Laurie J. Kirsch Professor Information Systems Katz Graduate School of Business

1. Controlling and Coordinating Large, Complex, and Distributed Scientific Research CollaborationsGENI Engineering Conference 7 Laurie J. Kirsch Professor Information Systems Katz Graduate School of Business The University of Pittsburgh lkirsch@katz.pitt.edu Sandra A. Slaughter Professor Information Technology Management College of Management Georgia Institute of Technology sandra.slaughter@mgt.gatech.edu Presentation @ GEC7

2. Who are we and why are we here? • Management scholars • Conduct research on the management of information technology and systems projects • Prior and current NSF-funded studies to examine the management of large scientific research projects with a “cyber” component (“Cyber-infrastructure projects”) Presentation @ GEC7

3. Examples of Large Collaborative, Cyber-infrastructure Projects • NEES – George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation • Teragrid / XD – High-performance network of super computers proving cyber-infrastructure for open scientific research • iPLANT – cyber-infrastructure collaborative for plant sciences • GENI – Global Environment for Network Innovations Presentation @ GEC7

4. Research Objectives for our Study of GENI • Identify mechanisms that are needed to effectively structure, govern, and manage projects like GENI • Understand communication and interaction patterns (who is communicating and collaborating with whom) • Suggest control / coordination techniques • Get feedback from the GENI community • Note: we are NOT reviewing projects as part of the GPO's performance assessment. We keep all identities anonymous. Presentation @ GEC7

5. Our progress to date • We have conducted interviews with several GENI stakeholders across different roles • We have collected publicly available archival data capturing interactions between GENI stakeholders and have conducted a social network analysis of the data • Would like to share our initial results from the social network analysis of GENI… Presentation @ GEC7

6. A Social Network Analysis of GENI • Social network analysis identifies the communication and interaction patterns of individuals in a community • Identifies the most “central” (e.g. influential) individuals and those who are the information brokers (e.g., boundary spanners). • Patterns of communication and interaction reflect how information, knowledge and ideas are exchanged in a community Presentation @ GEC7

7. A Social Network Analysis of GENI (Cont’d) • Social network analysis can identify sub-groups and cliques and signal the potential for conflict • Patterns of interaction and communication relate to performance, innovation and other project outcomes • A social network analysis of GENI was conducted to determine the structure of the interactions between GENI stakeholders in Spiral 1 Presentation @ GEC7

8. Possible Social Structures Fully Connected Classic Organizational Hierarchy Nearest Neighbor Autonomous Presentation @ GEC7

9. Possible Social Structures (Cont’d) Core-Periphery or “onion” (Open Source communities) Presentation @ GEC7

10. Why is the type of social structure important? • Different parts of the network can coallesce into “cliques” or sub-groups that differentiate themselves from other sub-groups and this can cause conflict Leftcluster: Affiliation: Industry Expertise: Management Right cluster: Affiliation: Academia Expertise: Biology Presentation @ GEC7

11. So what is the social structure of GENI? Presentation @ GEC7

12. The Social Structure of GENI • Based on: • publicly available data collected from 2007 to 2009 (from GENI website) • people who participated in GENI events during that time period (PIs, GPO, NSF, Working groups, others) • projects (Spiral 1) and clusters during that time period. • "events" occurring during that time period that connect those participants (e.g., attendance at GEC 1-6, meetings, milestone completion, email exchanges) • 667 individuals who participated in 1,195 events during that time period Presentation @ GEC7

13. The Social Structure of GENI: 2007 PIs GPO NSF Presentation @ GEC7

14. The Social Structure of GENI: 2008 PIs GPO NSF Presentation @ GEC7

15. The Social Structure of GENI: 2009 PIs GPO NSF Presentation @ GEC7

16. Initial Observations • The GENI community has the social structure most similar to an open source (e.g., core-periphery) community • There are some isolated individuals and groups but over time, the core of GENI is expanding to include many participants • Some participants are influential throughout, others emerge as leaders, and others lose influence – reflects the changing pattern of stakeholder participation in GENI Presentation @ GEC7

17. Next Steps • We analyzed the social structure of GENI based on archival data – but, we are missing interactions between PIs • We are sending Spiral 1 PIs a link to a communication survey – please complete the survey so we can finish our analysis and present the results at an upcoming GEC • We are interested to talk with GEC attendees about their experiences in GENI – please contact us if you would like to talk with us or if you would like to know where you are in the GENI social structure! Presentation @ GEC7

18. Thank you! • Our contact information: • Professor Laurie Kirsch • The University of Pittsburgh • lkirsch@katz.pitt.edu • Professor Sandra Slaughter • Georgia Institute of Technology • sandra.slaughter@mgt.gatech.edu Presentation @ GEC7

19. Additional Slides Presentation @ GEC7

20. Motivation • Challenges we observe in managing cyber-infrastructure projects: • Large and complex • High uncertainty and risk • Volatile and emergent requirements • Constrained by budget and schedule • Distributed knowledge and collaborators across institutions • Diverse collaborators with different motives and incentives • Difficulty of communication and coordination Presentation @ GEC7

21. Research Approach • Qualitative analyses • Develop timeline of GENI, including key events and decisions • Conduct targeted interviews of GENI stakeholders to understand their experiences in the project • Synthesize recommendations for communication, coordination and commitment • Quantitative analyses • Social network analysis of patterns of communication and interactions between GENI stakeholders Presentation @ GEC7

22. Why is the type of social structure important? • Different structures have different advantages and disadvantages: • Traditional hierarchy – efficient but inflexible • Fully connected team – effective but time consuming • Autonomous – no information transfer • Nearest neighbor – convenient, but slow and information distorted as passed along • Core-periphery – brings in many perspectives, but depends on boundary spanners Presentation @ GEC7

23. The Social Structure of GENI: 2007(including “independents”) PIs GPO NSF Other Presentation @ GEC7

24. The Social Structure of GENI: 2008(including “independents”) PIs GPO NSF Other Presentation @ GEC7

25. The Social Structure of GENI: 2009(including “independents”) PIs GPO NSF Other Presentation @ GEC7

26. Critical Dimensions for Managing Cyber-Infrastructure Projects Communication Control/ Coordination Commitment Presentation @ GEC7

27. Communication Challenges • Distributed communities of stakeholders • Must have effective mechanisms for distributed communication (not face-to-face) between team members • Common, shared infrastructure for project management and technical development is helpful • Diverse groups of stakeholders • Requirements determination processes are critical • Need for communication and requirements discovery mechanisms to foster collaboration across stakeholders • Stakeholders who span across multiple groups are needed to facilitate communication Presentation @ GEC7

28. Control / Coordination Challenges • Constraints on schedule, budget, quality • Extensive project planning, monitoring and reporting is needed • Formal oversight is required • Iterative development (innovation) process • Must manage “incubation” or “experimental” process • Need to facilitate technical integration which can be very complex • How to reconcile need for flexibility in development process with need for formality in project management Presentation @ GEC7

29. Control / Coordination Challenges • Funding • Funded by external agencies and must report to them • Complex project funding arrangements must be managed • Different stakeholder communities • Control is indirect, complex and difficult to exert (i.e., different cultures, organizations) • Project Director plays an especially critical role in bridging Presentation @ GEC7

30. Commitment Challenges • Community-based instead of formal organizational roles • Stakeholders need to have clearly defined roles, standards and codes of conduct • Self-regulation mechanisms (reputation, trust, etc.) are required • Shared vision and consensus-based decision making processes are vital for commitment Presentation @ GEC7