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

Ilya Zaslavsky, UCSD

Today’s most troubling and daunting problems have common features: some of them arise from human numbers and resource exploitation; they require long-term commitments from separate sectors of society and diverse disciplines to solve; simple, unidimensional solutions are unlikely; and failure to solve them can lead to disasters.

In some ways, the scales and complexities of our current and future problems are unprecedented, and it is likely that solutions will have to be iterative . . .

Institutions can enable the ideas and energies of individuals to have more impact and to 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

There is hope . . .

The issues of how best to govern natural resources used by many individuals in common are no more settled in academia than in the world of politics. Some scholarly articles about the “tragedy of the commons” recommend that “the state” control most natural resources . . . Others recommend . . . privatization. . . What one can observe in the world, however, is that neither the state nor the market is uniformly successful in enabling individuals to sustain long-term, productive use of natural resource systems. Further, communities of individuals have relied on institutions resembling neither the state nor the market to govern some resource systems with reasonable degrees of success over long periods of time.

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

Dynamic Tensions/Opportunities 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. . .

A. Increased visibility of stakeholder interests will accelerate stakeholder dialogue and alignment

B. A shared vision of success will enable faster formation and more robust forms of stakeholder alignment

C. Lateral alignment across stakeholders will be constrained or enabled by the internal alignment within stakeholder organizations

D. Initial stakeholder alignment will depend on trust; sustained stakeholder alignment will depend on new structural arrangements (forums, roles, incentives, etc.)

Preliminary findings on Operations. . .

E. Sustained stakeholder alignment will require leadership based on influence, more than authority

F. Forums that are “over specified” or “under specified” will ineffective in advancing both individual and collective interests – minimum critical specifications

G. Primary leverage for change is “middle-out” protocols and standards, not top-down or bottom-up

H. Failure to deliver on both individual and collective interests will erode stakeholder alignment and systems success

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. . .

1. Unrealistic or misaligned expectations among people presently involved in EarthCube

2. “Build it and they will come” mindset – users don’t show up, data is not shared, etc.

3. Not valuing what presently exists – current cyber/geo science efforts and initiatives that represent parts of the EarthCube vision

4. Not advancing the frontier in transformative ways relative to what presently exists – only automating the current state

5. Not engaging the 200,000+ geoscience and cyber stakeholders not presently involved in EarthCube

6. Not anticipating the needs of the next generation of geoscience and cyber stakeholders (todays doctoral students and post docs, as well as the generation behind them)

7. “Unk Unk” – additional unknown unknowns including transformational changes in the technology, catastrophic shifts in the policy arena, 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)

Selected elements of success from theEarly Career workshop

Access/Uploading:• Google earth style interface• Accessible data submission interface• Standardized meta data on data type, data

context, data provenance, etc. for field scientists (with and without 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• Pull up data and conduct analysis with voice

commands• Open source workflow management for data

processing and user-contributed algorithms in order to facilitate reproducible research

• Cross-system comparisons; ontology crosswalks for different vocabs in different disciplines

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

Output/Impact:• Mechanisms to provide credit for

work done (data, models, software, etc.); ease of citations; quantify impact

• Promote new connections between data producers and data 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.