J. Pearlman ADC held a forum at ADC-8 on the structure and evolution of the 2009-11 Work Plan. Initially a series of questions were compiled and are listed immediately below. Then observations were offered on the processes in place for preparation of the plan. An alternative option for the current process was raised.
Questions (as recorded during the discussion by the Chair – J. Pearlman):
How are groupings (“overarching tasks”) managed – what are the implications for governance (including reporting) and accountability?
Are tasks combined in an effective way for synergies – are the grouping logical at the lower levels?
Do the groupings identify priorities and tasks to be emphasized?
Are the groupings really reducing tasks?
Are high priority tasks given sufficient visibility?
What level should the task sheets be addressing? What reporting should be defined?
Are the 10 year targets driving the groupings? What is the schedule of the T3 team?
Do the gourpings improve understanding of the added value of GEOSS??
What are the roles and the responsibilities of the C4?
Should the governance issue be decoupled from the work plan definition??
Comments (as recorded by the Chair – J. Pearlman):
Gap analyses have not been applied to the plan with respect to targets.
It is not clear how the targets are driving the groupings prioritization of the tasks. If there is no relation between a task and targets, then these tasks should be called out.
The tasks in the grouping do not have sufficient synergy in many groupings.
ExCom wants committees involved for guidance and reporting, management of tasks, etc. GEO Secretariat says there will not be task leaders for overarching tasks.
It is important if the committees will be responsible for management that they engage in providing advice on groupings. Improving the distribution of information will further facilitate the progress of GEOSS.
The directives of the ExCom are not being communicated to the committees in a timely manner. Should all committees be represented at the ExCom?
New plan for work plan development and redefinition of the Targets are occurring at the same time. Issue is that the work plan is being done before the target revision.
WP 1 – Alexia introduced guidelines for work plan definition: IGOS-P engaged, smaller number of cross-cutting tasks, allocation of tasks to committees.
Another Option: Postpone 2009-11 plan and retain the current 2007-9 plan with adaptations to reflect the requests of the ExCom.
Await target revisions and expanded governance discussions.
Request committee recommendations for governance discussions.
Following are additional questions and comments expressed during the discussion:
If those are tasks, then someone needs to be accountable for them, so what is the governance? Its not just a case of reporting, coordination between tasks is important and the coordination needs supervision.
We need to be sure that at the end of the 3 year period we are closer to the goals than we are now.
Using a new naming scheme may be a problem. If the names change then the task becomes disconnected from the previously produced documents.
