How do you build an information How do you build an information system that works? Lessons system that works? Lessons

from environmental case studies from environmental case studies

Karen I. StocksSan Diego Supercomputer Center

kstocks@sdsc.edu

Karen S. BakerScripps Institution of Oceanography

kbaker@ucsd.edu

Task: Forward Planning for CalCOFITask: Forward Planning for CalCOFI

“California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries “California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations”Investigations”

How do you build an information How do you build an information management system that works?management system that works?

Insights from 4 Environmental Insights from 4 Environmental Information SystemsInformation Systems

• CalCOFI (www.calcofi.org): – biological and physical oceanographic data– 50+ year time span– 2 institutions, centralized system

• OBIS (Ocean Biogeographic Information System - www.iobis.org)– species distribution data– 5 years– international federation, distributed system

• LTER (Long Term Ecological Research Network - www.lternet.edu)– broad array of ecological data– 24 years– 26 field sites nationally, distributed system

• SeamountsOnline (seamounts.sdsc.edu)– species distribution data– 4 years– 1 person, centralized system

Our ConclusionOur Conclusion

Information system projects (or Information system projects (or project components) fail or succeed project components) fail or succeed for organizational/social reasons as for organizational/social reasons as frequently as they fail or succeed for frequently as they fail or succeed for

technical reasonstechnical reasons

Lessons LearnedLessons Learned

What have these four system case studies taught us?

-What are the characteristics that foster success

- What mechanisms create those characteristics

Characteristic: SustainabilityCharacteristic: Sustainability

Mechanism: recognizing and providing rewards forparticipation at the individual, project, and institution level

• non-monetary rewards can be effective • Example: LTER learning community, OBIS editorial board titles

Characteristic: Participant EngagementCharacteristic: Participant Engagement

Mechanism: consensus decision making (with hierarchical representation when needed for large bodies)

Mechanism: seed resources available for allocation to participants

Characteristic: Usefulness of the Characteristic: Usefulness of the SystemSystem

Mechanism (long-term): clearly articulated, focused project vision/goals produced with broad input from users and participants

Mechanism (short-term): modular development with usable products at each step

Lessons from Science and Lessons from Science and Technology Studies: Myths and Technology Studies: Myths and

RealitiesRealities

NSF/Human Social Dynamics 2004-2007: Interoperability Strategies for Scientific Cyberinfrastructure: A Comparative Approach (Bowker and Baker)

Information System Design and Information System Design and DevelopmentDevelopment

Myth: System development is linear: design, then implement, then finish

In practice:

- complex feedbacks and interdependencies exist, development is iterative

- technological, organizational, and funding landscape constantly changing

Waterfall Model

requirements

design

implementation

test

Determine Objectives

Evaluate alternatives

Develop alternatives

Reflect andPlan

Spiral Model

Design for FlexibilityDesign for Flexibility

Boehm, 1986. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. ACM

SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 11(4):14-24.

Participatory DesignParticipatory Design

an approach to the design and development of technological and organizational systems that places a premium on the active involvement of workplace practitioners in design and decision-making processes.

• Schuler and Namioka, 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

• Letondal and Mackay, 2004. Participatory Programming and the Scope of Mutual Responsibility: Balancing Scientific, Design and Software Commitment. Proceedings Participatory Design Conference 2004, Toronto, Canada.

Organizational ConceptsOrganizational Concepts

Myth: Technology is objective - it gets used by an organization

In practice:- enacting technology changes organizations

Fountain, 2001

Technology

Technology

Work practice

Work practice

Understand the tensionsUnderstand the tensions

observed

ecosystem view

Species view

modeled

community

economic

long-term

microsoft

open-source

short-termtechnology

science

outreach

inreach

standards

flexibility

New Organizational ModelsNew Organizational Models

Traditional hierarchical structure Integrated horizontal structure

knowledge work

routine work

Integrated routineand knowledge work

And new roles: system architects, data managers, programmers

Managing Organizational ChangeManaging Organizational Change

Weick and Sutcliffe. 2001. Managing the Unexpected, Assuring

High Performance in an Age of Complexity. Jossey-Bass

• Recognize and define the new roles • Rewards for interdisciplinary and new roles• Professional development at all levels• Mixed representation on decision-making bodies

Reading ListReading List

• Davenport, 1997. Information Ecology, Oxford University Press. New York.

• Iivari, 1991. Paradigmatic Analysis of Contemporary Schools of IS Development. European Journal of Information Systems 1(4):249-272.

• Jirotka and Goguen, 1994. Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues. London, Academic Press.

• Karasti and Baker, 2004. Infrastructuring for the Long-Term: Ecological Information Management, Proceeding of the Hawaii International Conference for System Science, Big Island, hawaii 5-8 Jan 2004.

• Karasti and Syrjanen, 2004. Artful Infrastructuring in Two Cases of Community Participatory Design. Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, Toronto, Canada.

• Star and Bowker, 2002. How to Infrastructure in The Handbook of New Media. Lievrouw and Livingstone (eds), SAGE Publications, London, p151-162.

Funding provided by the National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs, and the NSF Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences