Paul Henning Krogh A New Dawn For E Collaboration In Science


Published on

Plone has growing reputation within research for working as an important component in international scientific collaboration infrastructures. In this panel session researchers shall present and answer questions on both their experiences in using Plone in a scientific context and on their research of studying Plone in use by scientists. Attendees will leave with a better conception of what is needed for international scientific collaboration and what Plone can offer as an e-collaboration tool to support research infrastructures. The panel participants will bring in expertise on computer supported collaborative work (CSCW) to stimulate use and development of Plone applications for such use cases. Panel headlines: - Exchange experiences with Plone in research environments (use cases) - Requirements for Plone in research environments: what's available, which extensions or modifications do we need? - Coordinate actions around Plone products for scientific use - Promote the use of Plone in scientific environments - Confront conceptions of collaborative research processes with Plone implementations of such models

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Comment
  • Fioricet is often prescribed for tension headaches caused by contractions of the muscles in the neck and shoulder area. Buy now from and make a deal for you.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Paul Henning Krogh A New Dawn For E Collaboration In Science

  1. 1. Plone panel, Naples 2007 A new dawn for e-collaboration in science Panelists Marcin Davies Telecommunications Research Center, Vienna, Austria Niels Steen Krogh Zitelab, Denmark Jonathan Callahan Mazama Science, Washington Paul Henning Krogh University of Aarhus, Denmark
  2. 2. Presentations 11:05 P. H. Krogh Conceptions of collaborative research processes 11:12 M. Davies Plone for Research: Requirements Revisited 11:19 J. Callahan Science in the Trenches: Can Plone Help? 11:26 N. S. Krogh DANBIO The Danish experience using Plone as the core tool building af nation-wide research database in health care (Rheumatology) 11:33 Discussion
  3. 3. Panel objectives • What is needed for international scientific collaboration? • What can Plone offer as an e-collaboration tool to support research infrastructures?
  4. 4. Conceptions of collaborative research processes Paul Henning Krogh
  5. 5. Why a special CMS application for Science? • Science is forced to be done in geographical separation by individuals and teams • Science, too, is under fierce pressure to increase its capacity to innovate – this calls for collaboration and efficient knowledge and document handling • Science encounters, too, the problem of loosing the capacity to share tacit knowledge when not face-to-face
  6. 6. The CMS and the research projects must enter into a dialogue CMS Research project
  7. 7. General aims of a CMS for research projects • Increase research performance • Ensure research objectives are met • Aid project management • Stimulate exchange of ideas • Sharing of knowledge • Support teams • Increase visibility for insiders and outsiders • Bridging different domains: handle cross disciplinarity • Creating a common social identy – loyality to the project team and aims
  8. 8. The ecology of a research project S co cie rs m nt e ld m ifi un c o A research project is living eh ity in an environment where it ak communicates by: St exchanging information and knowledge and receiving feed-back. The project The ICT infrastructure delivers the communication channels and interfaces lic Sp b on pu s or e Th
  9. 9. A new dawn for a scientist • Chat, e-phone and meet on your common project portal • Get the data of your colleague now! • Information and literature searching – watch what your colleagues have watched • Paper - and bookreading – keeping in pace with state of the art of her knowledge domain • Doing experiments and investigations • Do your analyses using rpy Plone products • Paper co-writing on your portal
  10. 10. Crucial questions Ritterskamp & Prilla (2006): ”the question of how ICT design paradigms may affect a system’s success within an organization usually receives less attention” So, what is actually the Plone® design paradigm and is this particularly supportive for scientific use? Do we have an adequate conceptual model of the scientific working processes?
  11. 11. Forschungszentrum Telekommunikation Wien Plone for Research: Requirements Revisited Plone Conference 2007, Naples, Italy Marcin Davies <> Telecommunications Research Center Vienna (ftw.), Austria
  12. 12. Introduction and motivation ~ 3 years of planning and development of ICT- platforms within research projects at the Telecommunications Research Center Vienna (ftw.) Motivation for master’s thesis about this topic [1] - some of the results/concepts are presented here [1] Davies, M: Towards a Knowledge Portal for European Research Projects, Vienna University of Technology, 2006 (available from: 2
  13. 13. Problem domain European research situation • Characterized by a strong fragmentation of activities, which is a major handicap to Europe’s competitiveness • Framework programmes (FPs) try to address these weakness by implementing large, international research projects: Scientific collaboration in general • A multitude of complex requirements has to be met to enable successful scientific knowledge sharing • Organizational requirements: awareness, funding, etc. • Technical requirements (too many to mention here...) • Limiting factors for cooperation: • Cooperative and structural factors (group diversity/size...) • Scientific recognition (competition, trust) • Technology acceptance (design challenges) • Scientific collaboration is not well-structured... 3
