1 Empirical analyses and results by Franz Barjak, FHNW eResearch2020 Final Workshop, 24 February 2010 eResearch 2020 eResearch 2020 The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of global virtual research communities global virtual research communities
27
Embed
1 Empirical analyses and results by Franz Barjak, FHNW eResearch2020 Final Workshop, 24 February 2010 eResearch 2020 The role of e-Infrastructures in the.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Empirical analyses and results by Franz Barjak, FHNW
eResearch2020 Final Workshop, 24 February 2010
eResearch 2020eResearch 2020The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of
global virtual research communitiesglobal virtual research communities
2
Content
1. Empirical tasks and approach2. e-Infrastructure case studies3. Research Communities Survey
3
Analytical and empirical approach
• e-Infrastructure case studies– (Telephone) interviews– Document analysis– Extended case descriptions– Multi-case comparison
• Research Communities Survey– Exploratory online survey among users and developers of
e-Infrastructures– Descriptive statistics on responses
Problem: PM and even partici-pants do not have full knowledge of the bud-gets and lack data on unfunded contributions
9
Governance structures
• No relationship between governance structure and project success• Scale from the small and informally organized (e.g. CineGrid) to larger
multi-tiered and more elaborate complex structure (e.g. Géant, EGEE)• Steering committees/management groups: researchers vs. externals• Permanently constituted with core staff vs. only “episodic governance” • More vs. less centralization; only in a few cases a move away from a
centralized towards a more federated or ‘flat’ organization (OGF, TeraGrid, OSG)
• Larger projects have advisory and/or steering committees of some sort– Different purposes: provide guidance, ensure ‘democratic’ representation
from among all project members or stakeholder groups
10
Technologies, resources, services
User interfaces (portals, workbenches, analysis tools)
Metadata(specifications and standards for distributed
repositories)
Computing and basic technology (distributed computing, supercomputing,
visualization, security/authentication)
Networking Generic, established
- Mature and in common use- Interoperability still problematic- Grid vs. cloud computing
- Partly mature and well established- Domain differences
- Few working pilot cases- Customisation and commodification- Field differences
11
User communities
• International projects usually also cross continental boundaries
• Use is difficult to assess:– Users connect through gateways or portals; – Registration and authentication are handled at a higher level
(organization);– Little monitoring of used tools and applications;– Interrupters and drop-outs are not distinguishable
• Size of communities:– Large and multidisciplinary user communities of TeraGrid, OSG, EGEE,
and DEISA; – Most others still deal with a rather narrow set of 50 to up to 200
users, mostly pilot users
12
Extending use
• Not for all a top priority:– Sequential approach to technology development and diffusion– Purpose is not to serve users but advance the state-of-the-art– Prospects of continuation are already low
• Most common measures for recruiting users:– Tutorials and training– Targeted communication to potentially interested organizations and
individuals– Presentations at conferences, workshops, events– Word of mouth and social networking
• Innovative approach: Cultivating relationships to users and developing solutions which particularly address users’ needs (OSG, TeraGrid)
13
Janus head of collaboration and competition
CollaborationGoal: pooling resources to move
forward on “big science” challenges
Political: institutionalizing global collaboration and world-wide
harmonisation of e-Infrastructures
Technological: advancing interoperability
Scientific/cognitive: knowledge and competences
CompetitionGoal: improving competitive
position, securing future resources
Political: rationale for e-Infrastructure investment (e.g. Lisbon strategy, NSF activities)
• Dense network of participating organizations, interorganizat-ional collaboration is a reality in e-Infrastructures
• Collaboration barriers stem from cultural and technical differences:– Field differences– Organizational identities– Different technological systems and technological pecularities
• Strategies of dealing with collaboration barriers:– Low level of embedding– Building on established interorganizational relationships– High investments of time and resources for coordination and
communication
15
e-Infrastructure
Research community A
Research community B
Research community C
Developer community I
Developer community II
Professional user community a
Intricate interdisciplinary web
• Groups: with distinct interests and types of involvement
• Strongest challenges:– Negative attitude towards
technology and computer-enhanced research,
– Little understanding of domain-specific practices,
– General problems of field jargon and communication,
– Divergent objectives (cutting-edge research versus service provision)Research community A
Researcher A
Researcher B
Researcher C
Developer I
Developer II
16
Bridging disciplinary boundaries
• Common measures– Web-based support (Wikis, FAQ pages, mailing lists),– Tutorials and training,– User-friendly portals,– Working with “lead users”
• Innovative approaches– Mediators or translators of user demands– Generating field-specific environments – “Brokerage”: to “broker” the development of tools and interfaces to a
partner more familiar with the requirements of a certain field.
