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
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
EarthCube Stakeholder Alignment Survey Introduction to the Data by Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld
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. 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. 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. 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. Institutional and systems requirements
Creating Value
. . . expanding the “pie” and
enabling systems transformation
Mitigating Harm
. . . anticipating and mitigating
externalities and catastrophic
systems failures
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. . .
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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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.