EarthCube Stakeholder Alignment Survey Introduction to the Data by Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld

501 views
417 views

Published on

Introduction to the Stakeholder Alignment Survey being conducted for EarthCube by lead institution University of Illinois, Champaign Urbana as presented by PI Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
501
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

EarthCube Stakeholder Alignment Survey Introduction to the Data by Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld

  1. 1. EarthCube Stakeholder Alignment: Data and Principles Nick Berente, University of Georgia Burcu Bolukbasi, UIUC Nosh Contractor, Northwestern University Leslie DeChurch, Georgia Tech University Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Courtney Flint, Utah State University Gabriel Gershenfeld, Cleveland Indians University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 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 Support from the National Science Foundation is deeply appreciated: Barbara Mittleman, Nodality, Inc. NSF-VOSS EAGER 0956472, “Stakeholder Alignment in Socio-Technical Systems,” Mark Nolan, UIUC NSF OCI RAPID 1229928, “Stakeholder Alignment for EarthCube,” Melanie Radik, Brandeis University NSF GEO-SciSIP-STS-OCI-INSPIRE 1249607, “Enabling Transformation in the Social Namchul Shin, Pace University Sciences, Geosciences, and Cyberinfrastructure,” Susan Winter, University of Maryland NSF I-CORPS 1313562 “Stakeholder Alignment for Public-Private Partnerships” Ilya Zaslavsky, UCSD
  2. 2. Today’s most troubling and daunting problems have common features: some of them arise from human numbers and resource exploitation; they require long-term commitments from separate sectors of society and diverse disciplines to solve; simple, unidimensional solutions are unlikely; and failure to solve them can lead to disasters. In some ways, the scales and complexities of our current and future problems are unprecedented, and it is likely that solutions will have to be iterative . . . Institutions can enable the ideas and energies of individuals to have more impact and to 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. 3. Institutions ≠ Systems US Power Grid US Passenger Air Transportation System Natural Disasters Sources: Carolos A. Osario, ESD Doctoral Seminar, 2004, and Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld US Internet Backbone http://www.xprt.net/~rolfsky/internetSite/internet.html
  4. 4. There is hope . . . The issues of how best to govern natural resources used by many individuals in common are no more settled in academia than in the world of politics. Some scholarly articles about the “tragedy of the commons” recommend that “the state” control most natural resources . . . Others recommend . . . privatization. . . What one can observe in the world, however, is that neither the state nor the market is uniformly successful in enabling individuals to sustain long-term, productive use of natural resource systems. Further, communities of individuals have relied on institutions resembling neither the state nor the market to govern some resource systems with reasonable degrees of success over long periods of time. Eleanor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, p. 1
  5. 5. Institutional and systems requirements Creating Value . . . expanding the “pie” and enabling systems transformation Mitigating Harm . . . anticipating and mitigating externalities and catastrophic systems failures
  6. 6. Dynamic Tensions/Opportunities in Governance
  7. 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 Strategy Structure Behavior
  8. 8. Preliminary findings on Formation. . . A. Increased visibility of stakeholder interests will accelerate stakeholder dialogue and alignment B. A shared vision of success will enable faster formation and more robust forms of stakeholder alignment C. Lateral alignment across stakeholders will be constrained or enabled by the internal alignment within stakeholder organizations D. Initial stakeholder alignment will depend on trust; sustained stakeholder alignment will depend on new structural arrangements (forums, roles, incentives, etc.)
  9. 9. Preliminary findings on Operations. . . E. Sustained stakeholder alignment will require leadership based on influence, more than authority F. Forums that are “over specified” or “under specified” will ineffective in advancing both individual and collective interests – minimum critical specifications G. Primary leverage for change is “middle-out” protocols and standards, not top-down or bottom-up H. Failure to deliver on both individual and collective interests will erode stakeholder alignment and systems success
  10. 10. Minimum critical specification: No more and no less! Council of Data Facilities Charter Assembly of EarthCube Funded Projects Guidelines I. Preamble II. Vision III. Mission and goals IV. Definition V. Membership VI. Roles and responsibilities VII. Operations VIII. Coordination with EarthCube IX. Signatures I. II. III. IV. V. Introduction and overview Guiding principles Operations Roles and responsibilities Assembly coordinating committee VI. Coordination with EarthCube VII. Signatures
  11. 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. 12. Potential failure modes. . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Unrealistic or misaligned expectations among people presently involved in EarthCube “Build it and they will come” mindset – users don’t show up, data is not shared, etc. Not valuing what presently exists – current cyber/geo science efforts and initiatives that represent parts of the EarthCube vision Not advancing the frontier in transformative ways relative to what presently exists – only automating the current state Not engaging the 200,000+ geoscience and cyber stakeholders not presently involved in EarthCube Not anticipating the needs of the next generation of geoscience and cyber stakeholders (todays doctoral students and post docs, as well as the generation behind them) “Unk Unk” – additional unknown unknowns including transformational changes in the technology, catastrophic shifts in the policy arena, etc.
