220 likes | 278 Views
This study explores factors influencing computing needs, user behavior, and future needs in the TeraGrid collaboration for research, education, and outreach. Findings, challenges, methods used, and conclusions are highlighted.
E N D
Cyberinfrastructure Requirements and Best Practices Lessons from a study of TeraGrid Ann Zimmerman Research Assistant Professor UM School of Information OGF Workshop, May 27, 2009
Outline Background Challenges People Methods used Analysis Conclusions
Background: Learning from TeraGrid • NSF-funded study to examine: • The TeraGrid collaboration • user needs and requirements • impact on research practice & outcomes • education, outreach & training activities • Research Team • Tom Finholt, PI; Ann Zimmerman, co-PI • Magia Krause, PhD student
Key Questions: User Needs • What factors affect users’ computing needs and requirements? • What factors affect users' behavior as it relates to their use (or non-use) of TeraGrid/HPC? • How are the needs of users expected to change over the next five years?
Key Questions Continued • Where do users currently spend time that does not count as doing science? • What research questions do they want to answer but currently cannot? What are the barriers?
Data Collection June 2006-May 2007 • 7 site visits, including 4 TeraGrid sites • Interviews (n=~90) • Participant observations • User workshop • Document analysis and review • Surveys • Survey of current TeraGrid users • Surveys of tutorials at TG ’06 & TG ‘07
TeraGrid Planning Process • The goal of the planning process was to • developoptions for delivering TeraGrid resources and services • based on the diverse needs of science and engineering communities • http://www.teragridfuture.org/
Challenges Heterogeneous users Potentially thousands of users Distributed environment
People included in the study • Current TeraGrid users • “Target” TeraGrid users • Non-users • Science gateway developers • Cyberinfrastructure “experts” • TeraGrid personnel
Workshops • Strengths • Learn by seeing users interact • Gain both broad & detailed information • Relatively efficient • Challenges • Require careful & creative planning (pre- and post-workshop) • Invite 3-4 times as many people as you want to participate in the workshop
Interviews • Strengths • Gain detailed information • Information informs survey development • Challenges • Time-consuming (to conduct & to analyze data) • Resources limit the number of people who can be interviewed
Survey • Advantages • Findings are generalizable across a larger population • Inexpensive (in $ not in person time) • Challenges • Developing a good survey is hard • Getting a good response rate takes a lot of effort
Participant Observation • Advantages • Learn about all the factors that affect the ability to serve users • Learn about user needs from a variety of sources • Challenges • Time-consuming • Capturing and analyzing data
Components of User Behavior • The nature of the research problem • Alignment between infrastructure and scientific practice • Computational readiness • Ease of use
Achieving Transformative Science • “Easy” things can be show stoppers • Many complexities to manage • virtual organization • diverse user needs • changes in science
Conclusions • Different methods provide different kinds of information • Involve more than users in your study • Current methods are effective, but time-consuming and resource-intensive • New methods required. For example, “mine” and analyze sources of information (wikis, user support logs and databases, user sites)
More information • TeraGrid evaluation study reports & Planning Process workshop reports • http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu (browse for documents by Ann Zimmerman) • Other TeraGrid Planning Process materials • http://teragridfuture.org
Acknowledgments • TeraGrid • Research participants • NSF grants OCI-0602525 and OCI-0724300
Contact me! • Sorry I couldn’t be here! • Contact me at: • asz@umich.edu • http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~asz/index.html