CyberInfrastructure

1. CyberInfrastructure What is it? Why do we care? What do we do about it now? Peter M. Siegel Educause Cyberinfrastructure Summit July 10-11, 2007 Denver, Colorado

2. CI - Definitions • Coined by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to characterize infrastructure based upon distributed computer, information, and communication technology, the newer term cyberinfrastructure was later popularized by the NSF Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. • Report of the American Council of Learned Societies’ Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for Humanities and Social Sciences

3. Definitions - Knowledge Economy • “The term infrastructure has been used since the 1920’s to refer collectively to the roads, power grids, telephone systems, bridges, rail lines, and similar public works that are required for an industrial economy to function. • Although good infrastructure is often taken for granted and noticed only when it stops functioning, it is among the most complex and expensive things that society creates. • The newer term cyberinfrastructure refers to infrastructure based upon distributed computer, information and communication technology. • “If infrastructure is required for an industrial economy, then we could say that cyberinfrastructure is required for a knowledge economy.” • Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure, (Atkins Report), 2003.

4. Definitions - Education, Commerce, Social Good • “The emerging vision is to use Cyberinfrastructure to build more ubiquitous, comprehensive digital environments that become interactive and functionally complete for research communities in terms of people, data, information, tools, and instruments and that operate at unprecedented levels of computational, storage, and data transfer capacity. • Increasingly, new types of scientific organizations and support environments for science are essential, not optional, to the aspirations of research communities and to broadening participation in those communities. • They can serve individuals, teams, and organizations in ways that revolutionize what they can do, how they can do it, and who participates. • “This vision also has profound broader implications for education, commerce, and social good.” • Executive Summary, page 2, Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure, (Atkins Report), 2003.

5. Definitions - All areas of Inquiry • “Cyberinfrastructure (CI) enables and supports scientific research through online digital instruments, emerging sensor and observing technologies, high- powered computers, extensive data storage capabilities, visualization facilities, and networks for communication and collaboration. The report of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure (the “Atkins Report”) signals that the sum of these changes constitutes “a new age” which “has crossed thresholds that now make possible a comprehensive ‘Cyberinfrastructure’ on which to build new types of scientific and engineering knowledge environments and organizations and to pursue research in new ways and with increased efficacy.” • Science and engineering are being transformed by Cyberinfrastructure. • This is just as true of the social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences as of the physical, natural, engineering, and biological sciences. • Francine Berman and Henry Brady, SBE/CISE Workshop on Cyberinfrastructure for the Social Sciences, May 2005

6. Definitions - Culture of Collaboration • Campus cyberinfrastructure is not just about the technology. We need to understand and engage the research community, bridge the cultures, enhance the collaborative relationships on campuses and between campuses, and learn from each other. • Ken Klingenstein, Kevin Morooney, Steve Olshansky. Final Report: A Workshop on Effective Approaches to Campus Research Computing Cyberinfrastructure. April 25-27, 2006 Arlington, VA

7. NSF Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery • “Final Version” • March 2007

8. NSF Cyberinfrastructure Vision The Mission • Develop human-centered CI driven by research and education opportunities • Provide world-class CI tools and services in five key areas • Promote a CI that broadens participation and strengthens the nation’s workforce in all areas of science and engineering • Provide a sustainable CI- secure, efficient, reliable… that [is] an essential national infrastructure • Create a stablebutextensible CI environment

9. Instrumentation Human Support Training Control Researcher Management Security and Access Policy and Funding Help Desk Data Generation Education And Outreach Security Viewing Security Collab Tools Publishing Funding Agencies Access Control Program Control Authentication Resource Providers Campuses Authorization Security 3D Imaging Analysis Security Display Tools Security Input Retrieval Display and Visualization Computation Data Sets Storage Simulation . Data Input Search Archive Russ Hobby, Internet2 Schema Metadata Data Directories Program Ontologies Cyberinfrastructure Functions and Resources

10. Instrumentation Control Researcher Management Security and Access Policy and Funding Data Generation Security Viewing Security Access Control Funding Agencies Program Control Resource Providers Authentication Authorization Campuses Security 3D Imaging Analysis Security Display Tools Security Input Retrieval Display and Visualization Computation Data Sets Storage Simulation . Data Input Search Archive Schema Metadata Data Directories Program Ontologies The Network is the Backplane for the Distributed CI Computer Russ Hobby, Internet2 Human Support Training Help Desk Education And Outreach Collab Tools Publishing Network

