Overcoming the Social and Technical Challenges to Virtual Scientific Collaboration The Birth of the...
-
Upload
carissa-bellar -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Overcoming the Social and Technical Challenges to Virtual Scientific Collaboration The Birth of the...
Overcoming theSocial and Technical Challenges to Virtual Scientific Collaboration
The Birth of the NASA Astrobiology Institute as a Community of PracticeBy Gail Terry Grimes* and Claude Whitmyer**
*Chief Executive Officer E-Mail: [email protected]
**Chief Learning Officer E-Mail: [email protected]
The University of the Future LLC (FutureU™)529 Arkansas Street, San Francisco, California USA
http://www.futureu.com
Copyright © 2004. Claude Whitmyer and Gail Terry Grimes. All rights reserved.
Goals of the NASA Astrobiology Institute
• Create opportunities for scientific interaction within/among scientific teams
• Create interdisciplinary “communities of practice”
• Encourage effective organizational culture
• Expand public education and outreach about Astrobiology• To encourage and train next generation of researchers• To communicate the science of Astrobiology
1.1. Deploy tools Deploy tools
2.2. Provide training Provide training
3.3. Continuously evaluateContinuously evaluate
3
NAI Today
• 700+ Members• 15 Lead Sites• 16 Lead Teams• 100+ Collaborating Sites• NAI Central (Administrative and Support Staff)• International Associates and Affiliates• Relationship with larger astrobiology community
4
ArgentinaAustraliaCanadaEcuadorGermanyScotlandSpainBritain
Lead Sites Collaborating Sites
NAI Today
Potential Benefits of a Culture of Collaboration
• Faster consensus building
• More “out-of-the-box” thinking
• Collective knowledge building/exchange
• Synergies of shared approaches and shared data
• Intellectual breakthroughs and innovative applications
• Reduced redundancy in funding projects
• Greater professional satisfaction
6
• Differences of language and vocabulary• Learning curve regarding shared knowledge• Time pressure• Degree of common interests/goals/purpose• Uneven access to collaborative opportunities• In-Group/Out-Group• Intellectual property and attribution issues• Continuum of Enthusiasm
nay-sayers neo-phobes early adopters "power" users
The Social Challenges of Virtual Collaboration
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time
Le
arn
ing
HypotheticalLearning Curve
7
The Technical Challenges of Virtual Collaboration
• Difficulty of Use• Platform Incompatibilities• Limited “Bandwidth” (access speed)• Uneven access to tools
– Uneven distribution – Overbooking of shared resources
• Learning curve regarding technology• Limited IT Support
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time
Le
arn
ing
8
FutureU Methodology for Introducing New IT
1. Engagement and Analysis (Ethnographic study of the population)
2. IT Industry Research
3. Product Demonstrations (Immersive approach where possible)
4. Product Pilots
5. Training and Follow-up Reminders (Technology skills and best practices)
6. Phased Organization-Wide Rollout
7. Delivery Process Evaluation
9
Engagement Throughout
• Embrace the Social Processes• Embrace the Potential of Technology• Support Social Processes with Technology• Encourage a Culture of Collaboration• Use Immersive Approach to New Tools
10
Embrace the Social Processes
• Develop cultural awareness• Build consensus for choices• Master the technical skills• Identify the best way to use the tools• Master these “best practices”• Evaluate periodically
11
Embrace the Potential of Technology
• Provide faster communication• Experience less travel• Reduce long-term costs• Create better data storage/retrieval• Enhance collaboration
Support Social Processes with Technology
• Ad hoc Virtual Meetings– DESKTOP/LAPTOP/ROOM-BASED– REAL-TIME, ANYPLACE– ANYTIME, ANYPLACE
• Web-based Seminars and Presentations• Document and Data Sharing• Knowledge Building
(shared, searchable information depositories)• Online Polling and Surveying• Bulletin Boards• Automated Reminders and Reinforcers
Encourage a Culture of Collaboration
• Build consensus– Ask, ask, ask (What do you think?)– Tell, tell, tell (Here's what we've learned.)
• Introduce a collaborative tools design cycle• Introduce communications tools via real
situations, wherever possible (immersive approach)
• Include IT staff as strategic partners
FutureU’s 4Ds™ (Collaborative Tools Design Cycle)
• Discovery– Ethnographic research– Key stakeholder interviews– Institute-wide needs assessment– Collaborative tools research– Some demos
• Design– Demo promising solutions– Evaluate demo outcomes– Recommend promising products for
pilot– Recruit pilot participants
• Development– Conduct pilots– Evaluate pilot outcomes– Identify best practices– Plan for IT support– Develop deployment plan
• Deployment– Phased roll-out (Institute-wide)– Evaluate deployment progress
15
5. Use Immersive Approach to New Tools
• Vendor demos• Immediate application when possible• Participant comments (Discussion/Survey)• Patterns observed• “Neo-phobia” / “Neo-philia” separated from
the real shortcomings• Next vendor demo improved by feedback
16
Findings
• Needs AssessmentSocial Findings
Technological Findings
• Collaborative Tools Research
NAI Needs Assessment: Social Findings(From 164 survey respondents, out of 572)
• Ideal Values and Behaviors– Recognition of need for virtual collaboration– Common goals/objectives– Shared intellectual interests– Willingness to participate/work together/share resources– Regular team meetings/team cohesion– Communication across teams– Exchange of students/postdocs/senior researchers– Willingness to explore new technologies– Frequent use of technology by many– Minimum bureaucracy– Research reported to astrobiology community/public
18
Needs Assessment: Technical Findings(From 164 survey respondents our of 572)
• Hardware platform• Internet connectivity• Forward migration of operating systems • IT support• Technology skill level• User requirements
19
Hardware Platform
9379
227
65
49
62
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
IBMCompatible
Macintosh Sun SGI Other
Number Reported Desktop Number Reported Laptop
• Nearly half of machines reported were Macs (128 out of 323)
20
Internet Connectivity
123
25
2
36
High Speed (ISDN, DSL, Cable,T1/T3)
POTS (Plain Old TelephoneModem)
Satellite
Don’t know
• Two-thirds of the connectivity options were high-speed:ISDN, DSL, Cable or T1/T3 (123 out of 186)
21
Operating Systems
• Windows 98 and MacOS 9 predominated– Based on survey response, probably the target level
for Institute-wide compatibility
156
102
54
Windows OS
Mac OS
Unix/Linux OS
22
Pattern of OS Forward Migration
13
55
29
45
14
1 1
31
55
14
32
21
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Win
dows 95
Win
dows 98
Win
dows NT
Win
dows 20
00
Win
dows M
E
Mac
into
sh S
yste
m 6
+
Mac
into
sh S
yste
m 7
+
Mac
into
sh S
yste
m 8
+
Mac
into
sh S
yste
m 9
+
Mac
into
sh S
yste
m 1
0+Unix
Linux
IRIX
6.5
Windows Macintosh
23
Uneven IT Support at Local Institutions
• One-fourth of respondents had only peer or no support (43 out of 160)
86
28
43
3
Full-time IT staff
Part-time IT staff
Informal orNo support
Don’t Know
24
Mixed Technology Skill Level
• Potential for mentoring– Half of survey respondents consider themselves intermediate
(85 out of 163)– One-quarter are “beginners” and one-quarter are “advanced”
(39 out of 163)
39
85
39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Beginner Intermediate Advanced or"Power User"
25
Minimum User Requirements(identified by survey respondents)
• Cross-Platform Compatibility (Windows, Mac, Linux/Unix)
• Desktop Tools • Web-Based Access• Ease of Use• High-Speed Access• Reliability• Security• Privacy• Reasonable Cost
26
Top 10 Collaboration Tools (from Needs Assessment Survey)
• Desktop Video• Web-based NAI emailing lists• Web-based photo directory• Web-based info repository/knowledge mgt system• Scientific visualization/imaging capabilities• Room-based videoconferencing system• Wireless data sharing toolsfield locations• Web-based document sharing • Desktop data sharing• Live chats/real-time online meeting
In PlaceIn Place
In PlaceIn Place
In ProcessIn Process
In ProcessIn Process
The Tools to Acquire
27
Collaborative Tools Research
• Nearly 100 features identified• 200+ software products identified• Checked for cross-platform compatibility• 90 cross-platform packages selected for review• Most promising packages identified• Real-world demos held
Feature Categories
• Communication (Real-time and asynchronous)• Document Sharing, Version Control• Work Organization (Task lists, project templates)• User Personalization (“dashboard” or “MySpace”)• Distance Learning • Delivery/User Interface• Management and Administration• Installation Model• Training and Support• Cost Factors
29
Promising Products Identified
• Video Conferencing• Internet Presentations/Meetings• Document Data/Sharing (version control)• Knowledge Management/Information
Repository (searchable)• Collaboration Portals (full-featured)
30
Promising Products
•Video Conferencing (Room/Desktop) •Knowledge Management –Room-based –ArsDigita •Avistar Video Applications –eRoom –Desktop Based –Intraspect •Video Link Pro –LiveLink’s Virtual Teams •iVisit .•ViaVideo (Polycom) .
•Internet Presentations/Meetings with Chat •Collaborative Portals (“full-featured”) –Horizon Live –eRoom –iMeet –Intraspect –The Virtual Meeting –LiveLink’s Virtual Teams –WebEx –BrightSuite . –Cybozu Virtual Office •Document/Data Sharing –Lotus Quickplace–BrightSuite .–Cybozu Virtual Office .–eRoom .–Intraspect .–LiveLink’s Virtual Teams .
FutureU’s Collaborative Tools Design Cycle
1. Discovery– Ethnographic research– Key stakeholder interviews– Institute-wide needs assessment– Collaborative tools research– Some demos
2. Design– Demo promising solutions– Evaluate demo outcomes– Recommend promising products for pilot– Recruit pilot participants
3. Development– Conduct pilots– Evaluate pilot outcomes– Identify best practices– Plan for IT support– Develop deployment plan
4. Deployment– Phased roll-out
(Institute-wide)– Evaluate deployment
progress
32
Example: Adoption of Real-Time Online Meetings
• 3-month pilot– 31 unique hosts– 1,333 attendee seats– 358 meetings – averaging 90 minutes each meeting– Users reported
• made collaborative work easier
• able to produce more in the same amount of time
• supplemented regular meetings rather than replacing them
• Last 12 Months– 333 unique participants– averaging 166 meetings per month– averaging 90 minutes each meeting
33
Working Together to Actualize the Virtual Institute
• NAI Central• Collaborative Research Support Group• IT Working Group• FutureU
• Presented by– Carmen Holotescu <[email protected]> – On behalf of Gail Terry Grimes, FutureU CEO and
Claude Whitmyer, FutureU CLO
Copyright © 2004. Claude Whitmyer and Gail Terry Grimes. All rights reserved.