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: gail@futureu.com

**Chief Learning Officer E-Mail: claude@futureu.com

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 <cami@timsoft.ro> – On behalf of Gail Terry Grimes, FutureU CEO and

Claude Whitmyer, FutureU CLO

Copyright © 2004. Claude Whitmyer and Gail Terry Grimes. All rights reserved.