Suggested Title: Barriers to Initial Involvement for Novice Grid Users

Has now been sent to Nicole Harris at JISC as attachment:ESPGRID_miniExtensionProposalAug06v1.pdf

Introduction

As a logical follow-on from the recent ESP-GRID project, this work will also form part of the eHorizons research (see http://www.e- horizons.ox.ac.uk/) into the future benefits of e-Science technologies. We propose a study involving the interviewing of scientific and humanities researchers who are potential, incipient and established grid users. Firstly, by observation, we wish to establish whether any existing or future (yet to be developed) grid resource or service would benefit them in their research; this may be to enable their current style of working to be easier or quicker, or it may be to enable greater collaboration or inderdisciplinary working.

For those users who are either currently working with grids or who agree that future use of the grid may be beneficial, we would like to explore further to examine the following hypotheses:

1. If a grid interface or the working environment is (apparently) too difficult to use, it will not be adopted many of the appropriate users. 2a. Most scientists and humanities researchers will be Service End Users (as defined in [attachment:AllHandsPapers2006/AllHands06TypesUsersFinal.pdf Norman, 2006]).

   • 2b. Currently grids are serving Power Users (as defined in [attachment:AllHandsPapers2006/AllHands06TypesUsersFinal.pdf Norman, 2006]) and do not yet benefit non-computer-technical researchers.FootNote([attachment:AllHandsPapers2006/AllHands06TypesUsersFinal.pdf Norman (2006)] Types of grid users and the Customer-Service Provider relationship: a future picture of grid use, paper accepted for the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting, September 2006. User categories proposed were "Service End User (Data), Service End User (eXecutables), Power User Agnostic of grid node used, Power User requiring Specific grid node, Power User Developing a Service".)

Hypothesis one has been found to be difficult to investigate within the existing literature, as studies have focussed on the loss of productivity resulting from the imposition of difficult to use software.FootNote(For example, see Dutton, W.H. (1999), Society on the Line, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK)) There seems to be little work undertaken on the consequences of poor usability where a researcher's free choice allows him/her to choose not to employ the new software or 'system' and either use an alternative or indeed not to pursue that kind of work at all. It will be beneficial to establish the principle that - at least in the academic environment - despite the great potential benefits, users may not adopt the newer, more powerful methods if their initial experience is that "it is too difficult".

Hypotheses 2a and 2b cited above are directed at examining the types of future users. If such a principle can be shown to be true then the knowledge that the majority of future users will be Service End Users should aid the thinking for the design of access management systems for the future.

Communities of users

We intend to interview users from as broad a range of disciplines as possible. As a starting point we will attempt to look at the requirements work (and follow ups) for researchers engaged in the [http://www.integrativebiology.ac.uk/ Integrative Biology (IB)] and the [http://bvreh.humanities.ox.ac.uk/ Building a Virtual Research Environment for the Humanities (BVREH)] projects, both of which are led by researchers based in Oxford. We may approach users for follow-up sessions of our own and hope to contact potential future users through recommendations of their colleagues. Another useful approach will be to carry out short focus group sessions on the back of subject or collaborative workshops that have already been scheduled. We also hope to observe geneticists and/or biomedical researchers engaged in working with the [http://www.brc.dcs.gla.ac.uk/projects/bridges/ BRIDGES] portal for the first time. (The access mechanism - using Shibboleth - to the BRIDGES portal was developed as part of the ESP-GRID project). Of particular interest is the reaction of users when something appears to fail: what is their reaction? How do they attempt to continue?

Summary of aims

Aim one

To test the hypothesis that If a grid interface or the working environment is (apparently) too difficult to use, it will not be adopted many of the appropriate users.

Aim two

To test the hypothesis that Most scientists and humanities researchers will be Service End Users and to test the related hypothesis (2b) that Currently grids are serving Power Users and do not yet benefit non-computer-technical researchers.

Time scale

The study will take place between September 2006 and January 2007, inclusive.

Key personnel

The interviewing and analysis work will be carried out by Mustafizur Rahman and Alun Edwards. Marina Jirotka will advise on methodologies and at the analysis stages. Mark Norman will provide advisory input throughout.

Mustafizur Rahman

Mustie is Programme Manager of the ICT/Begbroke Directorate and a Principal Researcher at the Centre for Requirements and Foundations at the University of Oxford. His specialisms are in practice-driven requirements for industrial applications, requirements engineering in e-Science, e-Social Science and distributed computing environments and Mustie has looked into intellectual property and legal issues in e-Health. Previous projects include: IMaGE (Copyright Ownership of Medical Data in Collaborative Computing Environments); CyberSEM (remote scanning electron microscopy); eDiaMoND (Digital Mammography National Database Project).

Alun Edwards

Alun is the manager of [http://www.intute.ac.uk/ Intute: Arts and Humanities] (formerly the Humbul Humanities Hub) at the University of Oxford and principal evaluator with the ESP-GRID project. Previously, Alun has worked on evaluation of the [http://www.dcoce.ox.ac.uk/ Digital Certificate Operation in a Complex Environment (DCOCE)] project. Alun's expertise lies within requirements gathering and analysis.

Marina Jirotka

[http://www.softeng.ox.ac.uk/Marina.Jirotka/ Dr Marina Jirotka] is University Lecturer in Requirements Engineering at OUCL, [http://www.softeng.ox.ac.uk/crf/ Director of the Centre for Requirements and Foundations], Fellow of St Cross, Research Associate at the [http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/ Oxford Internet Institute], and (from October 2006) a James Martin Fellow. She developed the Requirements Engineering module that forms part of the MSc in Software Engineering and the MSc in Computer Science. Marina's specialisms are in practice-driven requirements; Computer-Supported Collaborative Work; e-Science and e-Social Science.

She is currently Principal Investigator on the ESRC Project 'Copyright ownership of medical data in collaborative computing environments' (RES-341-25-0033); Principal Investigator on the EPSRC proposal 'Embedding e-Science Applications: Designing and Managing for Usability' (EP/D049733); and principal investigator on ESRC 'Oxford e-Social Science (OeSS) Project: Ethical, Legal and institutional Dynamics of Grid Enabled e-Sciences' (RES-149-25-1022). She is also requirements advisor on the Integrative Biology Virtual Research Environment and BVREH. She is a member of the UK e-Science Usability Task Force and has held various workshops at NeSC in the area of Usability and e-Science, most recently in Usability and Security in e-Science applications. She has published numerous refereed papers in international journals, conferences and books in the fields of computer-supported collaborative working, e-Science and e-Health, requirements engineering and workplace studies.

Mark Norman

Mark is a project manager within Oxford University Computing Services and has managed several JISC projects in the general areas of identity management in the information environment and e-Science domains. Recent and current projects include: [http://www.dcoce.ox.ac.uk/ DCOCE]; ESP-GRID; ShibGrid.

Costs

Very rough estimates and numbers of staff days

These sections have been removed so that this page accurately reflects what was sent to JISC. The breakdowns of costs etc. may be found in the [wiki:JISC_Proposal_for_Phase_2?action=recall&rev=32 earlier version] of this document.

Work packages

Anchor(wps)