CyberInfrastructure
Peter M. Siegel
Educause Cyberinfrastructure Summit
July 10-11, 2007
Denver, Colorado
What is it?
Why do we care?
What do we do about it now?
CI - Definitions
 Coined by the National Science Foundation
(NSF) to characterize infrastructure based upon
distributed computer, information, and
communication technology, the newer term
cyberinfrastructure was later popularized by the
NSF Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on
Cyberinfrastructure.
 Report of the American Council of Learned Societies’
Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for Humanities and
Social Sciences
Definitions Knowledge Economy
 “The term infrastructure has been used since the 1920’s to refer
collectively to the roads, power grids, telephone systems, bridges,
rail lines, and similar public works that are required for an industrial
economy to function.
 Although good infrastructure is often taken for granted and noticed
only when it stops functioning, it is among the most complex and
expensive things that society creates.
 The newer term cyberinfrastructure refers to infrastructure based
upon distributed computer, information and communication
technology.
 “If infrastructure is required for an industrial economy, then we
could say that cyberinfrastructure is required for a knowledge
economy.”
 Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the
National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure,
(Atkins Report), 2003.
Definitions Education, Commerce, Social Good
 “The emerging vision is to use Cyberinfrastructure to build more ubiquitous,
comprehensive digital environments that become interactive and functionally
complete for research communities in terms of people, data, information,
tools, and instruments and that operate at unprecedented levels of
computational, storage, and data transfer capacity.
 Increasingly, new types of scientific organizations and support environments
for science are essential, not optional, to the aspirations of research
communities and to broadening participation in those communities.
 They can serve individuals, teams, and organizations in ways that revolutionize
what they can do, how they can do it, and who participates.
 “This vision also has profound broader implications for education,
commerce, and social good.”
 Executive Summary, page 2, Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through
Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Advisory
Panel on Cyberinfrastructure, (Atkins Report), 2003.
Definitions All areas of Inquiry
•
“Cyberinfrastructure (CI) enables and supports scientific research through online digital
instruments, emerging sensor and observing technologies, high- powered computers,
extensive data storage capabilities, visualization facilities, and networks for
communication and collaboration. The report of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on
Cyberinfrastructure (the “Atkins Report”) signals that the sum of these changes
constitutes “a new age” which “has crossed thresholds that now make possible a
comprehensive ‘Cyberinfrastructure’ on which to build new types of scientific and
engineering knowledge environments and organizations and to pursue research in new
ways and with increased efficacy.”
•
•
Science and engineering are being transformed by Cyberinfrastructure.
This is just as true of the social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences as of
the physical, natural, engineering, and biological sciences.
 Francine Berman and Henry Brady, SBE/CISE Workshop on Cyberinfrastructure for
the Social Sciences, May 2005
Definitions Culture of Collaboration
 Campus cyberinfrastructure is not just about the
technology. We need to understand and engage
the research community, bridge the cultures,
enhance the collaborative relationships on
campuses and between campuses, and learn
from each other.
 Ken Klingenstein, Kevin Morooney, Steve Olshansky. Final Report: A Workshop on
Effective Approaches to Campus Research Computing Cyberinfrastructure. April 25-27,
2006 Arlington, VA
NSF Cyberinfrastructure Vision for
21st Century Discovery
 “Final Version”
 March 2007
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
NSF Cyberinfrastructure Vision
The Mission
 Develop human-centered CI driven by research
and education opportunities
 Provide world-class CI tools and services in five
key areas
 Promote a CI that broadens participation and
strengthens the nation’s workforce in all areas of
science and engineering
 Provide a sustainable CI- secure, efficient,
reliable… that [is] an essential national
infrastructure
 Create a stable but extensible CI environment
Cyberinfrastructure Functions and Resources
Instrumentation
Control
Help
Desk
Researcher
Security
Viewing
Data
Generation
Program
Security
Collab
Tools
Control
Training
Education
And
Outreach
Publishing
Policy and
Funding
Management
Security and
Access
Access
Control
Human
Support
Funding
Agencies
Authentication
Resource
Providers
Campuses
Authorization
Security
Security
Analysis
Simulation
Computation
Program
Input
Archive
Retrieval
Data Sets
Storage
Search
Data
Directories
Schema
Metadata
Ontologies
3D
Display Imaging
Tools
Data
.
Input
Security
Display and
Visualization
Russ Hobby, Internet2
The Network is the Backplane
for the Distributed CI Computer
Instrumentation
Control
Help
Desk
Researcher
Security
Viewing
Data
Generation
Program
Security
Collab
Tools
Control
Training
Education
And
Outreach
Publishing
Policy and
Funding
Management
Security and
Access
Access
Control
Human
Support
Funding
Agencies
Authentication
Resource
Providers
Campuses
3D
Display Imaging
Tools
Authorization
Security
Security
Analysis
Simulation
Computation
Program
Input
Archive
Retrieval
Data Sets
Storage
Search
Data
Directories
Schema
Metadata
Ontologies
Data
.
