Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Information Management at the U.S. Geological Survey: Issues, Challenges, and a Collaborative.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Information Management at the U.S. Geological Survey: Issues, Challenges, and a Collaborative."— Presentation transcript:

1 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Information Management at the U.S. Geological Survey: Issues, Challenges, and a Collaborative Approach to Identifying and Applying Solutions David L. Govoni and Thomas M. Gunther USGS Geospatial Information Office Geoinformatics 2006 May 12, 2006

2 Geospatial Information Office (GIO) Science Information and Education Office  Responsibilities: ­ Publishing policy and coordination ­ Libraries and Information Centers ­ Web infrastructure and content policy ­ Product Warehouse and distribution ­ Education and outreach ­ Scientific information management

3 Geospatial Information Office (GIO) Science Information and Education Office  Accomplished in partnership with USGS science and administrative programs through a combination of: ­ Governance ­ Consultation ­ Facilitation ­ Collaborative development  Goal is to enable and support an “Integrated Information Environment” for the USGS

4 Integrated Information Environment (IIE)

5 Problems, problems … everywhere  Common issues identified from discussions with scientists and others across USGS disciplines: ­ Search and discovery (especially by place and topic) ­ Database access and integration ­ Interoperability of tools and processes ­ Advanced visualization, modeling, other tools ­ Archive and preservation  Compliance with mandates: ­ Security, science quality, publishing, records management, accessibility, …

6 The solution? Good news … bad news  Lots of talent, innovation, and motivation, but:  Widely scattered geographically and organizationally  Many local efforts unknown to others in USGS  Duplicative or overlapping in purpose, capabilities  Built on multiple platforms in multiple languages  Some good, some not so good  Some potentially scalable, some not  “Costly” to organization as a whole

7 So how do we …  Increase awareness?  Identify “best of breed”?  Accelerate diffusion?  Provide support?  Institutionalize? Communities of Practice (CoPs)

8 What is a “Community of Practice”?  Communities of Practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better through the process of collective learning as they interact regularly. CoPs are: ­ Problem driven ­ Self-organizing, voluntary, and motivated ­ Not constrained by position in formal organizations ­ Not formally chartered or accountable through management chains as for teams Modified after Etienne Wenger (www.ewenger.com)

9 USGS Scientific Information Management (SIM) Workshop  Three day Scientific Information Management Workshop, March 2006  150+ people representing all USGS regions and both science and administrative programs  Other DOI bureaus, other public and private-sector organizations also participated  Explicit focus on intersection of SIM and CoPs

10 SIM Workshop  Three parts: ­ Overviews of problems and approaches to SIM both inside and outside of the USGS ­ Introduction to “Community of Practice” concept as a framework for collective learning and collaborative problem solving ­ Breakouts designed to simultaneously:  Identify key issues and needs  Explore and encourage the formation of CoPs to develop solutions

11 Potential communities  Data/information management ­ Field data for small research projects ­ Large time series data sets ­ Scientific data from monitoring programs  Classification and discovery ­ Metadata ­ Knowledge organization systems  Delivery ­ Digital libraries ­ Portals and frameworks

12 Potential communities  Interoperability and integration ­ Database networks  Preservation and long-term access ­ Archiving of scientific data and information ­ Preservation of physical collections  Knowledge management ­ Knowledge capture ­ Emerging workforce

13 Outcomes  At least 9 of 12 potential communities agreed to continue on as “formal” CoPs  Other potential communities proposed, e.g., ­ Open access ­ Open source software ­ Search ­ Program management  Management commitment to support creation of bureau-wide infrastructure to enable current and future CoPs

14

15 USGS Communities Network  Common gateway to all known USGS CoPs  Framework of shared collaborative services and tools available to support interested communities: ­ Discussion forums ­ Document management ­ Digital library and bibliography management ­ News and Events calendar ­ Wikis and annotation ­ RSS feeds ­ …  Initially USGS-only but eventually available to external collaborators and partners

16 Workshop evaluation  Reviews positive: ­ Met or exceeded expectations: 89% ­ Change practices as result: 33% ­ Participate in communities: 72% ­ Learned new tools or approaches: 50% ­ Make valuable new contacts: 90%  Suggests broad interest and appeal of communities approach (based on ~50% survey response)

17 What was learned  One size won’t always fit all, but … ­ Many issues are common to all USGS disciplines ­ Local approaches may be broadly applicable, scalable, and cost-effective for the USGS as a whole  Those “in the trenches” know best: ­ Cannot implement top-down SIM solutions ­ Solutions can come from (and be managed from) anywhere

18 What was learned … a digression  SIM needs to be considered from two distinct, but intimately related perspectives: ­ “Information life-cycle” or Producer perspective  Course of data and information from initial acquisition to final disposition ­ Consumer perspective  How data and information is used to accomplish tasks

19 Producer perspective

20 Consumer perspective

21 “Metainformation” is critical to both  Broadly defined here to encompass both “classic” metadata and “contextual information” (rules, assumptions, ontologies, schema, documentation, etc.) that impart deeper understanding or facilitate use  Metainformation: ­ Critical to our ability to conduct integrated studies ­ Critical to maintaining long-term access ­ Should be, but very often is not, formally captured and preserved all along the information life-cycle (End of digression)

22 What was learned … SIM is not easy  Despite advances in technology, many tasks: ­ Remain time-consuming ­ Require significant involvement by scientists (sometimes at the expense of their science) ­ Lack incentives to “do the right thing”  Volume outpacing resources  Legacy data may already be beyond saving

23 SIM is not an option  Good stewardship of data, information, physical artifacts, and associated metainformation is an obligation of the research community: ­ As a matter of self interest (e.g., as precondition for being viewed as a “trusted source”) ­ Data and information is of little value if it cannot be found or delivered in a timely or usable condition ­ Reproducibility of results – a hallmark of the scientific method – may impaired or impossible without it

24 Meeting the challenges … There is hope!  Communities of practice, if encouraged and supported, offer several benefits: ­ Strength in numbers:  Multiple perspectives and insights brought to bear on problems  Yield better solutions, faster ­ Organizational adaptability:  Ability to coalesce rapidly around issues driven by changing technologies, research needs, or other challenges without time-consuming organizational realignments

25 There is hope! ­ Cost-effectiveness:  Fewer development “stovepipes”  Less likely to “reinvent the wheel”  Useful knowledge, tools, and techniques are rapidly distributed throughout the organization  Standardization, interoperability more likely ­ Collaborative learning:  Participation increases knowledge and skills of all participants  Overall organizational competence is enhanced  Knowledge is more likely to be preserved for the next generation

26 Thank you. Questions? Dave Govoni (dgovoni@usgs.gov) Tom Gunther (tgunther@usgs.gov)


Download ppt "U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Information Management at the U.S. Geological Survey: Issues, Challenges, and a Collaborative."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google