging models and funding levels used by the different organisations in the chain of delivery of network services

• The level of autonomy that the various individual network organisations (NREN organisations, regional network operators, universities, colleges and research institutions) wish to maintain in deciding on the standards that they will adopt and the methods used to implement and support their network services.

• The variability of network support and service availability in different network domains.

• The variability of network performance in different network domains and the methods by which performance issues can be and are addressed.


Aims of the Study

• The variability of the policies in situ for the provisioning of services that can support end-to-end services. e.g. VPN

• The differing attitudes of NREN organisations and user groups to the self-provisioning of networking, not following current models. e.g. use of cross border fibre

• The way in which NREN organisations support projects that need "special" facilities or arrangements when projects are:

• Within their own NREN domain• Span multiple NRENs

• The arrangements that NREN organisations have for communicating with their user base, particularly with those users that may require specialised services, some of which may rely on guaranteed end-to-end services.


Questionnaire

• Sent out to 45 NRENs or emerging NRENs• Responses received from 31

– Responses very variable– Not all questions answered– Good sample of different NRENs

•Small & large•From different parts of Europe &

beyond


Questionnaire Results

Examples of results• Q12 Future funding for GÉANT

a) Like now through 50% DG-INFSO (18 responses)

d) Through 50% E.C. Infrastructure funding (2 responses)

a+d – (2 responses)Suggestion that dependency on E.C. funding should be reduced?



Q13 How is your NREN governed?Very different models but 3 most common models:– Legal entity controlled by stakeholder

committee 11– Part of a government department with

stakeholder committee 6– Not a government department but

controlled by government department 5


Questionnaire Results –Representation Q14

Type of institution YES NO None

14a Universities 25 6 0

14a Research institutions 18 11 2

14a Tertiary/professional 8 11 12

14a Primary/secondary schools 5 12 14

14a Government departments 12 8 11

14a Health service 5 11 15

14a Commercial organisations with links to R&E 0 8 23

14a Commercial organisations with no links to R&E 0 3 28

14a Other 2 4 25



Q15 Policy development & agreementa) Developed and agreed by NREN organisation

management team (11)b) Developed and agreed by the NREN organisation

management team and the management committee of the NREN’s organisation legal entity e.g. the “board” of the legal entity. (9)

c) Developed by NREN management team and the management committee of the NREN’s organisation legal entity and agreed by a committee representing universities and research institutions (9)

d) Developed and agreed by a committee representing universities and research institutions (2)

e) Developed and agreed by the government department of education or research

f) None of the above (3)



Q16 Technical policy development & agreement

a) Developed and agreed by NREN management team (20)

b) Developed by NREN management team and agreed by a committee representing universities and research institutions (10)

c) Developed and agreed by a committee representing universities and research institutions (1)

d) Developed and agreed by the government department of education or research



Q17 & Q18 Decision to connect new user types (20 Yes 11 No)

a) The NREN senior management team can make the decision 7 (6)b) The NREN governing body e.g. the legal entity governing body or

committee 2 (8)c) The NREN has to seek approval from the government to make the

decision 0 (6)d) The NREN has to seek approval from its existing education and research

user base to make the decision by consulting with a representative committee 0 (0)

e) The NREN has to seek approval from all the organisations that currently provide funding to the NREN to provide the network and the network services 0 (1)

f) The decision process could be made quickly 1 (7)g) The decision process will take a long time because of a long

consultation process 0 (2)h) The decision process will take a long time because the body that has

the power to take the decision generally is slow at taking decisions 1 (2)

i) The national telecommunications regulator has to be involved in the decision to connect new types of user institution outside those involving education and research. 0 (1)



Q19 Delivery to SLA?a) YES 5b) NO there is no defined service levels at all. 3c) NO there is no formal service level agreement but

“best efforts” are made to deliver a reliable service. 23

– by the organisations providing funding for the network 0

– by negotiations with the connected institutions or a group representing the connected institutions and their end users 3

– by none of the above 2(i) NREN management team with user guidance (ii) technical standards obtained from basic components



Q20 NREN liaison with pan-European Networking

a) The NREN fully participates in the development and setting of policies at a European level and implements the agreed and recommended policies. 6

b) The NREN participates in the development and setting of policies at a European level and implements the agreed and recommended policies only when these policies are in-line with the existing or future policies of the NREN or government. 9

c) The NREN participates in the development and setting of policies at a European level and implements the agreed and recommended policies only when these policies are in-line with the existing NREN or government policies. 1

d) The NREN monitors European policy setting and does generally not implement European policies unless they have a direct relevance to networking services in existing use on the NREN.) 7



