GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 GOVST Symposium, Review etc. Andreas Schiller, Eric Dombrowsky and Kirsten Wilmer-Becker

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011

GOVST Work Plan: “The GODAE OceanView Science Team consists of 30+ members supported by a project office located at the UK Met Office. It works on a four-year planning and review cycle and meets at least once a year.” “The progress made by GODAE OceanView and the case for continuation will be reviewed every 4 years and its terms of reference will be adjusted as necessary.”  Work contributing to GODAE OceanView is funded by the members’ institutions, and their funding bodies.  PO activity being directly funded by the Patrons’ organizations. provide advise on future progress and how  Need to identify the body (review panel or other) that can provide advise on future progress and how. Purpose

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 Three options:  Final Symposium - similar in style to the 2008 Final GODAE Symposium in Nice, France  Formal Review with a clearly defined set of Terms of Reference  Combined event/review (hybrid) Options

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 Patrons’ Comments Review discussion: GOV workplan 4-year funding cycle NOAA has offered to host symposium in Nov 2013 Patrons agreed: joint symposium review proposal progress review is needed requested independent review Purpose and scope of review: Advise on how to adjust GOV going forward; engage interest Need clear metrics, use the work plan as a basis Sub-committee to clarify options for scope by next telecon (6 months), to include MB, EL plus two other Patrons (plus at least one of the GOVST co-chairs)

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 Time Lines November Discuss draft at GOVST-III with members and Patrons :  decide on options  discuss ToRs and other review panel specifics (e.g. role of members, panel outcome, etc.)  review document  decide on host country for review/symposium February Final version of ToRs/review document ready for broader circulation, incl. funding agencies Establish local organising and scientific committees 2013 or Symposium and/or Review. Outcomes of Symposium and/or Review should answer question if there is an ongoing need for the international ocean forecasting community to continue GODAE OceanView beyond 2013/2014

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 Time Lines November Discuss draft at GOVST-III with members and Patrons :  decide on options  discuss ToRs and other review panel specifics (e.g. role of members, panel outcome, etc.)  review document  decide on host country for review/symposium February Final version of ToRs/review document ready for broader circulation, incl. funding agencies Establish local organising and scientific committees 2013 or Symposium and/or Review. Outcomes of Symposium and/or Review should answer question if there is an ongoing need for the international ocean forecasting community to continue GODAE OceanView beyond 2013/2014

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 Option 3: Hybrid Review Pros: will reach out to many and will still preserve the advantages of a formal review interactions with whole of GOVST and other groups/researchers open to the reviewers can be done of the collaboration, not of the individual country parts symposium could be structured according to requirements of review panel, e.g. into separate two parts allowing for presentation of country contributions & presentations of the synthesis of GODAE OceanView (i.e. outcomes that are under review) panel could be given (if they desire) time (0.5 – 1 day) after the symposium for inquiry/interview with OceanView participants stronger /more influential outcome regarding future acknowledgement and continuation of GODAE OceanView Cons: difficult to find the panel members committed to contribute time and effort to preparations over a longer period of time would be harder to organize than either of the first two options – coordination between symposium planning and the review panel organization needs to be considered negative outcomes would count stronger extra funds be required to support review panel expenses

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 Questions for GOVST and Patrons’ Group (1) What approach should be chosen and why? (Symposium only, Review, Hybrid)? What should be the timeline for the symposium/review  table 1 Symposium questions: Suggestions of dates, location for symposium? Are there events in 2013/2014 that we can co-locate the symposium with (2008: OSTST)? How to raise funds to pay for such event? How much should a review panel influence the organization of the symposium/ how close should the panel work with the symposium organisers?

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 Questions for GOVST and Patrons’ Group (2) Review questions: Who would be review panel members? How many members should panel have? Widen panel representation to ext. groups to achieve comprehensive review? How should review panel work (independent or w/ support from GOVST/PO)? How to find a chair sufficiently independent and expert to lead it? How much time should review take (preparation, meetings, reporting, etc.)? How can we persuade reviewers to become panel members; incentive? Who decides what will be reviewed (GOVST, Patrons, independent panel)? What format should review outcome have?  develop ToRs What is expected outcome (e.g. support for continuation)? How open should findings be? What should we do with the report outcome/recommendations?

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 Pros: brings together the scientific community (community papers, joint presentations, as audience). comprehensive set of presentations –GODAE OceanView community efforts (e.g. outcomes of Task team efforts) –individual presentations on the achievements by members visible to the wider ocean community and would promote GODAE OceanView symposium would expose GODAE OceanView to the external community (not only providing visibility, but potentially engaging the community vs. “closed club work”) Cons: no detailed review of all elements of GODAE OceanView (e.g. less mature Task Teams are likely to be given less exposure and scrutiny than more mature Task Teams) reluctance, publicly and in plenary, to provide frank assessments of the performance of GODAE OceanView and its elements, particularly if negative unclear who the reviewers are and what the formal process is for providing feedback other than through verbal comments at plenary Limited written information available to the review team (in the form of abstracts). Comprehensive written information, e.g. community papers, unlikely to be available at Symposium Significant effort to organize a symposium (organization and costs are not trivial). If chosen, co location with other programme(s) would be preferred to reduce costs/organizational effort and widen the potential audience Option 1: Symposium

GOVST-3, Paris, November 2011 Option 2: Formal Review Pros: allows detailed scrutiny of the achievements of GODAE OceanView allows for direct interactions among the review panel and (a subset of) GOVST members at the time of the (final) review meeting frank assessment and feedback from the review panel very likely (and desired) review presentations to be given by a group of selected, experienced and skilled speakers. Low risk of poor performance by presenters jeopardizing the picture we want to paint about the GOVST formal review (with a positive outcome) can have a much stronger resonance in the ocean community Cons: does only to a limited extent (via written exchanges) or not at all allow for interactions with the whole of GOVST and other groups/researchers as part of the wider science community a small group of GOVST members will shape the picture about GOVST and the impressions the panel will get about the achievements of GOVST (this could be a pro and con!)