  14. 14. Deficits of current approaches Organizational problems: • No re-usable framework • Late start of building ICT-infrastructure Technical deficits: • Scattered and isolated system components lead to a lack of user acceptance and high maintenance efforts • Functional deficits: missing possibilities for • personalization: e.g. subscriptions, notifications • interaction: e.g. contact search, messaging, ratings, comments, presence awareness, working environments 4
  15. 15. Plone for scientific knowledge portals Plone and Zope are fitting nicely: • Rich set of advanced functions out of the box (SmartFolders, WebDAV access, LiveSearch, etc.) • Rich user interface • Many add-on products available to implement functions of a scientific knowledge portal Custom (scientific) content types: Archetypes, ArchGenXML • Version Control: CMFEditions • Ratings: ATRatings, Subscriptions: PloneSubscription • many more... • • Highly customizable and extendable - integrates well into existing installations • Standards-based, technology-neutral • With Zope/ZEO: performance, flexibility, and scalability • Works well with other open-source components to build a robust infrastructure (Apache, OpenLDAP, etc.) - no licensing costs 5
  16. 16. Nice, but... From our current experiences, building a scientific portal based on Plone still needs significant effort and expertise. Many components are there, but integration and coherence are suboptimal We need a common set of specific products like done with the Plone4Artists package (Plone4Scientists?) But before we need a: • Wider assessment of currently used applications • Refinement of requirements based on more extensive end user participation (and input by site integrators) etc. 6
  17. 17. What can you do? Please subscribe to our dedicated mailing list: Participate & spread the word! 7
  18. 18. Science from the Trenches (Can Plone Help?) Jonathan Callahan Mazama Science
  19. 19. Two Views of Trenches Workers Management
  20. 20. Two Views of Science Workers Management
  21. 21. Good software makes life easier for workers ‘in the trenches’.
  22. 22. What do scientists do all day? ► Design experiments ► Search for existing data ► Collect new data ► Assemble new and existing data ► Analyze data ► Create data visualizations ► Write results
  23. 23. Experimental Design New Style Old Style ► Individual effort ► Group effort ► Small context ► Big picture ► Goal = ► Goal = journal article sustained, multi- decade effort (trends) ► Web based tools
  24. 24. Data Discovery New style Old style ► Friends ► Friends ► Meetings ► Meetings ► Searchablerepositories ► Web based tools
  25. 25. Data Collection New style Old style ► Individual ► Group ► Custom instruments ► Shared resources ► Collaboratories ► Web based tools
  26. 26. Data Access New style Old style ► No versioning ► Data repositories ► FTP from friends ► Internet access ► No standards ► Standard formats ► Web based tools
  27. 27. Data Analysis New style Old style ► Custom code ► Institutionalsoftware ► Custom algorithms ► Vetted algorithms ► Desktop only ► Web based tools
  28. 28. Data Visualization New style Old style ► Home grown code ► Institutionalsoftware ► Graphics designers ► Scientist generated ► Desktop only ► Web based tools
  29. 29. Writing up Results Current style Old style ► Email MSWord docs ► Email MSWord docs ► Versioning? ► Versioning?
  30. 30. Can Plone help?
  31. 31. DANBIO The Danish experience using Plone as the core tool building af nation-wide research database in health care (Rheumatology) Niels Steen Krogh, ZiteLap ApS
  32. 32. DANBIO: • Danish, nationwide registry since 2000 • Covers 92% of all treatments • All departments of rheumatology in Denmark are reporting on a regular basis • Online registration and feedback • Efficacy (outcome of treatment) • Safety (drug safety)
  33. 33. Cohorts (the patients and the content objects) • Biologic treatments – Reumatoid arthritis: 3.900 treatment series – Ankylosing spondylitis: 700 series – Psoriatic arthritis: 500 series – Other diagnoses: 400 series • Early RA: 1200 pts • Conventional treatments: 3.000 pts • 45.000 visits (Content objects)
  34. 34. AIM • To present some of the factors that we consider important for the success of a clinical registry • A central point to remember: The user is at the same time – a researcher – responsible for the treatment of the patients – An emploee who must document his outcome (efficacy).
  35. 35. Why open source in life science research? • Share methods across borders - similar to international research processes • Learning processes across different academic fields – medicine, statistics, IT • No licensing costs – cheaper, more flexible • Complex, integrated solutions • Rapid development circle • No lock-in
  36. 36. DANBIO registry • Based on Plone (2.1.2 and 3.0.1.) and other open source IT solutions • Combine quality development and research in one registry – Feed back at the patient level – Feed back at the department level – Electronic CRF in clinical trials – Easy access to additional open source tools • Statistics (R-project) • Imaging (CDMedic-PACS X-ray server) • Kiosk/Touchscreens for the patient (via Firefox)
  37. 37. Conclusions • Plone is usable as the core tool in the treatment of patients and as a research tool at the same time • With Plone we can have very successfull implementations if we can have positive impact on the core of the academic interests of the researcher • Plone is international and will be put into production in Hospitals in Norway, Sweden and Finland during the coming months. • Hospitals from all over the world are welcome for collaboration. • Time for Screenshots and questions