Options for Coordinating Digital Research Infrastructure in Canada Leadership Council for Digital Research Infrastructure June 2017 Summit

Purpose of presentation: To provide an overview of: the gaps and challenges in the coordination of the DRI ecosystem – “what are the problems?” “what does success look like?” - criteria guiding the development of optimal coordination models Proposed DRI ecosystem coordination models

Process used to develop coordination options: Review of background materials: review of all past LCDRI reports prepared for the 2012 and 2014 Summit background papers prepared for LCDRI A web-based review of public administration literature concerning innovative governance with a focus on coordination of digital research infrastructure A web-based review of DRI coordination in Australia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Netherlands and a cursory review of the US. Held seven teleconference discussions, with participation by 16 DRI ecosystem stakeholders, to seek their input to key questions, including: What are the current gaps in the DRI ecosystem? With a focus on outcomes, what could be described as future success for researchers, the government, other DRI stakeholders, and others? Should the private sector participate in the DRI ecosystem? How? What key aspects for DRI coordination would need to be considered for global connectivity? What principles would underlay the development of optimal coordination options?

Key Themes Identified in Jurisdictional Scan There does not appear to be one existing coordinated approach which could be adapted to the Canadian DRI ecosystem; however, the jurisdictions reviewed do offer innovative approaches Overall policy direction and strategy comes from government Jurisdictions are taking a researcher-centric approach; seeking streaming of services for the researcher Need for collaboration and coordination recognized by the jurisdictions; decentralized approaches are being explored based on foundation of formal collaboration and funding agreements across organizations Need for new approaches to manage system recognized by all Some overlap and duplication acceptable, if coordinated

What are the problems from the stakeholder perspective? Lack of clarity around leadership, roles and responsibilities: Plans and policies are not co-ordinated ; lack of leadership to be effective in the long term. In complex ecosystem with multiple organizations, clear descriptions of workflows, roles and responsibilities is lacking. Lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities within and between jurisdictions (local, provincial, federal). Lack of long term planning, goals, objectives Policy framework, strategy and action plan are lacking Lack of follow-through and leadership (e.g. implementing policy of open access). Fragmented approaches to solutions: ecosystem members approach problems from many angles, delivering solutions which are not aligned Capacity does not exist within government to deliver DRI: Government strength is strategic leadership, policy development and provision of funding Need to clarify private sector participation Roles and responsibility for the private sector participation at “a table” Overlapping jurisdictions; lack of communication: Some overlap may be acceptable; for two organizations to work on different angles of an issue, they should be in conversation, to avoid duplication and to prevent missed opportunities. Stronger connection to researchers needed: Researchers and DRI ecosystem stakeholders do not have sufficient or equal input into the ecosystem No common understanding of the scope of DRI ecosystem: little attention to data as part of “infrastructure” ;need for enhanced research data management infrastructure at the systems level. A clearer understanding of the management and administration of data is needed. Funding of DRI inadequate and uneven

Summary of Key Themes from Stakeholder Interviews & Jurisdictional Scan Optimal coordination model would be: a federated model. A single DRI organization of all ecosystem participants would not be practical or desirable researcher-centric. Seamless support for researcher – data is findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable respectful of governance constructs of individual ecosystem participants Government’s role is strategic direction, leadership, policy, funding: limited expertise and capacity within government/ funding organizations to lead complex parts of DRI ecosystem A focussed DRI vision, strategy and implementation plan is needed at a systems level.

