1 / 15

Funding for Cyberinfrastructure

Funding for Cyberinfrastructure. What has worked at Minnesota? What doesn’t work? What are we doing to move forward?. University of Minnesota. Large Big Ten campus 50,883 students on Twin Cities campus $2.8 billion annual operating budget $534 million sponsored grants and contracts

mia-lang
Download Presentation

Funding for Cyberinfrastructure

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Funding for Cyberinfrastructure • What has worked at Minnesota? • What doesn’t work? • What are we doing to move forward?

  2. University of Minnesota • Large Big Ten campus • 50,883 students on Twin Cities campus • $2.8 billion annual operating budget • $534 million sponsored grants and contracts • Aggressive aspirational goal!

  3. MSI (Minnesota Supercomputer Institute) • In 1981, the University of Minnesota was the first U.S. University to acquire a supercomputer (a Cray-1) • The Supercomputing Institute was created in 1984 • $6.5 million dollar budget (merit based queued service) • The Institute carries out long-range planning to ensure, as well as possible, that University spending in the high-performance computing area meets the requirements of faculty carrying out research in this area • MSI is now moving to VP for Research

  4. Central IT (OIT) • Network is a “common good” • Unified gig to the desk meshed 10 gig back bone • BOREAS-Net 2100 mile owned optical network connecting to Chicago and Kansas City • Chicago CIC fiber ring and OMNIPOP • NLR/Internet 2 • Had good luck funding SAN Storage for researchers past 3 years • Start-up funding for server centralization utilizing virtualization • New Data center plan to support traditional central IT plus research computing

  5. University Library • Expanding expertise including data collection and curation, data preservation and stewardship, • Virtual organization tools • The University Digital Conservancy is a venue for faculty to deposit copies of their works for long-term preservation and open access centralized, searchable access to institutional digital resources that would have traditionally gone to the University Archives • Rich Media Services

  6. Problems • Limited collaboration between researchers • Limited collaboration between research service providers (missed opportunities) • Highly decentralized • Security concerns abound • Duplication of services

  7. Our Heavy Reliance on Chargeback is a Detriment • Central IT at one time was primarily a chargeback organization • 80% chargeback 10 years ago • Now only 20% chargeback • Strategic and core services “common good services” should be centrally funded

  8. What are we doing to move forward?

  9. University of MinnesotaResearch Cyberinfrastructure Alliance • “Partnering to align computing, human, and capital resources to better meet the research computing needs of a top research university”

  10. Alliance • VP for Information Technology - Sponsor • VP for Research – Sponsor • University of Minnesota Library - Sponsor • Minnesota Supercomputer Institute • Academic Health Center Center for Biomedical Research Informatics • Institute of Technology Digital Technology Center • College of Liberal Arts Research Computing Services

  11. Cyberinfrastructure Executive Leadership • We have a great exec partnership • VP for Research + VP for Tech + U Librarian • We try to speak with one voice • We recognize that the faculty and the deans need to support us • Listen, communicate, listen, communicate…

  12. Input from Interviews with Faculty • Need a layered approach to services • Rationalized decentralized model • Very large storage needs • Little thought is being given to long term data preservation • University does not exist in a vacuum • Core technology and interfacing staff • Again: ISO models don't work

  13. Planned Outcomes • Harness what we have, demonstrating that we have our act together, then formulate a unified strategy for new investment in addition cyberinfrastructure services • Funding models (free good vs charge back) • Networks, HPC, data centers, storage, software, library disciplines and service, collaboration tools • Support strategies • Virtual and real organization alignment that overcome structural barriers • Enterprise research strategic investment plan • Economies of scale that demonstrate ROI and value

  14. 6 year IT Investment Plan • This is the first year Minnesota has had a 6 year IT plan (in progress) • Research Cyberinfrastructure is now a part of that Plan • Need additional base funding • Need carefully layered “smart” ISO charge back models • Need to focus on Interdisciplinary and interinstitution Collaboration

  15. Thanks!

More Related