  13. 13. Stakeholder alignment data by End User Workshop (n=1,544) EarthCube Website Data Centers Early Career Structure and Tectonics EarthScope Experimental Stratigraphy Atmospheric Modeling / Data Assimilation and Ensemble Prediction OGC Critical Zone Hydrology / Envisioning a Digital Crust Paleogeoscience Education & Workforce Training Petrology & Geochemistry Sedimentary Geology Community Geodynamic Modeling Integrating Inland Waters, Geochemistry, Biogeochem and Fluvial Sedimentology Communities Deep Sea Floor Processes and Dynamics Real-Time Data Ocean ‘Omics Coral Reef Systems Geochronology Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics Clouds and Aerosols Rock Deformation and Mineral Physics (n=164) (n=578) (n=37) (n=24) (n=22) (n=21) Oct. 17-18, 2012 Nov. 19-20, 2012 Nov. 29-30, 2012 Dec. 11-12, 2012 (n=29) (n=14) (n=39) (n=23) (n=40) (n=33) (n=59) (n=50) (n=45) Dec. 19, 2012 Jan. 13, 2013 Jan. 21-23, 2013 Jan. 29-31, 2013 Feb. 3-5, 2013 Mar. 3-5, 2013 Mar. 6-7, 2013 Mar. 25-27, 2013 Apr. 22-24, 2013 (n=46) (n=29) (n=25) (n=42) (n=44) (n=66) (n=36) (n=39) (n=35) Apr. 24-26, 2013 June 5-6, 2013 June 17-18, 2013 Aug. 21-23, 2013 Sept. 18-19/Oct. 23-24, 2013 Oct. 1-3, 2013 Oct. 7-8, 2013 Oct. 21-22, 2013 Nov. 12-14, 2013
  14. 14. Stakeholder Alignment data by Fields and disciplines (n=1,544) Primary Secondary Atmospheric Biologist/Ecosystems Climate Scientists Critical zone Geographers Geologists Geophysicists Hydrologists Oceanographers n=175 (11.3%) n=127 (8.2%) n=78 (5.1%) n=31 (2%) n=32 (2.1%) n=358 (23.2%) n=148 (9.6%) n=82 (5.3%) n=171 (11.3%) n=74 (4.8%) n=101 (6.5%) n=86 (5.6%) n=44 (2.8%) n=34 (2.2%) n=112 (7.3%) n=73 (4.7%) n=61 (4.0%) n=94 (6.1%) Computer/Cyber Data managers Software engineers n=82 (5.3%) n=53 (3.4%) n=24 (1.6%) n=91 (5.9%) n=86 (5.6%) n=50 (3.2%) Note: additional categories included in the survey, but these are the focus here.
  15. 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. 16. Accessing data, models, and software within fields/disciplines: Importance and ease untitled - ec- 08- indomain.pdf 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)
  17. 17. Importance and ease within fields/disciplines 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 IMPORTANT data, tools, models in your field EASE data, tools, models in your field
  18. 18. Accessing data, models, and software across fields/disciplines: Importance and ease untitled - ec- 09- spandomain.pdf 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)
  19. 19. Importance and ease across fields/disciplines 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 IMPORTANT data, tools, models across fields EASE data, tools, models, across fields
  20. 20. Cooperation/sharing among geoscientists Cooperation/sharing among cyber-developers untitled - ec- 12- current- coop.pdf 3/ 4/ 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)
  21. 21. Cooperation/sharing among geoscientists and among cyber-developers by fields and disciplines 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 cooperation among geoscientists Cooperation among cyber-developers
  22. 22. Collaboration between geo and cyber Sufficient end user training untitled - ec- 13- current- collob.pdf 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)
  23. 23. Collaboration between geo and cyber and sufficient end user training by fields and disciplines 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Collaboration between geo and cyber Sufficient end-user training
  24. 24. End user views on sharing data, tools, models, and software untitled - ec- 15- adv- career.pdf 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)
  25. 25. End user views on sharing data, tools, models, and software by fields and disciplines 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Sharing will advance my career I turst data will be well-documented and reliable
  26. 26. Support for sharing from employer and colleagues untitled - ec- 27- eff orts.pdf 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).
  27. 27. Support for sharing from employer and colleagues by fields and disciplines 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Employer will value EC efforts Colleagues will value EC efforts
  28. 28. End user views on commercial products and applications untitled - ec- 22- com mercial.pdf 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)
  29. 29. End user views on commercial products and applications by fields and disciplines 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Incorporate commercial Benefit commercial
  30. 30. Motivation for engagement with EarthCube 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Advancing Advancing Networking Developing Leading to Making my research my teaching opportunities successful new scientific geoscience grant advances data / proposals findings available to the general public Informing resource managers and policy makers Serving my field / profession
  31. 31. Support for EarthCube specifying guidelines Support for guidelines using international standards EC should specify guidelines EC should use formal int. standards m(s) = 0.79 (0.19)[n=353, 18] 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. 32. Support for collaboration among US govt. orgs. Support for collaboration between US and Intl. orgs. untitled - ec- 26- enable.pdf EarthCube should play an active role in enabling collaboration and coordination of geoscience cyberinfrastructure 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)
  33. 33. Selected elements of success from the Early Career workshop Access/Uploading: Output/Impact: • • • • • • Google earth style interface Accessible data submission interface Standardized meta data on data type, data context, data provenance, etc. for field scientists (with and without 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 Pull up data and conduct analysis with voice commands Open source workflow management for data processing and user-contributed algorithms in order to facilitate reproducible research Cross-system comparisons; ontology crosswalks for different vocabs in different disciplines Easy integration of analytic tools (R, Matlab, etc.) NSF support for data management • • • • • • Mechanisms to provide credit for work done (data, models, software, etc.); ease of citations; quantify impact Promote new connections between data producers and data 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
  34. 34. Most important challenges of the 21st Century, as identified by NAE • Make solar energy economical • Engineer better medicines • Provide energy from fusion • Reverse-engineer the brain • Develop carbon sequestration methods • Prevent nuclear terror • Manage the nitrogen cycle • Provide access to clean water • Restore and improve urban infrastructure • Advance health informatics Source: http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/ • Secure cyberspace • Enhance virtual reality • Advance personalized learning • Engineer the tools of scientific discovery
  35. 35. Appendix
  36. 36. 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.

×