Governance Transition

The European Commission’s staff working document “Implementation Roadmap for the European Open Science Cloud”¹ outlines an interim governance structure for the initial implementation phase of the EOSC:

SWD Governance

Figure 22 - Staff Working Document Governance Structure

The report of the Second High Level Expert Group on the Open Science Cloud (Prompting an EOSC in Practice)², provides an alternative overview of this interim governance structure:

Figure 23 - Second HLEG Report Governance Overview

There are three main differences between these this interim governance structure and the framework described in this document:

As regards the Strategic layer, the Staff Working Document is very careful to detail the EOSC Board - they are the decision-making body and they also decide who is in the Executive board and who is in the Stakeholder layer.
The Staff Working Document sees the working groups as part of the Executive layer, whereas the EOSCpilot model sees these as part of the Stakeholder layer with a much greater independence for the Stakeholder layer to self-organise and self-populate.
The Staff Working Document has very little to say about the Stakeholder layer apart from its role in the Strategic in determining its membership, apparently minimizing the importance of the stakeholder forum. The EOSCpilot framework emphasizes their importance puts a lot of emphasis on the relationships and information flow, the communication between the layers.

Table 12 presents a more detailed comparison.

	EC Staff Working Document Governance Structure	EOSCpilot Governance Framework
STRATEGIC	Members: MS + EC (DG RTD and DG CNECT)	Members: MS + EC
	Function: ensures effective supervision of the implementation decides strategic orientation of EOSC and commitment and financial support institutional and political oversight approves members of Executive Board approves annual workplan assesses progress of EOSC implementation coordinates with other MS/EC initiatives	Function: defines strategic objectives measure the impact and effectiveness of EOSC
EXECUTIVE	Members: max. 10 chosen by the EOSC Board from ESFRI infrastructures, e-infrastructures, scientific organisations, university associations etc.	Members: not defined
	Function: ensures proper implementation and accountability proposes the strategy & workplan drafts the Rules of Participation oversees and steer the implementation of the workplan together with the working groups (WGs) monitors the implementation of EOSC (by 2020) proposes how broaden user base to public sector and industry	Function: ensures EOSC delivers to meet the needs of the Stakeholders
STAKEHOLDERS	Members: broad participation by organisations\institutions\communities (possibly decided by EOSC Board), single representative per organisation\institution\community – requires adherence to the principles of EOSC	Members: individuals including organisations\institutional representatives; multiple subforums (consumers, providers etc.)
	Function: Intelligence gathering and Consultative role Expertise but no decision-making body	Function: Recommends\proposes within communities best practices, standards, Rules of Participation Recommends\proposes “Rules of Participation for service provision in the EOSC” from HLEG group report Recommends\proposes scientific and technical requirements of the EOSC

Table 12 - Governance Crosswalk

Despite the differences, there is a clear evolutionary path between the model in the staff working model and the longer-term model described later in this document, with the Stakeholder Forum evolving to become more independent and able to take a stronger role in determining the direction of EOSC to ensure that it that it meets its users’ needs, and, for the working groups as they move from an implementation focus to move across under the remit of the Stakeholder Forum to ensure independence between the advisory and delivery roles. This is illustrated in Figure

In the meantime, the Executive evolves to take a much more operational role, taking advice and input from the Stakeholder layer. Its supporting Coordination Structure would evolve into one of the delivery models outlined in the framework as illustrated in Figure 25.

Figure 24 - Governance Transition

Delivery Model Crosswalk

Figure 25 - Delivery Transition