EarthCube Stakeholder Alignment: Data and Principles Susan Winter, University of Maryland

Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld,University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Support from the National Science Foundation is deeply appreciated: NSF-VOSS EAGER 0956472, “Stakeholder Alignment in Socio-Technical Systems,” NSF OCI RAPID 1229928, “Stakeholder Alignment for EarthCube,” NSF GEO-SciSIP-STS-OCI-INSPIRE 1249607, “Enabling Transformation in the Social Sciences, Geosciences, and Cyberinfrastructure,” NSF I-CORPS 1313562 “Stakeholder Alignment for Public-Private Partnerships”

Nick Berente, University of GeorgiaBurcu Bolukbasi, UIUC

Nosh Contractor, Northwestern UniversityLeslie DeChurch, Georgia Tech University

Courtney Flint, Utah State UniversityGabriel Gershenfeld, Cleveland Indians

Michael Haberman, UIUCJohn L. King, University of Michigan

Eric Knight, University of SydneyBarbara Lawrence, UCLA

Spenser Lewis, General DynamicsPablo Lopez, UIUC

Ethan Masella, Brandeis UniversityCharles Mcelroy, Case Western

Reserve UniversityBarbara Mittleman, Nodality, Inc.

Mark Nolan, UIUCMelanie Radik, Brandeis University

Namchul Shin, Pace UniversityIlya Zaslavsky, UCSD

Unprecedented Scale and Complexity of Problems – Some from human numbers and resource exploitation

– Failure to solve them can lead to disasters

– Require long-term commitments from diverse sectors of society and disciplines • simple, unidimensional solutions unlikely;

– Solutions will be iterative

– Institutions can enable more impact and sustain efforts in ways that individuals cannot.

From “Science to Sustain Society,” by Ralph J. Cicerone, President,

National Academy of Sciences, 149th Annual Meeting of the Academy (2012)

Institutions ≠ Systems

Sources: Carolos A. Osario, ESD Doctoral Seminar, 2004, and Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld

US Passenger Air Transportation System

http://www.xprt.net/~rolfsky/internetSite/internet.htmlUS Internet Backbone

Natural Disasters

US Power Grid

Enabling Long-term, Productive Use of Natural Resources

• Neither the state nor the market is uniformly successful

• Communities have relied on institutions to govern some resource systems

Eleanor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, p. 1

Institutional and Systems Requirements

Creating Value

Mitigating Harm

. . . expanding the “pie” and enabling systems transformation

. . . anticipating and mitigating externalities and catastrophic systems failures

Enduring, Dynamic Tensions in Governance

Creating Value Mitigating Harm

Cooperation Competition

Deliberation Action

Majorities Minorities

Stability Agility

Innovation Standardization

Defining stakeholder alignment . . .

“The extent to which interdependent stakeholders orient and connect with one another

to advance their separate and shared interests.”

A simplified conceptual framework . . .

Culture

Behavior

Strategy Structure

Preliminary Findings on Formation

• Visibility of stakeholder interests accelerates dialogue and alignment

• Shared vision of success enables faster/more robust forms of alignment (Strategy)

• Internal alignment within stakeholder groups enables lateral alignment across stakeholders (Structure)

• Alignment initially based on trust; sustaining requires new structural arrangements (forums, roles, incentives, etc.) (Culture/Structure)

Preliminary Findings on Operations. . .

• Requires leadership based on influence, more than authority (Behavior)

• “Over specified” or “under specified” forums are ineffective – minimum critical specifications (Structure)

• Primary lever for change is “middle-out” (protocols and standards) not top-down or bottom-up (Strategy/Structure)

• Failure to deliver on individual/collective interests erodes alignment and systems success (Overall)

Minimum critical specification:No more and no less!

Council of Data Facilities CharterI. PreambleII. VisionIII. Mission and goalsIV. DefinitionV. MembershipVI. Roles and responsibilitiesVII. OperationsVIII. Coordination with

EarthCubeIX. Signatures

Assembly of EarthCube Funded Projects GuidelinesI. Introduction and overviewII. Guiding principlesIII. OperationsIV. Roles and responsibilitiesV. Assembly coordinating

committeeVI. Coordination with

EarthCubeVII. Signatures

The vision. . .

“Over the next decade, the geosciences community commits to developing a framework to understand and predict responses of the Earth as a system—from the space-atmosphere boundary to the core, including the influences of humans and ecosystems.”– GEO Vision Report of NSF Geoscience

Directorate Advisory Committee, 2009

Potential failure modes. . . • Unrealistic or misaligned expectations • “Build it and they will come”• Not valuing current cyber/geo efforts and initiatives• Not advancing the frontier – just automating

current state• Not engaging the 200,000+ geoscience and cyber

stakeholders not yet involved in EarthCube• Not anticipating the needs of the next generation

(students, post docs)• Unknown unknowns (transformational changes in

technology, policy, etc.)

