Future Profiles of e-Research

Workshop 11: Profiling UK e-Research: Mapping Communities and Measuring Impacts

1

Future Profiles of e-ResearchFuture Profiles of e-Research

Ian Miles Manchester Institute of Innovation Research

Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of Manchester

[email protected]

"Crossing Boundaries"

ALL HANDS MEETING 2008

e-Science

UK8-11 September, Edinburgh, UK

JISC


2

WHAT SORT OF BEAST IS e-RESEARCH?

Using e-infrastructure

Diffusion:No of users(or: intensity of use;Range of applications…)

Product cycle:“maturity” of product

Pioneers

Laggards

Take-off into mass acceptance: less “expert” users

Changing Communities: types of user, of network

Product/service designs in flux:

Growing focus on functionality, supply efficiency, commoditisation

Differentiation, bottlenecks, next

big thing

Changing Services and Impacts: types and modes of application

Time

What timescale:

years? Decades?


3

WHERE ARE WE WITH e-RESEARCH?


Time



1) Are we just at the beginning? How far will diffusion go?

Is this something

really new? Can we

extrapolate from

pioneers?

2) Is take-off underway, has it happened? Are

communities established and expanding? Have usage

patterns stabilised?

What timescale:

years? Decades?

3) Are things really pretty mature – no prospect of radical change, because

requisite facilities well-diffused?


4

What timescale:

years? Decades?

WHERE ARE WE WITH e-RESEARCH has…


Time



Implications for the ways in which we can think about sorts of

community and practice, sorts of application and effect, whether we expect change to be incremental or

(potentially) revolutionary, how problems and opportunities may be

identified and addressed


5

What timescale:

years? Decades?

Two other thoughts about these trajectories - 1

Envelope Curves

Time



We can expect many

specific technological trajectories

Uptake data for a specific application will not tell whole story – nor will evidence on use, problems, etc.


6

The other thought about these trajectories

Trajectory of Hype

Time

Optimism/ excitement about the service or technology

Political &/or business support?

Technology Trigger

Peak of .Inflated ..Expectations

Trough of Disillusionment

Plateau of Productivity

Slope of Enlightenment

Source: Gartner Group, who

place various Technologies on this; according to

Wolfgang Gentsch, in 2006

they put Grid Computing

here and tera-architectures

here

What timescale:

years? Decades?


7

In Forsociety, we explored scenarios for e-Infrastructure

ForSociety; http://www.eranet-forsociety.net/ForSociety/index.html

Future dialogues: develop understanding of areas where Foresight may be used to assist transnational cooperation: e.g. * The Future of Nutrition – Production, Consumption, Innovation; * European Energy Future; * Electronic Infrastructures: from ICT to collaborative science and innovation networks; * Towards a transnational foresight analysis task force for Agronomic Knowledge in S&T; * The dynamics of the national and regional research & innovation systems (RIS) and the emergence of the European Research Area (ERA); * The future of multinational innovation clusters in Biotechnology and Life Sciences; * Future dialogue on European infrastructures - Assess tasks for an integrated Europe-wide foresight network on infrastructures

What is ForSocietyForSociety ERA-Net is a sustainable and dynamic network, where national foresight programme managers co-ordinate their activities and - on the basis of shared knowledge on relevant issues, methodologies, legal and financial frameworks - regularly develop and implement efficient trans-national foresight programmes that significantly enrich both the national and the European research and innovation systems.


8

ForSociety future dialogue

Small group met and explored alternative scenarios for e-infrastructure

Identified drivers and issues Explored 4 scenarios using “archetype” method – rather than 2*2

driver method Avoiding Business as usual, asked participants to work on identifying

PLAUSIBLE paths of development that would be better then, worse than, or different from expectations

Uncertainty about the field demonstrated by the results that (a) ALL paths of development were seen as possible outcomes (we did not take this out to wider rating of “likelihood” or “extent of realisation”); (b) Most interest was generated by the futures “out there, where the bus doesn’t run”, which were felt to be particularly challenging – and liable to be realised in one or other way!


9

Future Dialogue on e-Infrastructures (FORSOCIETY 2006-7)

Scenarios1. “Elephant” - Positive development, rapid

(faster than expected) uptake: Research-dedicated e-I

2. “Tiger” “Utopia” - Positive development, rapid uptake: multipurpose, public-private e-infrastructures

3. “Panther”/”Snake” “Interesting times” - Substantially different path of development

4. Donkey - Disastrous (much slower than expected) development

OSI

TCP/IP

Linux

Internet bubble


10

Scenario 1 – Elephant - The main theme

Seamless access to the e-Infrastructure i.e. integrated resources (networking, computing, data, etc.) and services offered to the scientific users– Users should be satisfied (easy access)– Without the providers’ frustration

Drivers

Grand challenge applications drive the need for seamless integration EC has a clear integrating role Seamless integration provides equal opportunities in using the e-

Infrastructures


11

Scenario 1 – Elephant - Issues arising, problems

Positive features (Strengthening Science and Education in Europe) need to be offset by Risks:– Risk to privacy: Scientists’ ambitions vs. users/beneficiary privacy (e.g.

