Post on 19-Mar-2016
description
transcript
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