17
Research Communities Survey
18
Approach
• Online survey• Distribution to contact persons in most of the
included e-Infrastructure cases• + Additional mailing to a wider set of respondents via
the BELIEF network• Exploratory: no control of the survey population,
results are not representative for any field or country• 407 usable responses in total returned
19
Collected data
• Personal and professional background of the respondents (e.g. affiliation, time allocation, country of work, highest degree, field),
• Selection of one specific e-infrastructure: genesis of involvement, catalysts & barriers, sponsors, type of involvement,
• Questions on the others involved in a similar way in the selected e-infrastructure (=community), e.g. number, geographical & organizational spread,
• Use of the services and resources from the e-infrastructure, • Impact on research and collaboration networks,• Importance of national and international Grid initiatives,• Recommendations to e-infrastructure policy makers.
• Affiliation:– Academic institutions: 81%– Governments and inter-
national organizations: 13% – Private and commercial
sector: 6%• Type of involvement in e-
Infrastructure:– Research users: 46%– Other users: 9%– Developers: 45%
Field In %
Research users
Astronomy or Astrophysics 6.2
Biological Sciences and Medicine 8.2
Chemical and Material Sciences 4.6
Computer and Information Sciences 9.3
Engineering and Technology 5.2
Earth and Other Natural Sciences 4.6
Physical Sciences 5.4
Social Sciences and Humanities 3.4D
evelopersAcademic and IT support services 9.5
Supercomputing & distributed comp. 17.0
Networking 4.1
Application Development 9.0
Other 13.4
21
Virtual Research Communities
21-10028%
6-2018%
1-515%
DK20%
> 5009%
100-5008%
None 2%
Globally37%
Single region
11%
Continent31%
Single country
21%
Size (est. number of colleagues) Geographical extension
22
Virtual Research Communities by e-infrastructure
Size (est. number of colleagues) Geographical extension
(Differences from all responses in %)
-20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0%
None
1-5
6-20
21-100
101-500
> 500
DK
DEISAEELA2EGEENVOOther
-50.0%
-30.0%
-10.0%
10.0% 30.0% 50.0%
Single region
Singlecountry
Continent
Globally
DEISA
EELA2
EGEE
NVO
Other
23
Involvement in one e-infrastructureServices & resources Catalysts & barriers
53%
37%
31%
30%
29%
28%
27%
23%
22%
20%
20%
17%
16%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Grid computing
Data management tools
Data collections
Data analysis tools
My own app. on the infra.
Online storage
Collaboration tools
Simulation
Supercomputing
Individual support/advice
Online dig. mat. for research
Visualization
Remote access to res. inst.
Other
25%
23%
6%
6%
14%
5%
5%
18%
20%
17%
8%
11%
10%
28%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Access toresources
Organizational
Technicalcapabilities
Ease of use
Funding-related
Training-related
Othercatalysts/barriers
Catalyst
Barrier
24
Involvement at/after project startby activity of involvement by origin of funding
39%
39%
38%
47%
40%
37%
46%
22%
18%
32%
8%
21%
15%
38%
26%
26%
3%
3%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
from the start
1-2y after start
3-5y after start
>5y after start
all
National International Private Own org.
31%
39%
55%
68%
46%
11%
11%
8%
58%
50%
38%
22%
44%
10%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
from the start
1-2y after start
3-5y after start
>5y after start
all
Research user Other user Developer
25
Importance of an e-Infrastructure for research or work
• The lack of [selected e-Infrastructure] or similar resources would impair my Research Programme ... – … not at all or little 31%– … very much 54%– … totally 15%
• The availability of [selected e-Infrastructure] or similar resources for my research work is …– … very unimportant 2%– … unimportant 3%– … neither important nor unimportant 8%– … important 31%– … very important 56%
26
Importance by type of e-Infrastructure
4%
7%
7%
6%
6%
28%
5%
14%
6%
23%
15%
24%
38%
43%
32%
33%
42%
32%
40%
41%
52%
32%
55%
56%
26%
59%
36%
8%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
National
International
Disciplinary
Multidisciplinary
Computing
Data
Developers
Community
Very unimportant Unimportant Neutral Important Very important
Geographic scope
Disciplinary scope
Type of service
Driver
28
Thank you!
eResearch 2020eResearch 2020The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of
global virtual research communitiesglobal virtual research communities