EarthCube Stakeholder Alignment Survey - End-Users & Professional Societies Workshop
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

EarthCube Stakeholder Alignment Survey - End-Users & Professional Societies Workshop

on

  • 221 views

Results of the Stakeholder Alignment Survey conducted by PI Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, presented by Susan Winters, University of Maryland

Results of the Stakeholder Alignment Survey conducted by PI Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, presented by Susan Winters, University of Maryland

Statistics

Views

Total Views
221
Views on SlideShare
221
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

EarthCube Stakeholder Alignment Survey - End-Users & Professional Societies Workshop Presentation Transcript

  • 1. EarthCube Stakeholder Alignment: Data and Principles Susan Winter, University of Maryland Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Support from the National Science Foundation is deeply appreciated: NSF-VOSS EAGER 0956472, “Stakeholder Alignment in Socio-Technical Systems,” NSF OCI RAPID 1229928, “Stakeholder Alignment for EarthCube,” NSF GEO-SciSIP-STS-OCI-INSPIRE 1249607, “Enabling Transformation in the Social Sciences, Geosciences, and Cyberinfrastructure,” NSF I-CORPS 1313562 “Stakeholder Alignment for Public-Private Partnerships” Nick Berente, University of Georgia Burcu Bolukbasi, UIUC Nosh Contractor, Northwestern University Leslie DeChurch, Georgia Tech University Courtney Flint, Utah State University Gabriel Gershenfeld, Cleveland Indians Michael Haberman, UIUC John L. King, University of Michigan Eric Knight, University of Sydney Barbara Lawrence, UCLA Spenser Lewis, General Dynamics Pablo Lopez, UIUC Ethan Masella, Brandeis University Charles Mcelroy, Case Western Reserve University Barbara Mittleman, Nodality, Inc. Mark Nolan, UIUC Melanie Radik, Brandeis University Namchul Shin, Pace University Ilya Zaslavsky, UCSD
  • 2. Unprecedented Scale and Complexity of Problems – Some from human numbers and resource exploitation – Failure to solve them can lead to disasters – Require long-term commitments from diverse sectors of society and disciplines • simple, unidimensional solutions unlikely; – Solutions will be iterative – Institutions can enable more impact and sustain efforts in ways that individuals cannot. From “Science to Sustain Society,” by Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences, 149th Annual Meeting of the Academy (2012)
  • 3. Institutions ≠ Systems Sources: Carolos A. Osario, ESD Doctoral Seminar, 2004, and Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld US Passenger Air Transportation System http://www.xprt.net/~rolfsky/internetSite/internet.html US Internet Backbone Natural Disasters US Power Grid
  • 4. Enabling Long-term, Productive Use of Natural Resources • Neither the state nor the market is uniformly successful • Communities have relied on institutions to govern some resource systems Eleanor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, p. 1
  • 5. Institutional and Systems Requirements Creating Value Mitigating Harm . . . expanding the “pie” and enabling systems transformation . . . anticipating and mitigating externalities and catastrophic systems failures
  • 6. Enduring, Dynamic Tensions in Governance
  • 7. Defining stakeholder alignment . . . “The extent to which interdependent stakeholders orient and connect with one another to advance their separate and shared interests.” A simplified conceptual framework . . . Culture Behavior Strategy Structure
  • 8. Preliminary Findings on Formation • Visibility of stakeholder interests accelerates dialogue and alignment • Shared vision of success enables faster/more robust forms of alignment (Strategy) • Internal alignment within stakeholder groups enables lateral alignment across stakeholders (Structure) • Alignment initially based on trust; sustaining requires new structural arrangements (forums, roles, incentives, etc.) (Culture/Structure)
  • 9. Preliminary Findings on Operations. . . • Requires leadership based on influence, more than authority (Behavior) • “Over specified” or “under specified” forums are ineffective – minimum critical specifications (Structure) • Primary lever for change is “middle-out” (protocols and standards) not top-down or bottom-up (Strategy/Structure) • Failure to deliver on individual/collective interests erodes alignment and systems success (Overall)
  • 10. Minimum critical specification: No more and no less! Council of Data Facilities Charter I. Preamble II. Vision III. Mission and goals IV. Definition V. Membership VI. Roles and responsibilities VII. Operations VIII.Coordination with EarthCube IX. Signatures Assembly of EarthCube Funded Projects Guidelines I. Introduction and overview II. Guiding principles III. Operations IV. Roles and responsibilities V. Assembly coordinating committee VI. Coordination with EarthCube VII. Signatures
  • 11. The vision. . . “Over the next decade, the geosciences community commits to developing a framework to understand and predict responses of the Earth as a system—from the space-atmosphere boundary to the core, including the influences of humans and ecosystems.” – GEO Vision Report of NSF Geoscience Directorate Advisory Committee, 2009
