Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Empirical analyses and results by Franz Barjak, FHNW eResearch2020 Final Workshop, 24 February 2010 eResearch 2020 The role of e-Infrastructures in the.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Empirical analyses and results by Franz Barjak, FHNW eResearch2020 Final Workshop, 24 February 2010 eResearch 2020 The role of e-Infrastructures in the."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Empirical analyses and results by Franz Barjak, FHNW eResearch2020 Final Workshop, 24 February 2010 eResearch 2020 The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of global virtual research communities

2 2 Content 1.Empirical tasks and approach 2.e-Infrastructure case studies 3.Research Communities Survey

3 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

4 4 E-Infrastructure case studies

5 5 The 18 analysed cases

6 6 Collected case data 1.Characteristics of field (Which fields? Maturity? Structures?) 2.Project Overview (Motivation? Main goals? Project maturity? Funding?) 3.Organizational Structure (Size and composition? Governance and division of labor?) 4.Managing internal and external relations (Sustaining involvement? Users, user recruitment? Drivers and barriers to adoption? Challenges in interdisciplinary and inter- organizational collaboration?) 5.Technology (Main technologies, resources and services? Data sharing? Interoperability?) 6.Contribution (Main contributions and challenges?) 7.Informants’ recommendations to policy makers

7 7 Sizes and domains Participating org.IndustryDomain EGEE> 20 (70+)Yese-Infrastructure OSG> 20 (53)Noe-Infrastructure CineGrid> 20 (50)Yese-Infrastructure GEANT> 20 (34)Noe-Infrastructure OGF> 20Yese-Infrastructure TeraGrid11-20Noe-Infrastructure DEISA11-20Noe-Infrastructure EELA Noe-Infrastructure DRIVER11-20Noe-Infrastructure D4Science11-20NoEnvironmental C3-Grid11-20YesEnvironmental NVO11-20NoPhysical sciences & engineering ETSF11-20NoMaterials & analytical facilities MediGrid5-10NoBiological & medical Swiss Biogrid5-10YesBiological & medical CLARIN> 20 (156)NoSocial sciences & humanities DARIAH11-20NoSocial sciences & humanities SND1-4NoSocial sciences & humanities

8 8 Mega projects Funding arrangements Regular projects Large projects Small projects Funding per year GEANT40m € TeraGrid31.25m US-$ EGEE-III23.575m € ( m €) DEISA6.24m € OSG6m US-$ EELA-22.55m € D4Science1.96m € NVO1.75m US-$ C3-Grid1.7m € DRIVER1.53m € CLARIN1.37m € ETSF1.27m € (3.33m €) MediGrid1.25m € CineGridN/A SNDN/A OGFN/A (< 1m US-$/year est.) Swiss BiogridN/A DARIAHN/A Problem: PM and even partici- pants do not have full knowledge of the bud- gets and lack data on unfunded contributions

9 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 10 Technologies, resources, services

11 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 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 13 Janus head of collaboration and competition Collaboration Goal: 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 Competition Goal: improving competitive position, securing future resources Political: rationale for e- Infrastructure investment (e.g. Lisbon strategy, NSF activities) Technological: pushing technologies (e.g. middlewares) Scientific: funding, credits, recognition & reputation

14 14 Interorganizational collaboration 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 15 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)

16 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 17 Research Communities Survey

18 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 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.

20 20 Response statistics Geographical spread: –Europe: 61% –North-America: 10% –Latin America: 21% –Others: 8% 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% FieldIn % 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 3.4 Developers Academic and IT support services 9.5 Supercomputing & distributed comp Networking 4.1 Application Development 9.0 Other 13.4

21 21 Virtual Research Communities Size (est. number of colleagues)Geographical extension

22 22 Virtual Research Communities by e-infrastructure Size (est. number of colleagues)Geographical extension (Differences from all responses in %)

23 23 Involvement in one e-infrastructure Services & resources Catalysts & barriers

24 24 Involvement at/after project start by activity of involvement by origin of funding

25 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 little31% –… very much54% –… totally15% The availability of [selected e-Infrastructure] or similar resources for my research work is … –… very unimportant2% –… unimportant3% –… neither important nor unimportant8% –… important31% –… very important56%

26 26 Importance by type of e-Infrastructuretype

27 27 Categorization of e-Infrastructures Geographic scopeDisciplinary scopeType of serviceDriver C3-GridNationalMultidisciplinaryDataCommunity CineGridInternationalDisciplinaryDataCommunity CLARINInternationalDisciplinaryDataCommunity D4ScienceInternationalDisciplinaryDataDevelopers DARIAHInternationalDisciplinaryDataDevelopers DEISAInternationalMultidisciplinaryComputingDevelopers DRIVERInternationalMultidisciplinaryDataDevelopers EELA-2InternationalMultidisciplinaryComputingDevelopers EGEEInternationalMultidisciplinaryComputingCommunity ETSFInternationalDisciplinaryDataDevelopers GEANTInternationalMultidisciplinaryComputingDevelopers MediGridNationalDisciplinaryComputingDevelopers NVONationalDisciplinaryDataCommunity OGFInternationalDisciplinaryDataCommunity OSGNationalMultidisciplinaryComputingCommunity SNDNationalMultidisciplinaryDataDevelopers Swiss BiogridNationalDisciplinaryComputingCommunity TeraGridNationalMultidisciplinaryComputingDevelopers

28 28 Thank you! eResearch 2020 The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of global virtual research communities


Download ppt "1 Empirical analyses and results by Franz Barjak, FHNW eResearch2020 Final Workshop, 24 February 2010 eResearch 2020 The role of e-Infrastructures in the."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google