What are the success factors? Based on the identification of gaps, challenges, the learnings from the interjurisdictional review and criteria of collaborative governance, five success factors are proposed for the optimal DRI coordination: Increased clarity in leadership, strategic planning, roles & responsibilities Enhanced collaboration, coordination, communication, culture change, elimination of unnecessary overlap Researcher–centric approach The opportunity for all key stakeholders to formally participate The opportunity for the private sector to be at "a" table recognizing the private sector could have multiple roles: innovator, supplier, partner Processes and mechanisms to ensure strong global connections to the digital research ecosystem

The proposed DRI ecosystem models are built on collaborative governance principles applies foundational principles of good governance -- accountable; transparent; responsive; equitable and inclusive; participatory; effective and efficient. is a governing arrangement which: aims to make or implement public policy or manage programs or assets to further public interest. is, as defined in the literature and with reference to successful implementation, based on  all stakeholders participating who are needed to successfully deliver on the public policy issue (e.g. the private sector and/or other non-governmental actors , who would be engaged in in decision-making, not merely consulted) applies a decision-making process with all stakeholders that is formal, consensus-oriented and deliberative Collaborative governance is not: a cooperative network in which organizations and/or stakeholders informally cooperate and share information. A P3 arrangement, which is traditionally used for the government and the private sector to come together to provide the public with good infrastructure and meet other community needs.

What drives jurisdictions to use collaborative governance? The public sector is being challenged to manage and lead in a world of shared power due to, e.g.: pressures of globalisation and increased technological sophistication; the growing preference for and greater reliance on service providers external to government, and management of those relationships; capacity issues inside government agencies and the changing composition and skills base of the public sector Interdependence combined with complexity and need to be nimble: the government alone is unable to accomplish or achieve the policy/ program outcomes formalized roles and responsibilities the government, private sector and stakeholders need to formally work together the need to adapt quickly, and deliver (e.g. Information technology, big data)

What was the process to build the DRI ecosystem coordination models? 2....add in learnings from jurisdictional review, and review of best practices governance 4....add on collaborative governance criteria....formally organized; non-government participants included & engaged in decision making and are not merely ‘‘consulted’’ ; consensus based decisions Three proposed DRI ecosystem coordination models 1. Begin with input from LCDRI stakeholder interviews, and review of LCDRI materials 3. ...apply principles of good public sector governance.... accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable and inclusive, participatory, effective and efficient 5...apply success factors

OPTION 1: Establish a DRI Deputy Minister Coordinating Committee reporting to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Success factors: gov’t strategic role focused processes aligned federal DRI funding clarity in high level strategic direction collaboration governance of individual members maintained ..however: internal to gov’t; DRI may not get the attention it deserves ecosystem members involved but not included in structure; institutions, provinces not represented directly partial collaborative culture change focus on research-centric approach possible only through strategy development global connection through DRI members MANDATE for: strategic DRI leadership: by involving all DRI ecosystem participants, develop and implement a Digital Research Infrastructure Strategy, and ,where appropriate, ensure alignment with other key strategies relating to science, innovation and the digital economy driving collaborative governance : ensure clear roles and responsibilities, and clear procedures for consensus-based decisions making are developed and implemented for all DRI ecosystem players implementing a coordinated DRI ecosystem: develop and implement strategic policies to guide the efficient, coherent, coordinated and complementary approach to delivering on the strategy (including all DRI players external and internal to government), reduce duplication, and consider operational matters, e.g., ,appropriate funding for various DRI ecosystem functions; adequate overall funding for DRI, ongoing DRI ecosystem stakeholder engagement MEMBERSHIP & ACCOUNTABILITY : DM-ISED, DM-Health and Chief Science Advisor Accountable to ISED Minister, the federal lead for strategic, policy and funding DRI, and for the development of a science and innovation strategy  

