25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Discussion of CEOS Capacity, Priorities, and Decision-Making Processes Agenda Item 29 Timothy Stryker/CEO Kerry Sawyer/DCEO

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Overview Objective: CEOS adoption of a systematic and useable corporate decision-making process for new initiatives and proposals Topics Addressed –Initial CSS recommendations on CEOS strategic planning and decision- making –Possible decision-making criteria and processes for new initiatives and projects –Categorization and possible Agency-level cooperation and resource characterization for large-scale initiatives and smaller-scale projects

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 CEOS Self-Study Findings and Recommendations CEOS should maintain its ability to meeting its existing commitments Current ad hoc decision-making approach no longer suffices for CEOS A clear, fair, systematic and reliable mechanism is required to assist CEOS in determining which new initiatives/projects should be undertaken

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Strategic Plan Statement of CEOS’ Strategic Objectives Expression of CEOS’ short-, medium-, and long-term priorities Consideration/ranking of overarching CEOS themes –climate, carbon, Data Democracy, GCI, disasters, food/water security –possible linkages among them Framework for initiatives/tasks that are closely aligned with CEOS priorities –ongoing activities –new activities that augment an existing high-priority CEOS initiative draw on similar CEOS mechanisms already devoted to an existing high-priority CEOS initiative (e.g., new use of existing FCT/GFOI- generated data access mechanisms and relationships)

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 If a Proposal is Well-Aligned with CEOS Priorities … Is a response more appropriate by other coordination groups or private sector entities/associations? Is the proposal well-aligned with a sufficient number of individual CEOS Agencies’ EO priorities? Can a sufficient number of CEOS Agencies successfully respond based on existing technical/financial resources? If Agencies have sufficient technical capacity and interest, are there additional policy considerations that would encourage or discourage their involvement – e.g., overarching data policies or prevailing public/private partnerships?

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Current Informal Criteria for CEOS-GEO Tasks Alignment with “One of the top CEOS Priorities” (see CEOS WP) Require the interest of and cooperation between at least two CEOS Agencies “Significant” level of efforts and good coordination (e.g., publication of a journal article does not need to be classified as, nor followed as an action) Significant and citable benefits towards meeting societal needs (also, presumably in line with CEOS Agency capabilities) “Actionable” –properly described –feasible with Lead Agency/Agencies (or CEOS WG or VC) –at least one CEOS Agency Contributor –clear milestones and deliverables –clear indications of Agency support

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Categories of Support: Questions Posed by CEOS Chair Rep Prior to deciding on support for new initiatives –What information products would CEOS generate in support of this initiative/task? –To whom would the products be provided? –When would products be made available? –How would information products be transmitted/provided? Prior to continued support for existing initiatives –Which CEOS Agencies are providing remote sensing data/information? –To whom is CEOS Agencies’ data/information being provided? –When and how is this data/information being provided? –What is the feedback from CEOS “customers”? –Are there plans to continue the project?

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Many Shapes and Sizes of “CEOS Support” Major initiatives –Involving a large number of CEOS Agencies –Supporting a global, resource-intensive, long-term task –Often initiated at a high administrative level –Implemented in a “top-down” manner FCT/GFOI ECV support Smaller-scale projects –Smaller number of CEOS Agencies –Shorter-term tasks, fewer resources –Agency- or stakeholder-expert-initiated, in more of a “bottoms up” manner SWERA LSI moderate-resolution optical imaging guidelines ACC gap assessment Many activities may fall somewhere in the middle –Greater/lesser numbers of CEOS Agencies/resources considered, case-by-case Apply same analysis of priority and criteria

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 CEOS Must Remain Dynamic Concern for overextension justifies more rigorous CEOS consideration of proposals for both major initiatives and smaller-scale projects Yet CEOS priorities should not become static and unresponsive to new internal or external developments Consider minimum number of CEOS Agencies needed to successfully support a new activity Members should not prevent a proposal’s adoption if –it is aligned with CEOS and CEOS Agencies’ priorities –it meets CEOS Agencies’ criteria for participation –the interested agencies have sufficient internal resources, and –these Agencies believe that CEOS provides a valuable focal point for their collaboration If a proposal would require major resources and multiple Agency commitments to succeed, broader Agency support/higher threshold for CEOS approval should be required Some flexibility helps CEOS remain dynamic and responsive, willing and able to change with the times

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Knowledge and Communication are Essential CEOS must have a good understanding of required Agency participation and resource commitments, matched against overall CEOS priorities “Scope creep” should not fully occupy CEOS Agencies’ and their resources, and crowd out the ability for CEOS to entertain new ideas and proposals CEOS should periodically re-evaluate its activities –ensure alignment with CEOS priorities, Agencies’ criteria, and resources –willingness to prune off low-priority or low-return activities to focus on more important work Continual communication of CEOS priorities needed to prevent inappropriate or unrealistic expectations –internal bodies –external stakeholders

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Examples of Proposed Implementation Strategies Adoption of CEOS Strategic Plan (CSS recommendation) In concert with Strategic Plan, formulate open and systematic review process Adopt CEOS checklist or similar tool for review/approval/disapproval of all its (annual) activities, based on objective criteria

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Examples of Proposed Implementation Strategies (cont’d) Consider a policy of granting acceptance of any proposal that is supported by some minimum number of its Members/Associates –if that proposal is aligned with CEOS priorities –if CEOS is the appropriate medium for their collaboration –if those Members/Associates have sufficient resources to successfully conduct the initiative/project with their own personnel and resources Periodic re-evaluation of all CEOS initiatives to ensure alignment with CEOS priorities, Agencies’ criteria, and resources –CEOS must be willing to terminate low-priority or low-return activities. –Continual CEOS communication its priorities, internally and externally, to prevent inappropriate or unrealistic expectations

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Possible Checklist for Review and Decision- Making on Proposals for CEOS Support Is the proposed activity appropriate for CEOS, rather than for another existing coordination group or private sector organization/association? (Yes/No; if Yes, then continue) Is the proposed activity closely aligned with CEOS priorities, as stated in the CEOS Strategic Plan? (Yes/No; if Yes, then continue) Is the proposed activity well-aligned with a sufficient number of individual CEOS Agencies’ Earth Observation priorities? (Yes/No; if Yes, then continue)

25th CEOS Plenary | Lucca, Italy| 8-9 November 2011 Possible Checklist (cont’d) Can a sufficient number of CEOS Agencies successfully respond based on their existing technical and financial resources? ( Note: A “sufficient number” of CEOS Agencies could vary widely, based on the size and scope of the proposed activity ) (Yes/No; if Yes, then continue) If Agencies have sufficient technical capacity and interest, are there additional policy considerations that would encourage or discourage their involvement – e.g., overarching data policies or prevailing public/private partnerships? (If no additional policy barriers exist, then support proposed activity)