Stakeholder alignment data by End User Workshop (n=1,544)

EarthCube Website (n=164)Data Centers (n=578)Early Career (n=37) Oct. 17-18, 2012Structure and Tectonics (n=24) Nov. 19-20, 2012EarthScope (n=22) Nov. 29-30, 2012Experimental Stratigraphy (n=21) Dec. 11-12, 2012Atmospheric Modeling / Data Assimilation and Ensemble Prediction (n=29) Dec. 19, 2012OGC (n=14) Jan. 13, 2013Critical Zone (n=39) Jan. 21-23, 2013Hydrology / Envisioning a Digital Crust (n=23) Jan. 29-31, 2013Paleogeoscience (n=40) Feb. 3-5, 2013Education & Workforce Training (n=33) Mar. 3-5, 2013Petrology & Geochemistry (n=59) Mar. 6-7, 2013Sedimentary Geology (n=50) Mar. 25-27, 2013Community Geodynamic Modeling (n=45) Apr. 22-24, 2013Integrating Inland Waters, Geochemistry, Biogeochem and Fluvial Sedimentology Communities (n=46) Apr. 24-26, 2013Deep Sea Floor Processes and Dynamics (n=29) June 5-6, 2013Real-Time Data (n=25) June 17-18, 2013Ocean ‘Omics (n=42) Aug. 21-23, 2013Coral Reef Systems (n=44) Sept. 18-19/Oct. 23-24, 2013Geochronology (n=66) Oct. 1-3, 2013Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (n=36) Oct. 7-8, 2013Clouds and Aerosols (n=39) Oct. 21-22, 2013Rock Deformation and Mineral Physics (n=35) Nov. 12-14, 2013

Stakeholder Alignment data by Fields and disciplines (n=1,544)

Primary SecondaryAtmospheric n=175 (11.3%) n=74 (4.8%)Biologist/Ecosystems n=127 (8.2%) n=101 (6.5%)Climate Scientists n=78 (5.1%) n=86 (5.6%)Critical zone n=31 (2%) n=44 (2.8%)Geographers n=32 (2.1%) n=34 (2.2%)Geologists n=358 (23.2%) n=112 (7.3%)Geophysicists n=148 (9.6%) n=73 (4.7%)Hydrologists n=82 (5.3%) n=61 (4.0%)Oceanographers n=171 (11.3%) n=94 (6.1%)

Computer/Cyber n=82 (5.3%) n=91 (5.9%)Data managers n=53 (3.4%) n=86 (5.6%)Software engineers n=24 (1.6%) n=50 (3.2%)

Note: additional categories included in the survey, but these are the focus here.

Sample specific areas of expertise

• Air Sea Interaction• Atmospheric Radiation • Basalt geochemistry• Biodiversity Information Networks• Carbonate Stratigraphy • Chemical Oceanography• Coastal Geomorphology• Computational Geodynamics• Cryosphere-Climate Interaction • Disaster Assessment• Ensemble data assimilation• Geochronology• Geoinformatics• Geomicrobiology • Glaciology• Heliophysics

• Isotope Geochemistry• “It’s complicated”• Magnetospheric Physics• Mesoscale Meteorology• Multibeam Bathymetric Data • Nearshore Coastal Modeling• Paleoceanography• Paleomagnetism• Permafrost Geophysics• Planetology • Riverine carbon and nutrient

biogeochemistry• Satellite gravity and altimetry data

processing• Tectonophysics• Thermospheric Physics• Watershed Management

Accessing data, models, and software within fields/disciplines: Importance and ease

How IMPORTANT is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) in your field or discipline? (v58)How EASY is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) in your field or discipline? (v59)

Importance and ease within fields/disciplines

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

IMPORTANT data, tools, models in your field

EASE data, tools, models in your field

Accessing data, models, and software across fields/disciplines: Importance and ease

How IMPORTANT is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) that span different fields or disciplines? (v60)How EASY is it for you to find, access, and/or integrate multiple datasets, models, and/or software (e.g. visualization tools, middleware, etc.) that span different fields or disciplines? (v61)

Importance and ease across fields/disciplines

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

IMPORTANT data, tools, models across fields

EASE data, tools, models, across fields

Cooperation/sharing among geoscientistsCooperation/sharing among cyber-developers

There is currently a high degree of sharing of data, models, and software among geoscientists. (v69) There is currently a high degree of sharing of software, middleware and hardware among those developing and supporting cyberinfrastructure for the geosciences. (v70)