  • 12. Potential failure modes. . . • Unrealistic or misaligned expectations • “Build it and they will come” • Not valuing current cyber/geo efforts and initiatives • Not advancing the frontier – just automating current state • Not engaging the 200,000+ geoscience and cyber stakeholders not yet involved in EarthCube • Not anticipating the needs of the next generation (students, post docs) • Unknown unknowns (transformational changes in technology, policy, etc.)
  • 13. Stakeholder alignment data by End User Workshop (n=1,544) EarthCube Website (n=164) Data Centers (n=578) Early Career (n=37) Oct. 17-18, 2012 Structure and Tectonics (n=24) Nov. 19-20, 2012 EarthScope (n=22) Nov. 29-30, 2012 Experimental Stratigraphy (n=21) Dec. 11-12, 2012 Atmospheric Modeling / Data Assimilation and Ensemble Prediction (n=29) Dec. 19, 2012 OGC (n=14) Jan. 13, 2013 Critical Zone (n=39) Jan. 21-23, 2013 Hydrology / Envisioning a Digital Crust (n=23) Jan. 29-31, 2013 Paleogeoscience (n=40) Feb. 3-5, 2013 Education & Workforce Training (n=33) Mar. 3-5, 2013 Petrology & Geochemistry (n=59) Mar. 6-7, 2013 Sedimentary Geology (n=50) Mar. 25-27, 2013 Community Geodynamic Modeling (n=45) Apr. 22-24, 2013 Integrating Inland Waters, Geochemistry, Biogeochem and Fluvial Sedimentology Communities (n=46) Apr. 24-26, 2013 Deep Sea Floor Processes and Dynamics (n=29) June 5-6, 2013 Real-Time Data (n=25) June 17-18, 2013 Ocean ‘Omics (n=42) Aug. 21-23, 2013 Coral Reef Systems (n=44) Sept. 18-19/Oct. 23-24, 2013 Geochronology (n=66) Oct. 1-3, 2013 Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (n=36) Oct. 7-8, 2013 Clouds and Aerosols (n=39) Oct. 21-22, 2013 Rock Deformation and Mineral Physics (n=35) Nov. 12-14, 2013
  • 14. Stakeholder Alignment data by Fields and disciplines (n=1,544) Primary Secondary Atmospheric n=175 (11.3%) n=74 (4.8%) Biologist/Ecosystems n=127 (8.2%) n=101 (6.5%) Climate Scientists n=78 (5.1%) n=86 (5.6%) Critical zone n=31 (2%) n=44 (2.8%) Geographers n=32 (2.1%) n=34 (2.2%) Geologists n=358 (23.2%) n=112 (7.3%) Geophysicists n=148 (9.6%) n=73 (4.7%) Hydrologists n=82 (5.3%) n=61 (4.0%) Oceanographers n=171 (11.3%) n=94 (6.1%) Computer/Cyber n=82 (5.3%) n=91 (5.9%) Data managers n=53 (3.4%) n=86 (5.6%) Software engineers n=24 (1.6%) n=50 (3.2%) Note: additional categories included in the survey, but these are the focus here.
  • 15. Sample specific areas of expertise • Air Sea Interaction • Atmospheric Radiation • Basalt geochemistry • Biodiversity Information Networks • Carbonate Stratigraphy • Chemical Oceanography • Coastal Geomorphology • Computational Geodynamics • Cryosphere-Climate Interaction • Disaster Assessment • Ensemble data assimilation • Geochronology • Geoinformatics • Geomicrobiology • Glaciology • Heliophysics • Isotope Geochemistry • “It’s complicated” • Magnetospheric Physics • Mesoscale Meteorology • Multibeam Bathymetric Data • Nearshore Coastal Modeling • Paleoceanography • Paleomagnetism • Permafrost Geophysics • Planetology • Riverine carbon and nutrient biogeochemistry • Satellite gravity and altimetry data processing • Tectonophysics • Thermospheric Physics • Watershed Management
  • 16. Accessing data, models, and software within fields/disciplines: Importance and ease How IMPORTANT is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) in your field or discipline? (v58) How EASY is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) in your field or discipline? (v59) untitled - ec- 08- indomain.pdf
  • 17. Importance and ease within fields/disciplines 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 IMPORTANT data, tools, models in your field EASE data, tools, models in your field
  • 18. Accessing data, models, and software across fields/disciplines: Importance and ease How IMPORTANT is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) that span different fields or disciplines? (v60) How EASY is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) that span different fields or disciplines? (v61) untitled - ec- 09- spandomain.pdf
  • 19. Importance and ease across fields/disciplines 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 IMPORTANT data, tools, models across fields EASE data, tools, models, across fields
  • 20. Cooperation/sharing among geoscientists Cooperation/sharing among cyber-developers There is currently a high degree of sharing of data, models, and software among geoscientists. (v69) There is currently a high degree of sharing of software, middleware and hardware among those developing and supporting cyberinfrastructure for the geosciences. (v70) 3/ 4/untitled - ec- 12- current- coop.pdf
  • 21. Cooperation/sharing among geoscientists and among cyber-developers by fields and disciplines 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 cooperation among geoscientists Cooperation among cyber-developers
  • 22. Collaboration between geo and cyber Sufficient end user training There is currently sufficient communication and collaboration between geoscientists and those who develop cyberinfrastructure tools and approaches to advance the geosciences. (v72) There is currently sufficient geoscience end-user knowledge and training so they can effectively use the present suite of cyberinfrastructure tools and train their students/colleagues in its use. (v73) untitled - ec- 13- current- collob.pdf
  • 23. Collaboration between geo and cyber and sufficient end user training by fields and disciplines 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Collaboration between geo and cyber Sufficient end-user training
