school of information university of michigan the uarc/sparc experience: 1993 - 2002 tom finholt...

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

The UARC/SPARC Experience:1993 - 2002

Tom Finholt

School of InformationUniversity of Michigan


Outline

SOC functions– Primary– Secondary

Description– System– History– Organization– Funding– Incentives– Collaboration readiness


Outline (continued)

Access Resource diagram Technology involved Successes and challenges Usage

– Analysis of user behavior• Action logs• Chat logs

– Analysis of user attitudes Conclusions


SOC functions

Primary– Shared instrument

Secondary– Distributed research center– Virtual community of practice


Description: System Functional

– real time remote control of instruments– access to archival and real time data– communication with remote colleagues

Technical– Web-based, thin client model– CHEF

Support– 1-3 FTEs at Michigan (migrating to NCAR)


Aurora image


Description: History

UARC v.5– NeXTstep-based system, in use 1992-97

UARC v.6– java applet-based system, in use 1996-98

SPARC– Web-based, thin client system, in use 1999

- present


UARC 5.0 interface


UARC 6.0 interface


SPARC interface


Description: Organization 14 investigators

– 3 computer science– 2 human-computer interaction– 9 space physics

15 students– 6 computer science– 6 human-computer interaction– 3 space physics

8 staff– 7 programmers– 1 system administrator


Description: Funding

UARC (IRI 9216848)– cooperative agreement between Michigan

and NSF CISE & ATM– approximately $800 K per year, 1992-97

SPARC (ATM 9873025)– KDI award from NSF CISE– approximately $500 K per year, 1997-01


Description: Incentives Funding

– scientists recruited through sub-contracts Recognition

– innovative system– highly visible to space science and computer

science communities Novel capabilities

– new ways of combining data– respond to opportunities (e.g., UCB sounding

rocket campaign)


Description: Collaboration readiness

Multiple authorship the norm Ubiquitous email adoption 1992-2001


Access: People

Space physicists Concentrated in N. America and Europe

(approx. 300 researchers) Affiliated with the American

Geophysical Union– aeronomy and space physics sub-divisions


Access: Instruments

Observational– ground-based

• active– incoherent scatter radar (e.g., convection reversal

boundaries)– all-sky cameras (e.g., auroral morphology)– interferometry (e.g., winds)

• passive– riometry– magnetometer chains


Sondrestrom observatorySondrestrom, Greenland


Access: Instruments (cont.)

Observational– space-based

• satellite imagery (UV and visible light)• shuttle imagery• sounding rockets

Theoretical– computational simulations


Polar spacecraft


Instrument scope, 1993


Instrument scope, 2001


Resource diagram


Technology involved 1992-97

– UARC v.5 built on NeXT machines, migrated to NeXTstep OS

1996-98– UARC v.6 built as java applets (MURAL), Web-

based 1998 to present

– SPARC built as thin client (e.g., HTTP), migrating toward CHEF-based system (e.g., portlet technology)


Success and challenges Scientific

– first simultaneous real-time display of incoherent scatter radar chain (April, 1998)

– first combined real-time simulation and observation campaign (April, 1997)

– first archival campaign (December, 1993)– Simultaneous views of observational and simulation data

Educational– first student campaign (February, 1995)

Future– model for dozens of collaboratory efforts


Simulation and observational data


Social network 2/95 campaign

Michigan

Scientist

Scientist

Student

Scientist

No one

Scientist

FloridaCalifornia B

California A

StudentSite crew

Greenland

Scientist

Engineer


Usage

UARC v.5– total scientific users = 27– peak usage = 8– 80% of use by four users

UARC v.6– total scientific users approximately 100– peak usage = 40– 80% of use by six users

SPARC– usage data in progress for the workshop


Analysis of user behavior

Analyzed chat and action logs in order to summarize users’ experience with the UARC and SPARC systems

Focused on:– Hours of use– Frequency of use sessions– Content of use sessions (actions and chat)– Growth in use over time


Methodology

Extracted data from automated usage and chat logs– UARC 5.0 completed (1993-97)

Standardized data Loaded standardized data into an

Access database Used SPSS to analyze sub-sets of data

from the Access database


Results from action logs Aggregate use

– Total frequency of sessions per year– Total hours of use per year

Individual use– Frequency of sessions per year– Hours of use per year

Change in system use– Cumulative number of users over time– Number of new users over time


Total sessions per year

209

739

322

117

33

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

To

tal n

um

be

r o

f s

es

sio

ns


Total hours of use per year

700

4586

2058

447 363

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

To

tal h

ou

rs o

f u

se


Change in system use

1012

2 2 1

10

2224

26 27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f u

sers

New

Cumulative


Results from chat logs

Aggregate use– Total frequency of turns per year

– Total frequency of words per year Individual use

– Frequency of turns per year

– Frequency of words per year


1786

4230

2963

2288

1028

0

2500

5000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Num

ber

of c

hat

turn

sTotal chat turns per year


29359

73063

4993640387

18939

0

25000

50000

75000

100000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Total words per year

4.16x 3.17x 9.16x 7.17x 4.18x


Key findings Rapid start, 1993-94

– Number of sessions triples– Hours of use increases six-fold– Number of users doubles

Dramatic shift after 1994– Use declines– Growth in use stops

Overall use concentrated in a small number of scientists– 25% of users generated 75% of total use


Analysis of user attitudes

Analyzed longitudinal survey responses, 1993-2001, comparing UARC sample with matched control sample

Focused on:– Communication choices– Use of Web resources– The relationship between communication,

Web use, and outcomes


Methodology Longitudinal survey

– The 2001 survey administration was the sixth wave of data collection dating to 1993

Response rate– 87% for UARC sample; 60% for matched

control sample Mode of administration

– 90% via a Web-based questionnaire; 10% via telephone interview

Content– 2/3 repeat items; 1/3 new items – focused

on Web use


Results from longitudinal survey Communication choices

– Change, 1994 to 2001– Difference, UARC vs. Control

Web use– Change, 1994 to 2001– Difference, UARC vs. Control

Effect on outcomes– Relationship of communication to funding– Relationship of Web use to funding


Key findings, 1994 vs. 2001

Substitution effect of email for other forms of communication– More pronounced for Control

Significant decline in UARC use and satisfaction after 1994– Relationship in the decline of UARC use to

respondents’ use of Web sites – Defectors


Key findings, 2001 Some use of data intensive websites

– Concentrated in a small proportion of scientists

No predominant Web site Scientists do not read core space

science journals on-line Low use of collaboration technologies

– Data conferencing– Videoconferencing


Conclusions

Teleobservation dominates teleoperation Proof of concept – but not killer application Primary success in terms of emulation, not

total use or scientific impact Thin client ensures universal access, but

compromises capabilities The Web has not yet revolutionized the

practice of space physics

school of information university of michigan the uarc/sparc experience: 1993 - 2002 tom finholt...

Documents

organization n

n successes

researchers n

people n space physicists

space physics n

history n uarc

n sparc web

n sparc atm