Cooperation/sharing among geoscientistsand among cyber-developers by fields and disciplines

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

cooperation among geoscientistsCooperation among cyber-developers

Collaboration between geo and cyberSufficient end user training

There is currently sufficient communication and collaboration between geoscientists and those who develop cyberinfrastructure tools and approaches to advance the geosciences. (v72)There is currently sufficient geoscience end-user knowledge and training so they can effectively use the present suite of cyberinfrastructure tools and train their students/colleagues in its use. (v73)

Collaboration between geo and cyber and sufficient end user training by fields and disciplines

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Collaboration between geo and cyberSufficient end-user training

End user views on sharing data, tools, models, and software

Overall, I believe that sharing data, tools, models, and software that I generated will advance my career in the next 3-5 years? (v82)I trust that the data, tools, models, and software shared by other colleagues will be well-documented and reliable. (v83)

End user views on sharing data, tools, models, and software by fields and disciplines

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Sharing will advance my careerI turst data will be well-documented and reliable

Support for sharing from employer and colleagues

My employer/organization will most likely value and reward any efforts I make in the shaping and development of EarthCube (v120).Any contributions I might make to the shaping and development of EarthCube will likely be recognized and valued by colleagues in my field/discipline (v122).

Support for sharing from employer and colleagues by fields and disciplines

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Employer will value EC effortsColleagues will value EC efforts

End user views on commercial products and applications

The EarthCube incorporate commercial products or applications to reduce cost or speed development. (v105)The EarthCube process should generate tools and approaches that benefit commercial products or applications. (v106)

End user views on commercial products and applications by fields and disciplines

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Incorporate commercialBenefit commercial

Motivation for engagement with EarthCube

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Support for EarthCube specifying guidelinesSupport for guidelines using international standards

The EarthCube initiative should specify guidelines so there is more interoperability and uniformity in discovering, accessing, sharing, and disseminating geoscience data. (v99)Where such standards exist, EarthCube should use formal, internationally approved, geoscience-wide data access/sharing standards and protocols (e.g. ISO, OGC). (v100)

Support for collaboration among US govt. orgs.Support for collaboration between US and Intl. orgs.

EarthCube should play an active role in enabling collaboration and coordination of geoscience cyber-infrastructure activities among US government organizations (NSF, NOAA, NASA, Army Corp, etc.). (v116)EarthCube should play an active role in enabling collaboration and coordination between US and international geoscience cyberinfrastructure initiatives and organizations. (v117)

Elements of Success (from Early Career workshop)Access/Uploading:• Google earth style interface• Accessible data submission interface• Standardized meta data (data type, context, provenance, etc.) for field

scientists (with & w/o internet access)• Data security• Public accessibility; empower non-specialists

Utilization/Operations:• Community mechanisms to build tools• Large data manipulation, visualization, and animation• Searchable access by space, time, and context• Voice to pull up data and analyze• Open source workflow management for data processing and user-

contributed algorithms (facilitate reproducibility)• Cross-system comparisons; ontology crosswalks for vocabs in diff

disciplines• Easy integration of analytic tools (R, Matlab, etc.)• NSF support for data management

Elements of Success (from Early Career workshop)

Output/Impact:• Mechanisms for credit for work done (data, models, software, etc.);

ease of citation; quantify impact• Promote new connections between data producers and consumers• Interactive publications from text to data• Recommendations system (like Amazon) for data, literature, etc.;

Flickr for data (collaborative tagging)• Educational tutorials for key geoscience topics (plate tectonics, ice

ages, population history, etc.)• Gaming scenarios for planet management• EarthCube app store; ecosystem of apps

Most important challenges of the 21st Century, as identified by NAE

• Make solar energy economical

• Provide energy from fusion

• Develop carbon sequestration methods

• Manage the nitrogen cycle

• Provide access to clean water

• Restore and improve urban infrastructure

• Advance health informatics

• Engineer better medicines

• Reverse-engineer the brain

• Prevent nuclear terror

• Secure cyberspace

• Enhance virtual reality

• Advance personalized learning

• Engineer the tools of scientific discovery

Source: http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/

Appendix

The complete survey (1544 respondents) is available for exploratory analysis via a new online interface:

The URL is http://maxim.ucsd.edu/ecsurvey1544 This version requires Silverlight plugin. As before, it will take a few minutes to load it the first time (because of the size of the survey data file).

There are also two additional versions http://maxim.ucsd.edu/openlinkpivot/survey1544.html

http://maxim.ucsd.edu/lobsterpot/0.9.32/survey1544.html These do not require a plugin, but these are experimental, and less robust than the first one.