Medical patient records)– Risk of over-satisfaction / sustainability

• Victims of our own success; Who pays at the end?– Change of social behavior, need for new norms:

• Now: Reading e-mails when someone presents, getting mobile phone calls during the meetings.. Future: Submit job through the mobile phone and get results while being …

– Health hazards?– Increasing digital divide? Incl specific Countries or applications being left

behind.

Open Questions Single, general purpose eInfrastructure or several interconnected

application/discipline-specific eIs? User empowered or not? Virtualisation everywhere?


12

Scenario 2 – Tiger - The main theme For eI providers’: safe investments (equipment will have long-term users). Focus on core research, industry collaboration very easy (same standards,

both academia and industry have healthy market for computing services). Larger array of services available, easier to launch and access services

through common standards. New value added services. PC will disappear?

Globalisation Grand challenge applications drive the need for seamless integration which

provides equal opportunities in using the e-Infrastructures EC has a clear integrating role• Shared commercial interests (incl. research community) and understanding.

Immediacy, low cost IT services. Driven by profit motive where both large and small companies see advantages for business efficiency, etc.

• Commodification of services as academics see benefits; Big firms are prepared to go beyond traditional data centres (outsourcing these data centres to the grid); SMEs have access to IT power on “pay per use basis”

• Economies of scale important: issues of security and quality solved in widely acceptable ways. Trust in and desire for advanced technology

• Low cost specialisation of services - “Agent-auction mechanism”.

Drivers


13

Scenario 2 – Tiger – More infoStorylines:

• Bootstrap as we did with Internet and web, from R&D community to wider use

• The first limited applications will be public/private initiatives• Self-propelling development: others want to emulate; network

externalities.• Commodification and de facto standards for a second layer of services;

control of usage, payments and micropayments

Virtues – Problems:• Scenario seen as having mostly virtues, but:.• Privacy?• Legal problems?

Critical factors: Open de facto standards for metering and secure billing for services. International resolution of legal problems like IPR, patents, licensing Avoidance of national hegemony: control of underlying infrastructure;

protectionism as important parameters Barriers like protectionism, security and trust…


14

Scenario 3 – Panther - The main theme

Traditional infrastructure providers become irrelevant. Research might be stuck with “obsolete technologies” From society perspective: opportunity, crisis.

DriversOpen and difficult scenario with several possible routes to itMuch in common with Tiger, but stress on new factors influencing economies of scale (technical innovation, large emerging countries)Mixed model with public & private sector participation - but industry has superior momentum that forces public sector to apply it. New classes of research(er)?

Storylines:–Market discontinuity – some player offers the world very low cost data

centre/computer facility – could be Sony thin client server or Google sales platform… In “Plan 9 from Outer Playstation”, the idea is that of using a powerful processor like Playstation with some open source software as a cheap and accessible platform for all sorts of applications. Another model is BOINC. Another is P2P and Planetlab – the model here is that all Playstations are left on and used as elements in a distributed computing system (like the SETI project) – a “data swarm” which would be user driven, and perhaps be difficult due to problems of authentification and control


15

Scenario 3 – Panther - VarietiesStorylines 2:

–Changed technological paradigm, e.g. quantum computing or similar major architecture change, massive data storage (“exabytes for a few euros”) meaning that we only need data grids (unless local storage prices are also radically reduced): much individual P2P multilateral activity.

–Going East: E and SE Asia (China, Japan, Korea) driven market driven mechanism – outgrowing from manufacturing to a new trading tool, new IPR from Asia-centred computing science; quasi Grid-based computing sold to all suppliers in China; market spreads worldwide, driven by economies of scale and low costs, together with the market strength of C21st major growth centre (?).

Virtues – Problems:•New opportunities for new types of businesses•Handling investments on technologies that become obsolete overnight –

danger of triggering a recession.•Europe might have difficulties in adapting to technology that has been

developed in different environment (e.g. facing the “copper limit” in interconnecting systems).

Policies Ensure contact between cutting-edge research and infrastructure providers.

Uncertainties: incl Barriers in, e.g., power consumption. (resistance to leaving processors turned on all the time).


16

Scenario 4 – Donkey - The main theme Total inability of e-Infrastructure to fulfill user requirements

Drivers Grand challenge applications fail to drive the need for seamless integration No grand challenges left or no funding for these EC stops funding for research infrastructures Nations gradually discourage collaborative research Nations gradually discourage research funding Electronic war

– Immense spam, virus, denial of service attacks, electronic pollution in the air, etc. )

Technical failures in computer science to provide integrations (e.g. scalability issues) Legal issues work as a barrier (privacy, IPR, etc.) Risk of massive Single Point of Failures

– Destruction of a major memory chip factory led to a major memory price increase and corresponding computer configurations

Implications Stall research development; need to:Keep openness and co-operativeness; Awareness and rapid actions on behalf of governments

in case of undesired events; Maintain a democratic basis of governance on the political, social, market, and regulatory aspects


17

Implications

Where are we? This will have a major impact on what sorts of mapping and assessment, forecasting and planning, we undertake. Can evaluation and research into e-research elucidate? What methods for planning follow?

How distinguishable is e-research from a whole range of other factors shaping research?

If the range of alternative futures really is so wide, how best to develop strategy and monitor progress?

How far are there liable to be different futures for different fields?

What are the new paradigms that may elude established categorisation and measurement, and how can these be identified and shaped (for what goals?)?


18

End of presentation