Input
Network
Security
Display and
Visualization
Russ Hobby, Internet2
Campus
IT
Security
ID Mgmt
Cyberinfrastructure
Players
Data
Center
Network
Grad
Students
Regional
Federal
Agencies
Coordinators*
Discipline
Groups
Libraries
Network
Providers*
Publishers
Policy*/
Leadership*/
Funding
Collections
Organizations*
Supercomputer
Sites*
Software
Development
International
Educational
Organizations
OGF
National
Computation
Storage
Staff
Regional
Security/
Access
National
Discipline
Support
Faculty
National
International
International
Researchers*
Medicine
Regional
Grid
Orgs*
* University Consortia & Systems
Physical
Science
Biological
Science.
Other
Disciplines
Discipline
Groups*
Russ Hobby, Internet2
University of California
IT Guidance Committee
 Multi-campus
models for cyberinfrastructure
planning
This Workshop’s Focus
•
•
•
•
•
•
SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH –
LEADERSHIP
PRIORITY and FUNDING
STRATEGIES LONG TERM
STRATEGIES SHORT TERM
EDUCAUSE INVOLVEMENT - How can we help each other?
Some issues to ponder
 At what level should cyberinfrastructure serv ices be provided?
 W h at is the appropriate campus role and investment in
cyberinfrastructure?
 What is the appropriate role at the college level? At the research
group level? In the multi-institutional research communities?
 How do you create the right incentives for collaborative behavior?
 What about cyberinfrastructure services?
 In what ways should a university support its researchers and students
in the context of very large data management?
 What is the role of cyberinfrastructure planning beyond the research
arena?
 How do we increase federal (and state) attention to the investment
needs for cyberinfrastructure at the campus level?
Before I tell you the issues…
 First, how did I come up with these?
 Did I make them up?
 No!
 We had to talk…to the faculty!
 But how?
 We had a cyberinfrastructure workshop
Before I tell you the issues…
 First, how did I come up with these?
 Did I make them up?
 No!
 We had to listen to the faculty!
 But how?
 We had a cyberinfrastructure workshop
 CI Days
Listening to the faculty…
 Let me recap our CI Days at UC Davis
 Our view of ourselves





We have great scientists, scholars, engineers,…
Our investments are behind where we want them
We aren’t smarter, richer (!), more innovative.
Nor did we stay in a Holiday Inn Express
But we do actively involve our faculty on a growing
basis in CI planning
Cyberinfrastructure Days
Program
CENIC
Brian Court
EDUCAUSE
Mark Luker
Internet2
Ken Klingenstein
Open Science Grid
John McGee
TeraGrid
Scott Lathrop
UC Davis Information and Educational Technology
Rodger Hess
Dave Zavatson
UC Office of the President
David Walker
Russ Hobby <rdhobby@Internet2.edu>
CI DaysAreas of Major Findings
 Data Access and Use
 Awareness and Community Building
 Personnel and Technical Support
 Infrastructure: Space and Power
 Infrastructure: Networking
 Financial Support and Funding
Some issues to ponder








At what level should cyberinfrastructure serv ices be provided?
W h at is the appropriate campus role and investment in
cyberinfrastructure?
What is the appropriate role at the college level? At the research
group level? In the multi-institutional research communities?
How do you create the right incentives for collaborative behavior?
What about cyberinfrastructure services?
In what ways should a university support its researchers and students
in the context of very large data management?
What is the role of cyberinfrastructure planning beyond the research
arena?
How do we increase federal (and state) attention to the investment
needs for cyberinfrastructure at the campus level?
Cyberinfrastructure and Community Dynamics:
Changing Roles
Research Group
Local
Applications
DMZ
Shared and Standard
IT Applications
T
I
M
E
Agile, high innovation,
Often high risk
Phase Transition
Moderately stable,
moderate to low risk
Campus/College
Shared IT Services
Institutional Hurdles
Information
Technology
Components
Common
CI Components
Policies, Cost-sharing,
Incentives
Less agile,solid, low risk
Modified by PMS for a “researcher view”.
Source: P. Weill & M. Broadbent Leveraging the New Infrastructure: How Market Leaders Capitalize on IT, Harvard
Business School Press, June 1998. Cited in Brad Wheeler, IT Governance.
How do we increase federal (and state) attention to the
investment needs for cyberinfrastructure at the campus
level?
 While funding agencies have worked wonders with their strong
investments in information technologies at the research group
and research community levels (within and among universities),
their dollars go farther if they provide incentives for campus
investment through seed money, cost-sharing requirements, and
so on.
 How do we build consensus between funding agencies, campus
administration, campus IT leadership, and the research
community nationwide on the role of each group in supporting
campus cyberinfrastructure investments.
Conclusions
 CI is about “high end” services that are now
basic, but it’s much more than that
 It’s a range of technologies and services
 It’s not just the researchers’ problem, it’s
everyone’s
 CI solutions will be built through collaboration,
but must acknowledge unique requirements
 CIOs will be measured by what we do in this
space.
 Let’s roll!
Postscript
Postscript
So why do you think
they call us… CIOs?
Postscript
So why do you think
they call us… CIOs?