Fotis Karayannis, Anna Loukakou GRNET

1. Fotis Karayannis, Anna LoukakouGRNET The HellasGrid JRU in Greece www.hellasgrid.gr

2. Outline • HellasGrid background • The HellasGrid Joint Research Unit • JRU experiences • Pros • Cons • Conclusions Brussels, 1 December 2006

3. HellasGrid Background • HellasGrid Task Forceappointed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (running the Information Society Programme in Greece) - January 2003 • A strategy group • High-level institutes’ representatives • Chaired by special secretary of the Information Society • Co-chaired by GRNET chairman of the Board (part of Ministry of Development / General Secretary of Research and Technology) • supported by a scientific committee • Technical group editing documents • Produced a strategy document proposing a National Grid Project (November 2003) http://www.hellasgrid.gr/content/downloads/Strategic_Doc_Final_English_no_reviews.pdf • Signed Memorandum of Understanding at the end of 2003 (attached in the agenda pages) • Between GRNET and all institutes, whose members were appointed in the Task Force • Bilateral agreements between GRNET and each of the parties were preferred as a way of simplifying the signature process (instead of a multi-lateral agreement) Brussels, 1 December 2006

4. The HellasGrid MoU members • Coordinator • National Research and Education Network, GRNET –www.grnet.gr • Universities (10) (Ministry of Education) • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, AUTH www.auth.gr • Athens University of Business, AUEB www.aueb.gr • National Technical University of Athens, NTUA www.ntua.gr • University of the Aegean www.aegean.gr • University of Athens, UoA www.uoa.gr • University of Crete, UoC www.uoc.gr • University of Ioannina, UoI www.uoi.gr • University of Macedonia, UoM www.uom.gr • University of Patras UPATRAS www.upatras.gr • University of Pireus UNIPI www.unipi.gr • Research Centres (8) – (Ministry of Development or Education) • Research and Academic Computer Technology Institute, CTIwww.cti.gr • Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, CERTH www.certh.gr • Institute of Computer Science – FORTH,www.ics.forth.gr • Institute of Accelerator Systems and Applications, IASA www.iasa.gr • Institute of Communication and Computer Systems, ICCS www.iccs.ece.ntua.gr • National Meteorology Service, EMYwww.emy.gr • National Observatory of Athens, NOAwww.noa.gr • NCSR Demokritos, DEMOKRITOSwww.demokritos.gr Brussels, 1 December 2006

5. The HellasGrid JRU • Joint Research Unit requirements: • “scientific and economic unity” • Established through the HellasGrid MoU • “permanent character (i.e. not one-off or project specific)” • The MoU was a prior agreement to the EGEE project, with much wider scope and timeframe beyond the EGEE project lifetime • “recognised by a public authority” • A support letter was requested by the State Secretary of the Information Society http://test-egee2.web.cern.ch/test-egee2/JRU/jru.html Brussels, 1 December 2006

6. The HellasGrid MoU • The MoU was proposed by the HellasGrid Task Force members and discussed in the meetings among its members • As a way of formalising the established collaboration • In order to provide measures to build confidence among the Greek Grid community • Since GRNET was appointed as the coordinator of the Task Force by the Ministry (top-down approach), it had to work to gain confidence of the User Community (bottom-up approach) • Obviously a combination of both approaches is the best approach and preferably: Bottom up approach with the top-down blessing! • Only research & academic institutes (no private companies) • The MoU was in Greek. Copies in Greek were sent to Brussels, along with an English translation • The HellasGrid package was approved by the EC legal services only after a ministerial support letter was received Brussels, 1 December 2006

7. HellasGrid JRU support letter Brussels, 1 December 2006

8. HellasGrid JRU and EGEE • The HellasGrid Task Force envisaged Greece-participation to EGEE with GRNET as the lead contractor and the MoU parties as Third parties • Obviously this was not an easy decision and required measures to ensure the Third parties visibility • They requested to sign the Consortium Agreement (since they could not sign an A-form with the coordinator) • Initially the HellasGrid MoU parties were approved as Third parties (plain case) • In the first EGEE contract amendment HellasGrid was upgraded from the plain Third parties case to a JRU • JRU is more flexible – E.g. you do not need to specify the amount foreseen for each Third party in the TAnnex • Since the contractor carries the sole responsibility vis-à-vis the Consortium and the EC, it had to also take measures to guarantee the JRU third parties work • GRNET signed subcontracts with a subset of the JRU third parties • The selection of the above subset has to be in-line with the legal and financial rules of the contractor Brussels, 1 December 2006