Q24 Responsibility for end-to-end service set upa) NREN staff 11b) Outsourced to a commercial company 3c) Combination of both NREN staff and outsourced 2d) Provided by institution staff from universities and research

establishments 3e) Combination of NREN staff and institution staff from universities

and research establishments. 14f) Provided by a lead institution(s) responsible for supporting the

NRENg) Totally automated under the control of the NREN organisationh) Totally automated with devolution of control to end institutions

within a policy framework set by the NREN organisationi) Totally automated with devolution of control to nominated end

users within institutions within a policy framework set by the NREN organisation



Q25 Self Provisioning Plans (VPN)a) Technical staff responsible for the network

in a university/college/research institution 9

b) General information technology support staff of the university/college/research establishment 0

c) Trained end users 2d) Any end users 2e) No plans 18f) Already doing it 1



Q26 Self Provisioning Plans (QoS)a) Technical staff responsible for the network

in a university/college/research institution 5

b) General information technology support staff of the university/college/research establishment 0

c) Trained end users 1d) Any end users 2e) No plans 22f) Already doing it



Q27 Funding for special projectsa) When an NREN organisation is not funded to support a

special project the organisations running the special project should be allowed to acquire and run their own networking services. 17

b) When an NREN organisation could be funded to support and is technically able to support networking services required for special projects the NREN should always be offered the option to do so. 22

c) Using alternative arrangements to the use of GEANT when developing pan-European collaboration projects or links to other countries NRENs when more cost effective. 14

d) Using alternative arrangements to the use of GEANT when developing pan-European collaboration projects or links to other countries NRENs when costs of the alternative arrangements are similar to those for using GEANT. 7

e) Using alternative arrangements to the use of GEANT when developing pan-European collaboration projects or links to other countries NRENs when costs of the alternative arrangements are higher than those for using GEANT. 5



Q28 Technical support for special projects in the NREN28 YES 3 NO

a) A project team with NREN staff and the user community staff is set up to manage the project 15

b) Informal dialogue with the user community staff takes place. 15

c) Other arrangements are put in place 6



Q28b Funding for special projects within the NREN

a) The user community who benefits by the project pays 8

b) The NREN and user community (benefiting by the project) pay 8

c) The NREN pays 8d) All participants pay their own

expenses 7e) None of the above



Q29 Technical support for special projects (multiple NRENs)25 YES 6 NO

a) A project team with NREN staff and the user community staff is set up to manage the project 8

b) Informal dialogue with the user community staff takes place. 5

c) Other arrangements are put in place 11



Q29b Funding for special projects with multiple NRENs

a) The user community who benefits by the project pays 9

b) The NREN and user community (benefiting by the project) pay 6

c) The NREN pays 6d) All participants pay their own

expenses 3e) None of the above



Q30 Support for Wider strategic developments31 YES 0 NO

Examples:– Grid, identity management,

middleware, high performance computing, mobility, advanced applications, VoIP, video conferencing, e-Libraries, dynamic lightpath provisioning, information services for R&E



Conclusions so fara) All NRENs are involved in wider strategic developments b) The majority of NRENs who expressed an opinion want GEANT to be funded

using the current 50:50 model with the E.C.c) The most common governance model is a legal entity with stakeholder

committees (35%) or part of a government department (19%) or controlled by a government department (16%)

d) Most common method of developing and agreeing policy is by the NREN management team alone (35%) or ratified by the “board” of the legal entity.(29%) Others ratify policy through stakeholder committees. (29%)

e) Most common method of developing and agreeing technical policy is by the NREN management team alone (65%) or in agreement with a stakeholder committee (32%)

f) Most common method of deciding to connect new users is by the NREN management team with stakeholders (50%) or with the “board” and stakeholders (30%)

g) NRENs are involved in many projects other than just delivering “standard” network services.

h) Very few NRENs deliver to an agreed SLA. (16%)


Key Questions

• How can organisational arrangements and governance be improved so that end-to-end services can be effectively delivered across Europe & beyond?

– What two things would you do?

• Which governance model is likely to be most effective?


Organisational & Governance Study

• Thanks to those who filled in questionnaires

• Please send any further ideas and suggestions to:

[email protected]

the earnest foresight study 2006 - 2007 organisational & governance study robin g. arak archway...

Documents

network services

different organisations

nren management team

different models

different network domains

management committee

variability of network

provisioning of services