OPTION 2: Establish an arms-length Digital Research Infrastructure transfer payment NFP Corporation to enable decision making, chaired by a highly respected and innovative leader Success factors: gov’t strategic role focused processes aligned DRI funding clarity in direction integration governance of individual members maintained all DRI ecosystem members involved can drive collaborative culture focus on research-centric approach possible researchers represented directly can represent DRI globally ...however: can perceived as additional bureaucracy collaborative governance difficult to implement and sustain MANDATE for: Advising the Minister, ISED: on all matters relating to DRI ecosystem priorities, coordination, and funding, including, e.g. policies or legislation necessary to enable the DRI ecosystem participants to achieve long-term sustainable success; appropriate funding allocations for all parts of the DRI ecosystem Leadership of the DRI ecosystem: to develop a DRI strategy, with a researcher-centric perspective to drive effective DRI ecosystem collaboration by facilitating a consensus based, collaborative process to ensure efficient and effective coordination and alignment of all aspects of DRI ecosystem of operational and business planning, with involvement of the researchers, institutions, and regions, ensuring alignment of funding in support of those plans. to establish and implement processes to monitor outcomes and success Providing DRI ecosystem input to the National Advisory Council on Research and Innovation (NACRI), or the Four Agency Coordinating Board, if applicable, or other government body on matters relating to the DRI ecosystem in the context of the broader science and innovation ecosystem Representing the Canadian DRI ecosystem internationally: in order to best meet the strategic objectives of the DRI ecosystem strategy Public reporting: as determined in consultation with ISED to report on outcomes achieved through the DRI infrastructure funding MEMBERSHIP & ACCOUNTABILITY: Corporation Board of Directors would include the Chairs of the Boards from each of TC3 +, Compute Canada, CANARIE, CFI, key DRI ecosystem associations, representative(s) of the Vice-Presidents of Research and private sector DRI experts; Observers: DM- ISED, DM-Health, Chief Science Advisor (others as needed)

OPTION 3: Expand the mandate of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation to supplement funding research infrastructure to include coordination of DRI ecosystem MANDATE for: As an arm’s-length, non-profit corporation, the current CFI mandate is to increase the capability of Canada’s postsecondary institutions, research hospitals, and non-profit research organization by investing in research infrastructure. The expanded mandate would include: Leading DRI strategy: leading the development and implementation of a researcher-centric DRI strategic and operational planning Driving collaborative governance: ensure efficient and effective coordination of all funding allocated to the DRI ecosystem, resources and ecosystem towards delivery of the DRI Strategy in support of the government science and innovation strategies, with a focus on eliminating duplication/overlap. MEMBERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY CFI Board would be expanded to include broader representation of DRI Ecosystem players Would make recommendation to Minister, ISED, who would retain the responsibility and authority to make DRI ecosystem higher level policy decisions Success factors: focused processes clarity in direction governance of individual members maintained focus on research-centric approach possible expertise to lead ...however: needs very high level of collaboration, trust, among all members to collaborate influence and persuasion used to drive collaboration gov’t strategic role DRI private sector not at “the table” can perceived as additional bureaucracy global connection through individual members

Considerations Sustaining the momentum for collaboration is fundamental for success. For collaborative governance to be successful there needs to be strong support from the Government and buy-in for this arrangement from all the ecosystem participants. Better research funding alignment with provision of DRI is critical for ecosystem success. The need for better planning of funding to support DRI ecosystem, the unequal role of provincial and federal funding sources, and the need for longer term commitment to DRI are important considerations. Some of these concerns have been identified in the 2017 Fundamental Science Review Report. Links would need to be established between the DRI ecosystem governance model and the National Advisory Committee on Research and Innovation and with the Chief Science Advisor (2017 Science Review Report) Consideration of the 2017 Science Review Report recommended merged organization (provided with long-term funding and a mandate to lead in developing a national DRI strategy). Each of the three DRI ecosystem governance options includes provision of strategic leadership for all elements of the DRI ecosystem. It is important to note that a review of jurisdictions for this report found that there is a move towards collaborative governance for the DRI ecosystem. Consideration needs to be given as to the ability of such a merged organization to meet the principles set out by the ecosystem participants interviewed for this project, e.g. the ability of the DRI ecosystem governance to be agile, responsive to user needs, focused on rapid and efficient service delivery Appropriate role, extent of private sector representation and participation needs to be carefully considered. Private sector roles include service provider, innovator, research partner. Implications on strategy development, operational policy, security and privacy needs to be carefully considered.