9. HellasGrid JRU and EGEE (cont’d) • Why go for a JRU so early? • It was the way towards the NGI • The HellasGrid Task Force, the MoU and the JRU ensured that there will be ONE application-independent infrastructure for all sciences and fields • At that time the decision and the whole project had risks • Now the JRU is a tested-solution which works! • A lot of efforts from all involved: EC, Project Office, Contractor, Third parties Brussels, 1 December 2006

10. JRU experiences • JRU is a mini consortium inside the project consortium • It has the same problems of the consortium • JRU should be seen as “an integrated entity” from outside • The contractor is free to manage its JRU according to its institute own rules • Not obliged to specify its internal procedures (subcontracts, cash flow inside the mini consortium, management, etc.) • Stays at the required level of reporting for each JRU Third party • Individual audited cost statements and summary financial report, plus JRU integrated progress reports • Obviously if EC audited, has to provide all the necessary proofs • On the other hand, the contractor carries the responsibility vis-à-vis the consortium • Running a JRU for two years brought up many issues • A lot of effort from the Project Office, the EC, and the JRU to debug and solve the issues Brussels, 1 December 2006

11. JRU experiences - Pros • Pros • Paving the way towards the NGI! • JRU is a means of outsourcing the work to many institutes, thus sharing the knowledge within the research and academic community (and not keeping it among a few of them being partners) • Flexible instrument • Uses a very big pool of experts from many different institutes (~20 for HellasGrid JRU) • Does not specify the budget breakdown for each JRU third party (seen externally as an integrated entity) • Better use of the financial resources • Better than having each as a separate partner (no work duplication, central coordination) • The project has a single point of contact for all JRU third parties Brussels, 1 December 2006

12. JRU experiences - Cons • Cons • JRU management overhead • There is an obvious overhead to the lead partner to run the mini JRU consortium • Subcontracts preparation and negotiation among the contractor and the third parties takes months! • Reviewing the JRU third parties work and deliverables specified in the subcontracts requires resources and time! • Preparing the audited cost statements is a major exercise (for big JRUs) • Distributing the JRU pie is a delicate issue! • Who does what, and what resources are needed? • Openness and fairness alleviate suspicions • Information flow is more difficult inside the JRU • Internal meetings now and then and e-mail reports should be the case • Project Director’s Monthly Newsletter helps a lot! • Participation in the project conferences also helps a lot, but is also expensive! Brussels, 1 December 2006

13. Some issues • JRU Third parties use their own cost model: • If contractor FC (or FCF) (requesting 50% EC contrib) and some third parties AC (requesting 100%), results in requesting > 50% EC contrib! • Different FC third parties overhead rates, result in uneven payment for the same work • GRNET included in its subcontracts, a clause with fixed 20% overhead for all FC institutes • The EC-unfunded effort should be treated for the whole JRU in an integrated way (not for each JRU third party) • If lead contractor FC(F) and has a budget of 2M, 1M being EC contribution, it gets the rest 1M from its Ministry. The 2M is the budget for the whole JRU. An AC JRU third party does not have to add any extra unfunded manpower beyond the 2M • E.g2 If lead contractor AC and has a budget of 1M, it has to provide another 1M of PERSON MONTHS of unfunded effort in total. This is less straightforward…(for an FC third party…) Brussels, 1 December 2006

14. Implementing the e-Infrastructure vision • The EU e-Infrastructure vision: Integrated Networking + Grid (and other)research infrastructures • GRNET was one of the first NRENs* in Europe adopting the EU e-Infrastructure initiative: • Providing both networking and grid infrastructures * NREN: National Research and Education Network • Being infrastructure-oriented and application-neutral serving all user eScience communities • Expanding its scope to e-Business and e-Government Source: European Commission Unit F3: Research Infrastructures Brussels, 1 December 2006

15. HellasGrid as part of European efforts Scale > 170 sites in 39 countries > 17 000 CPUs > 5 PB storage > 10 000 concurrent jobs per day > 60 Virtual Organisations Brussels, 1 December 2006

16. Conclusions • JRU is easy to setup (e.g. MoU and official support letter) and it works! • JRU is a mini internal consortium and requires good management skills to operate • JRU should be seen as “an integrated entity” from outside • There is a community with good knowledge of the JRUs (EC, Project Office, JRUs) debugging issues for 2 years • FP7 with the simplified cost model and overheads probably makes JRU even more attractive • But most importantly: • JRU paves the way towards the NGI! Brussels, 1 December 2006

17. For more: www.hellasgrid.gr www.egee-see.org fkara at grnet.gr loukakou at grnet.gr Brussels, 1 December 2006