11. Discipline Groups Federal Agencies National National OGF Libraries International Publishers Regional Educational Organizations International Regional Collections Organizations* Security/ Access Coordinators* Policy*/ Leadership*/ Funding Network Providers* Discipline Support Computation Storage Supercomputer Sites* Software Development Cyberinfrastructure Players Campus IT Researchers* Security ID Mgmt Faculty Data Center Network Grad Students Staff Russ Hobby, Internet2 National Medicine Physical Science International Regional Other Disciplines Grid Orgs* Discipline Groups* Biological Science. * University Consortia & Systems

12. University of California IT Guidance Committee • Multi-campus models for cyber-infrastructure planning

13. This Workshop’s Focus • SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH – • LEADERSHIP • PRIORITY and FUNDING • STRATEGIES LONG TERM • STRATEGIES SHORT TERM • EDUCAUSE INVOLVEMENT - How can we help each other?

14. Some issues to ponder • At what level should cyberinfrastructure services be provided? • What is the appropriate campus role and investment in cyberinfrastructure?     • What is the appropriate role at the college level? At the research group level?  In the multi-institutional research communities?   • How do you create the right incentives for collaborative behavior? • What about cyberinfrastructure services?   • In what ways should a university support its researchers and students in the context of very large data management? • What is the role of cyberinfrastructure planning beyond the research arena?   • How do we increase federal (and state) attention to the investment needs for cyberinfrastructure at the campus level?

15. Before I tell you the issues… • First, how did I come up with these? • Did I make them up? • No! • We had to talk…to the faculty! • But how? • We had a cyberinfrastructure workshop

16. Before I tell you the issues… • First, how did I come up with these? • Did I make them up? • No! • We had to listen to the faculty! • But how? • We had a cyberinfrastructure workshop • CI Days

17. Listening to the faculty… • Let me recap our CI Days at UC Davis • Our view of ourselves • We have great scientists, scholars, engineers,… • Our investments are behind where we want them • We aren’t smarter, richer (!), more innovative. • Nor did we stay in a Holiday Inn Express • But we do actively involve our faculty on a growing basis in CI planning

18. Cyberinfrastructure Days Program TeraGrid Scott Lathrop UC Davis Information and Educational Technology Rodger Hess Dave Zavatson UC Office of the President David Walker CENIC Brian Court EDUCAUSE Mark Luker Internet2 Ken Klingenstein Open Science Grid John McGee Russ Hobby <rdhobby@Internet2.edu>

19. CI Days- Areas of Major Findings • Data Access and Use • Awareness and Community Building • Personnel and Technical Support • Infrastructure: Space and Power • Infrastructure: Networking • Financial Support and Funding

20. Some issues to ponder • At what level should cyberinfrastructure services be provided? • What is the appropriate campus role and investment in cyberinfrastructure?     • What is the appropriate role at the college level? At the research group level?  In the multi-institutional research communities?   • How do you create the right incentives for collaborative behavior? • What about cyberinfrastructure services?   • In what ways should a university support its researchers and students in the context of very large data management? • What is the role of cyberinfrastructure planning beyond the research arena?   • How do we increase federal (and state) attention to the investment needs for cyberinfrastructure at the campus level?  

21. Cyberinfrastructure and Community Dynamics: Changing Roles Agile, high innovation, Often high risk Research Group Local TIME Applications Phase Transition DMZ Shared and Standard Moderately stable, moderate to low risk IT Applications Campus/College Policies, Cost-sharing, Incentives Shared IT Services Institutional Hurdles Information Technology Components Common CI Components Less agile,solid, low risk Modified by PMS for a “researcher view”. Source: P. Weill & M. Broadbent Leveraging the New Infrastructure: How Market Leaders Capitalize on IT, Harvard Business School Press, June 1998. Cited in Brad Wheeler, IT Governance.

22. How do we increase federal (and state) attention to the investment needs for cyberinfrastructure at the campus level? • While funding agencies have worked wonders with their strong investments in information technologies at the research group and research community levels (within and among universities), their dollars go farther if they provide incentives for campus investment through seed money, cost-sharing requirements, and so on.   • How do we build consensus between funding agencies, campus administration, campus IT leadership, and the research community nationwide on the role of each group in supporting campus cyberinfrastructure investments.

23. Conclusions • CI is about “high end” services that are now basic, but it’s much more than that • It’s a range of technologies and services • It’s not just the researchers’ problem, it’s everyone’s • CI solutions will be built through collaboration, but must acknowledge unique requirements • CIOs will be measured by what we do in this space. • Let’s roll!

24. Postscript

25. Postscript • So why do you think they call us… CIOs?

26. Postscript • So why do you think they call us…CIOs?