Alan Edwards European Commission 5 th GEO Project Workshop London, UK 8-9 February 2011 * The views expressed in these slides may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. The preparation of the Work Plan Management and funding of the WP*

Work Plan: Selected GENERAL GUIDELINES Build upon synergies across Societal Benefit Areas and cross-cutting areas; Improve the coordination of activities at both, sub-task and Overarching-Task level; Ensure the continuity of relevant activities; Realize the potential of Communities of Practice and Committees.

Work Plan: Mid-Term Evaluation Selected Recommendations GEO must investigate alternative models for sustained resource commitments from Members and Participating Organizations which are necessary for current and future operations GEOSS implementation in the short-term should be guided by an explicit approach linking activities and outputs of the GEO Work Plan to measurable, achievable objectives and Strategic Targets.

Work Plan: Mid-Term Evaluation Selected Key Findings Work Plan Overarching Tasks should align with GEOSS Strategic Targets. To enable structural gap identification, the GEOSS implementation approach should be transparent in how sub-tasks, Overarching Tasks, and Strategic Targets contribute to achieving the vision of GEOSS Stakeholders would like to see a reinvigorated priority given to: i.an increased focus on the end-user of GEOSS information, ii.more coordination between Members and Participating Organizations at the Societal Benefit Area and Task level, and iii.the development of a sustainable funding and resource model to support the GEOSS initiative

Work Plan: RECOMMENDATIONS from the GEO WORK PLAN SYMPOSIUM The development of the next Work Plan should involve the entire GEO community and aim at aligning Overarching Tasks and sub-tasks with Strategic Targets. People should be invited to think out of the box and make proposals for a Work Plan primarily aimed at achieving the Strategic Targets. In this context, one could think of giving implementation priority to selected Tasks deemed essential to reach specific Targets. The coordination role of Overarching Tasks should be improved.

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? The starting point for developing the Work Plan MUST BE the 2015 GEOSS Strategic Targets, which were adopted by the GEO-VI Plenary. These targets form the link between the negotiated text of the 10-Year Implementation Plan and the GEO Work Plan. In addition, they also connect to the framework for GEOSS monitoring and evaluation.

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Proposal: There should be one single "Strategic Target Task" (STT) for each Strategic Target* * An exception should be made for the Architecture and Data Targets. The work in these two areas is explicitly linked. Hence all transverse aspects of GEOSS Architecture & Data (A&D) should stay together and should include policies (data sharing), financial considerations for sustained operations, monitoring and reporting, gap analyses, etc.]

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Question Arising: Should the Strategic Targets be reviewed and where necessary updated?

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Proposal: A Management Board (MB) should oversee each STT A Strategic Target Task Management Board (STT-MB) should be established for each of the 13 Target Tasks, (i.e. 4 transverse STT-MBs and 9 SBA STT-MBs). Each STT-MB should be given the mandate to actively oversee the management and execution of a Strategic Target Task. By convening a STT-MB for each of the Strategic Targets, the implementation of the transverse and SBA Strategic Targets will be placed on the same footing,

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Proposal: Membership of each STT-MB should be limited and should include: –An overall Strategic Target Task Co-ordinator and Deputy, who would have responsibility for chairing the STT-MB; –The leader of each STT Work Package (see 3 below); –A member of the GEO Secretariat; –A designated liaison with the A&D STT-MB, noting that this could be a person from a) or b) above; –A designated liaison with the Capacity Building STT-MB, noting that this could be a person from a) or b) above; –A designated liaison with the Science & Technology STT-MB, noting that this could be a person from a) or b) above; –A designated liaison with the User Engagement STT-MB, noting that this could be a person from a) or b) above.

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Question Arising: Should each member of an STT-MB play an active role in the execution of the STT?

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Proposal: As a consequence of moving to this new structure, the current GEO Committees should be disbanded. Note: the efforts of the current GEO Committees will not be lost. Rather, the leadership role of the four existing Committees would be carried forward in the 4 Transverse STT-MBs.

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Proposal: The Strategic Target Task Co-ordinator and his/her Deputy must be fully resourced, i.e., they must be able to work full-time on the execution of the Strategic Target Task, and also have the resources available to them to support travel, organising meetings, etc. (If GEO is unable to provide even this basic level of support, then it will fail.)

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Proposal: Work Packages should be defined for each Target Task STT Work Packages should be defined, such that each "Strategic Target will be achieved through" the successful execution of various Work Packages that will contribute to the implementation of the overall single STT. Work Packages should be clearly defined, with the required actions set out, deliverables listed, milestones specified, etc.

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Proposal: For the SBAs, a generic Work Package structure should initially be adopted. 4 Work Packages could be foreseen for each SBA, along the following lines: –Observing capability –Data (Management) –Tools and Information Provision –Impact.

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Question Arising: Such a change in the structure of the Work Plan will involve a transition period. How can this be achieved so that it is: –a) kept short; –b) managed, with as much of the work as possible being done in advance?

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Proposal: A single Strategic Target Tasks Coordination Committee should be created. This would enable the various Strategic Target Task Co- ordinators to meet, exchange information and co-ordinate their work. The Work Plan Co-ordinator from the GEO Secretariat should sit on this Committee, together with the Chair and designated representatives of the M&E WG.

Work Plan: Is there a structure that can address ALL these points? Proposal: The Strategic Target Tasks Coordination Committee should be central to reporting, dissemination & engaging the GEO Community. There should be a Workshop open to the entire GEO Community – possibly in early Summer The Consideration could also be given to the Committee organising a full- day session the day before the Plenary, to present the work of the various Strategic Target Tasks to those attending Plenary. (This "info day" would not be officially part of Plenary, as it would be led by the Strategic Target Task Coordinators, not the Co-Chairs.)

Work Plan: A possible new structure for the GEO WP STT-MBs 9 SBAs STT-MBs 4 Transverse A&D, CB, S&T, User WP Data Mgmt WP Observing Capability WP Impact Strategic Target Tasks (STT*) Coordination Committee WP Tools & Info. STT = Strategic Target Task: 1 per Strategic Target - (except A&D) MB = Management Board WP = Work Package

Work Plan: A possible new structure for the GEO WP GEO Plenary Executive CommitteeM&E WG Strategic Target Tasks Coordination Committee To each meeting of EXCOM Annually to Plenary Regularly to the M&E WG

Is there any merit to these proposals? Conclusion