eResearch 2020

1. eResearch 2020 The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of global virtual research communities Empirical analyses and results by Franz Barjak, FHNWeResearch2020 Final Workshop, 24 February 2010

2. Content • Empirical tasks and approach • e-Infrastructure case studies • Research Communities Survey

3. Analytical and empirical approach • e-Infrastructure case studies • (Telephone) interviews • Document analysis • Extended case descriptions • Multi-case comparison • Research Communities Survey • Exploratory online survey among users and developers of e-Infrastructures • Descriptive statistics on responses

4. E-Infrastructure case studies

5. The 18 analysed cases

6. Collected case data • Characteristics of field (Which fields? Maturity? Structures?) • Project Overview (Motivation? Main goals? Project maturity? Funding?) • Organizational Structure (Size and composition?Governance and division of labor?) • Managing internal and external relations (Sustaining involvement? Users, user recruitment? Drivers and barriers to adoption? Challenges in interdisciplinary and inter-organizational collaboration?) • Technology (Main technologies, resources and services? Data sharing? Interoperability?) • Contribution (Main contributions and challenges?) • Informants’ recommendations to policy makers

7. Sizes and domains

8. Funding arrangements Problem:PM and even partici-pants do not have full knowledge of the bud-gets and lack data on unfunded contributions Mega projects Large projects Regular projects Small projects

9. Governance structures • No relationship between governance structure and project success • Scale from the small and informally organized (e.g. CineGrid) to larger multi-tiered and more elaborate complex structure (e.g. Géant, EGEE) • Steering committees/management groups: researchers vs. externals • Permanently constituted with core staff vs. only “episodic governance” • More vs. less centralization; only in a few cases a move away from a centralized towards a more federated or ‘flat’ organization (OGF, TeraGrid, OSG) • Larger projects have advisory and/or steering committees of some sort • Different purposes: provide guidance, ensure ‘democratic’ representation from among all project members or stakeholder groups

10. Technologies, resources, services

11. User communities • International projects usually also cross continental boundaries • Use is difficult to assess: • Users connect through gateways or portals; • Registration and authentication are handled at a higher level (organization); • Little monitoring of used tools and applications; • Interrupters and drop-outs are not distinguishable • Size of communities: • Large and multidisciplinary user communities of TeraGrid, OSG, EGEE, and DEISA; • Most others still deal with a rather narrow set of 50 to up to 200 users, mostly pilot users

12. Extending use • Not for all a top priority: • Sequential approach to technology development and diffusion • Purpose is not to serve users but advance the state-of-the-art • Prospects of continuation are already low • Most common measures for recruiting users: • Tutorials and training • Targeted communication to potentially interested organizations and individuals • Presentations at conferences, workshops, events • Word of mouth and social networking • Innovative approach: Cultivating relationships to users and developing solutions which particularly address users’ needs (OSG, TeraGrid)

13. Collaboration Goal: pooling resources to move forward on “big science” challenges Political: institutionalizing global collaboration and world-wide harmonisation of e-InfrastructuresTechnological:advancing interoperability Scientific/cognitive: knowledge and competences Competition Goal:improving competitive position, securing future resources Political: rationale for e-Infrastructureinvestment (e.g. Lisbon strategy, NSF activities) Technological: pushing technologies (e.g. middlewares) Scientific: funding, credits, recognition & reputation Janus head of collaboration and competition

14. Interorganizational collaboration • Dense network of participating organizations, interorganizat-ional collaboration is a reality in e-Infrastructures • Collaboration barriers stem from cultural and technical differences: • Field differences • Organizational identities • Different technological systems and technological pecularities • Strategies of dealing with collaboration barriers: • Low level of embedding • Building on established interorganizational relationships • High investments of time and resources for coordination and communication

15. Intricate interdisciplinary web • Groups: with distinct interests and types of involvement • Strongest challenges: • Negative attitude towards technology and computer-enhanced research, • Little understanding of domain-specific practices, • General problems of field jargon and communication, • Divergent objectives (cutting-edge research versus service provision)

16. Bridging disciplinary boundaries • Common measures • Web-based support (Wikis, FAQ pages, mailing lists), • Tutorials and training, • User-friendly portals, • Working with “lead users” • Innovative approaches • Mediators or translators of user demands • Generating field-specific environments • “Brokerage”: to “broker” the development of tools and interfaces to a partner more familiar with the requirements of a certain field.

17. Research Communities Survey

18. Approach • Online survey • Distribution to contact persons in most of the included e-Infrastructure cases • + Additional mailing to a wider set of respondents via the BELIEF network • Exploratory: no control of the survey population, results are not representative for any field or country • 407 usable responses in total returned

19. Collected data • Personal and professional background of the respondents (e.g. affiliation, time allocation, country of work, highest degree, field), • Selection of one specific e-infrastructure: genesis of involvement, catalysts & barriers, sponsors, type of involvement, • Questions on the others involved in a similar way in the selected e-infrastructure (=community), e.g. number, geographical & organizational spread, • Use of the services and resources from the e-infrastructure, • Impact on research and collaboration networks, • Importance of national and international Grid initiatives, • Recommendations to e-infrastructure policy makers.

20. Response statistics • Geographical spread: • Europe: 61% • North-America: 10% • Latin America: 21% • Others: 8% • Affiliation: • Academic institutions: 81% • Governments and inter-national organizations: 13% • Private and commercial sector: 6% • Type of involvement in e-Infrastructure: • Research users: 46% • Other users: 9% • Developers: 45%

21. Virtual Research Communities Size (est. number of colleagues) Geographical extension

22. Virtual Research Communities by e-infrastructure Size (est. number of colleagues) Geographical extension (Differences from all responses in %)

23. Involvement in one e-infrastructure Services & resources Catalysts & barriers

24. Involvement at/after project start by activity of involvement by origin of funding

25. Importance of an e-Infrastructure for research or work • The lack of [selected e-Infrastructure] or similar resources would impair my Research Programme ... • … not at all or little 31% • … very much 54% • … totally 15% • The availability of [selected e-Infrastructure] or similar resources for my research work is … • … very unimportant 2% • … unimportant 3% • … neither important nor unimportant 8% • … important 31% • … very important 56%

26. Importance by type of e-Infrastructure

27. eResearch 2020 The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of global virtual research communities Thank you!