  • 24. End user views on sharing data, tools, models, and software Overall, I believe that sharing data, tools, models, and software that I generated will advance my career in the next 3-5 years? (v82) I trust that the data, tools, models, and software shared by other colleagues will be well-documented and reliable. (v83) untitled - ec- 15- adv- career.pdf
  • 25. End user views on sharing data, tools, models, and software by fields and disciplines 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Sharing will advance my career I turst data will be well-documented and reliable
  • 26. Support for sharing from employer and colleagues My employer/organization will most likely value and reward any efforts I make in the shaping and development of EarthCube (v120). Any contributions I might make to the shaping and development of EarthCube will likely be recognized and valued by colleagues in my field/discipline (v122). untitled - ec- 27- efforts.pdf
  • 27. Support for sharing from employer and colleagues by fields and disciplines 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Employer will value EC efforts Colleagues will value EC efforts
  • 28. End user views on commercial products and applications The EarthCube incorporate commercial products or applications to reduce cost or speed development. (v105) The EarthCube process should generate tools and approaches that benefit commercial products or applications. (v106) untitled - ec- 22- commercial.pdf
  • 29. End user views on commercial products and applications by fields and disciplines 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Incorporate commercial Benefit commercial
  • 30. Motivation for engagement with EarthCube 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Advancing my research Advancing my teaching Networking opportunities Developing successful grant proposals Leading to new scientific advances Making geoscience data / findings available to the general public Informing resource managers and policy makers Serving my field / profession
  • 31. Support for EarthCube specifying guidelines Support for guidelines using international standards EC should specify guidelines m(s) = 0.79 (0.19)[n=353, 18] EC should use formal int. standards m(s) = 0.84 (0.18)[n=342, 29] The EarthCube initiative should specify guidelines so there is more interoperability and uniformity in discovering, accessing, sharing, and disseminating geoscience data. (v99) Where such standards exist, EarthCube should use formal, internationally approved, geoscience-wide data access/sharing standards and protocols (e.g. ISO, OGC). (v100)
  • 32. Support for collaboration among US govt. orgs. Support for collaboration between US and Intl. orgs. EarthCube should play an active role in enabling collaboration and coordination of geoscience cyber- infrastructure activities among US government organizations (NSF, NOAA, NASA, Army Corp, etc.). (v116) EarthCube should play an active role in enabling collaboration and coordination between US and international geoscience cyberinfrastructure initiatives and organizations. (v117) untitled - ec- 26- enable.pdf
  • 33. Elements of Success (from Early Career workshop) Access/Uploading: • Google earth style interface • Accessible data submission interface • Standardized meta data (data type, context, provenance, etc.) for field scientists (with & w/o internet access) • Data security • Public accessibility; empower non-specialists Utilization/Operations: • Community mechanisms to build tools • Large data manipulation, visualization, and animation • Searchable access by space, time, and context • Voice to pull up data and analyze • Open source workflow management for data processing and user- contributed algorithms (facilitate reproducibility) • Cross-system comparisons; ontology crosswalks for vocabs in diff disciplines • Easy integration of analytic tools (R, Matlab, etc.) • NSF support for data management
  • 34. Elements of Success (from Early Career workshop) Output/Impact: • Mechanisms for credit for work done (data, models, software, etc.); ease of citation; quantify impact • Promote new connections between data producers and consumers • Interactive publications from text to data • Recommendations system (like Amazon) for data, literature, etc.; Flickr for data (collaborative tagging) • Educational tutorials for key geoscience topics (plate tectonics, ice ages, population history, etc.) • Gaming scenarios for planet management • EarthCube app store; ecosystem of apps
  • 35. Most important challenges of the 21st Century, as identified by NAE • Make solar energy economical • Provide energy from fusion • Develop carbon sequestration methods • Manage the nitrogen cycle • Provide access to clean water • Restore and improve urban infrastructure • Advance health informatics • Engineer better medicines • Reverse-engineer the brain • Prevent nuclear terror • Secure cyberspace • Enhance virtual reality • Advance personalized learning • Engineer the tools of scientific discovery Source: http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/
  • 36. Appendix
  • 37. The complete survey (1544 respondents) is available for exploratory analysis via a new online interface: The URL is http://maxim.ucsd.edu/ecsurvey1544 This version requires Silverlight plugin. As before, it will take a few minutes to load it the first time (because of the size of the survey data file). There are also two additional versions http://maxim.ucsd.edu/openlinkpivot/survey1544.html http://maxim.ucsd.edu/lobsterpot/0.9.32/survey1544.html These do not require a plugin, but these are experimental, and less robust than the first one.