Results of the Stakeholder Alignment Survey conducted by PI Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, presented by Susan Winters, University of Maryland

1. 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 Georgia
Burcu Bolukbasi, UIUC
Nosh Contractor, Northwestern University
Leslie DeChurch, Georgia Tech University
Courtney Flint, Utah State University
Gabriel Gershenfeld, Cleveland Indians
Michael Haberman, UIUC
John L. King, University of Michigan
Eric Knight, University of Sydney
Barbara Lawrence, UCLA
Spenser Lewis, General Dynamics
Pablo Lopez, UIUC
Ethan Masella, Brandeis University
Charles Mcelroy, Case Western
Reserve University
Barbara Mittleman, Nodality, Inc.
Mark Nolan, UIUC
Melanie Radik, Brandeis University
Namchul Shin, Pace University
Ilya Zaslavsky, UCSD

2. 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)

3. 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.html
US Internet Backbone
Natural Disasters
US Power Grid

4. 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

5. Institutional and Systems Requirements
Creating Value
Mitigating Harm
. . . expanding the “pie” and
enabling systems transformation
. . . anticipating and mitigating
externalities and catastrophic
systems failures

6. Enduring, Dynamic Tensions in Governance

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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)

10. Minimum critical specification:
No more and no less!
Council of Data Facilities
Charter
I. Preamble
II. Vision
III. Mission and goals
IV. Definition
V. Membership
VI. Roles and responsibilities
VII. Operations
VIII.Coordination with
EarthCube
IX. Signatures
Assembly of EarthCube
Funded Projects Guidelines
I. Introduction and overview
II. Guiding principles
III. Operations
IV. Roles and responsibilities
V. Assembly coordinating
committee
VI. Coordination with
EarthCube
VII. Signatures

11. 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

12. 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.)

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

14. Stakeholder Alignment data by Fields and
disciplines (n=1,544)
Primary Secondary
Atmospheric 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.

15. 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

16. 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)
untitled - ec- 08- indomain.pdf

17. 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

18. 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)
untitled - ec- 09- spandomain.pdf

19. 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

20. Cooperation/sharing among geoscientists
Cooperation/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)
3/ 4/untitled - ec- 12- current- coop.pdf

21. Cooperation/sharing among geoscientists
and among cyber-developers by fields and disciplines
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
cooperation among geoscientists
Cooperation among cyber-developers

22. Collaboration between geo and cyber
Sufficient 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)
untitled - ec- 13- current- collob.pdf

23. Collaboration between geo and cyber and sufficient
end user training by fields and disciplines
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Collaboration between geo and cyber
Sufficient end-user training

24. 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)
untitled - ec- 15- adv- career.pdf

25. End user views on sharing data, tools, models,
and software by fields and disciplines
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sharing will advance my career
I turst data will be well-documented and reliable

26. 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).
untitled - ec- 27- efforts.pdf

27. Support for sharing from employer and
colleagues by fields and disciplines
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Employer will value EC efforts
Colleagues will value EC efforts

28. 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)
untitled - ec- 22- commercial.pdf

29. End user views on commercial products and
applications by fields and disciplines
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Incorporate commercial
Benefit commercial

30. 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
Advancing
my research
Advancing
my teaching
Networking
opportunities
Developing
successful
grant
proposals
Leading to
new scientific
advances
Making
geoscience
data /
findings
available to
the general
public
Informing
resource
managers
and policy
makers
Serving my
field /
profession

31. Support for EarthCube specifying guidelines
Support for guidelines using international standards
EC should specify guidelines
m(s) = 0.79 (0.19)[n=353, 18]
EC should use formal int. standards
m(s) = 0.84 (0.18)[n=342, 29]
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)

32. 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)
untitled - ec- 26- enable.pdf

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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/

36. Appendix

37. 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.