INSTITUTION NAME: Florida State University

WORK PACKAGE TITLE: IC

PROJECT TITLE: Network-Based Tools for Administrative Collaboration

POC NAME: Geoffrey C. Fox
   EMAIL: gcf@cs.fsu.edu
   PHONE: 850 644 4587
     FAX: 850 644 0098

CTA or PEI: I/C

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

[[[ This proposal should be considered as a placeholder, or a very
rough draft which will be refined in conjunction with the
Collaboration Whitepaper according to the following basic ground
rules:
a) We will participate in establishing 2 testbeds
   1) Access Grid or equivalent High End
   2) Real Networks or equivalent desktop
b) We have a general approach "Collaborative Portals" which is
   particularly close to Gateway but builds on TangoInteractive
   lessons. We want to understand what tools to integrate into this as we
   and all other extensive projects we are aware have found some
   reluctance to adopt collaborative tools.
c) We have some high level agreed goals: enable distance working
   together on: Administrative requirements for Staff meetings, Standing
   Committees, Focused meetings such as for Finance, Personnel,
   Operations, Training, etc.  and Technical requirements: Computational
   requirements, Visualization requirements, Peer collaborations, etc.
d) We don't know how to implement these desires -- what type of
   testbed, what type of tools, synchronous or asynchronous.  So we need
   a set of well defined experiments on test beds.
e) Integration of databases into collaborative portals figures
   prominently in Administrative Collaboration.  Also relevant to
   other CTAs
f) Technical collaboration ought to include Collaborative visualization
   using DICE
]]]

Some types of collaboration tools, both computer-based and not, are
already familiar to most people.  The telephone and fax machine are
two examples of non-computer-based tools that facilitate synchronous
and asynchronous exchange of information (collaboration).  E-mail, the
World Wide Web, and the various chat/instant message tools are
examples of computer-based collaboration tools (the first two being
asynchronous and the last synchronous).  The current tools of
information technology make it possible to develop a wide variety of
other useful collaboration tools.

The application or purpose of the collaboration can be used to help
define the environment and appropriate toolset for a particular type
of collaboration.  The PET program has quite successfully used
synchronous network-based collaboration tools to provide education and
training.  This is a well-structured environment where the way in
which people interact with the tools is predictable and there is a
clear analogy with the familiar face-to-face classroom lecture.  The
sharing of documents (proposals, documentation, reports,
presentations, etc.), archiving of e-mail traffic for group mailing
lists or discussion boards, and holding meetings or briefings might be
loosely termed "administrative" collaboration (though many of these
capabilities are equally useful in "technical" collaboration).
Administrative collaboration might be thought of as generally less
structured than education, and the analogy between the tools mentioned
above and the "traditional" way of doing things less clear.  This can
make it harder gain user acceptance of the tools -- something which
has been experienced in the past within the PET program.

To increase flexibility, we emphasize modular tools, built where
possible from commodity technolgies, rather than the development of
specialized tools built specifically for a large one-off
framework. This component-oriented view is consistent with the
expected evolution of computing and information "portals" (such as the
Gateway project) describe elsewhere (NEED REFS).  To increase user
acceptance, we will try to model the collaborative components as
closely as possible on processes and systems that will be familiar to
users.

Tools of particular interest in the context of administrative
collaboration can often be thought of as web-linked database systems:
o A document repository, which allows group members to store and
  exchange documents quickly and easily. In an administrative context,
  documents may be project proposals, technical reports, briefing
  presentations, etc. In addition to web-database technology, recent
  standards such as the W3C's WebDAV (distributed authoring and
  versioning) will be investigated.
o The existing ARL web-based proposal and technical report system is a
  specialized instance of a document repository, currently implemented
  with a "flat file database".  This system will be updated to match
  the technology used in other components of the project, and as
  appropriate integrated with the more general document repository.
o Mailing lists are a common way to communicate within a group, and a
  searchable archive of mailing list traffic provides a convenient
  "organizational memory", while allowing group members to use e-mail,
  which is both convenient and familiar, as their primary means of
  asynchronous communication.  It can also be useful to provide a
  simple, automated means for group members to create new mailing
  lists and archives, though system administration and security
  constraints may make this feature impractical at many sites.

Other tools, amounting in some sense to specialized document
repositories, are considered secondary in the context of this project,
but are further examples of useful tools for asynchronous
administrative collaboration: a "FAQ manager" to support group
development of "frequently asked questions" documents, and a "link
directory" to allow the group a structured way to share pointers to
relevant web-based information.

Together with the asynchronous tools described above, a number of
synchronous tools can also be useful help support distributed meetings
or briefings:
o Audio/video conferencing will use the "technical collaboration"
  testbed environment when necessary.  Much can also be done quite
  easily using audio-only via traditional telephone conferencing.
o Since a wide range of documents today are published directly in a
  web-compatible format, or can easily be converted to one, a shared
  web browser is a useful tool for general document sharing.  Other
  tools, such as NetMeeting and VNC can also be useful to share
  certain types of documents or displays.
o Chat or "instant messaging" tools can be useful in the running of
  meetings or briefings, since they allow participants to quickly
  share short text messages.  This capability can be used to faciliate
  moderation (i.e. reminding a speaker of a time limit) or meeting
  flow (i.e. asking questions) without interrupting the speaker.

In this project, we propose to focus on the development of a testbed
deployment of the asynchronous web-database tools described above,
along with the shread browser.  These tools will be made available to
PET and MSRC staff for use in both structured experiments and more
casual use.  Userfeedback and an assessment of the level of usage of
the tools will be important results of this work, which will be used
to help refine our idea about administrative collaboration, the tools
themselves, and to guide wider deployment.

Though we are primarily talking these tools as standalone components
at present, it is also important to look forward to how they would be
integrated into an information or computing portal to provide
collaborative capablilities there.  The web-linked database tools
described above will be implemented using current technologies which
are compatible with portals and "portalML", which is used to define
the user's interface to the portal.  This work is synergistic with
ERDC- and ASC-sponsored Yr 5 efforts on portals and will help set the
stage for future testbed deployment of collaboration tools integrated
into information or computational portals as a natural evolution and
merger of concepts from collaboration and portal technology.  It can
also be viewed as a pilot of the technologies required to construct
information-oriented portals, such as for IMT test data.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES:

This project will pilot the use of network-based tools to faciliate
work by geographically distributed groups.  The tools described here
are useful to both technical and adminstrative collaboration; in this
project the emphasis will be on their use in PET and MSRC operations
as a testbed prior to broader deployment to HPCMP users.

DELIVERABLES:

* Administrative collaboration testbed at either ARL MSRC or FSU
  providing prototype searchable mailing list archive, document
  repository (including current proposal and tech report
  capabilities), and shared web browser services.
* A tutorial for the PET team and selected MSRC staff on the
  collaboration testbed tools, to be conducted with by telephone
  conference or in conjunction with with the ARL PET Mid-Year Review.
* A series of experiments, developed jointly with PET management,
  designed to "exercise" various aspects of the testbed and generate
  user feedback.
* A technical report analyzing the experience with the testbed tools
  and making recommendations with respect to the tools themselves,
  more general deployment, and drawing general conclusions with
  respect to administrative collaboration in the HPCMP.
* A technical report on "collaborative portals"

CUSTOMERS/END USERS:

Ultimately all HPCMP users, but during Yr 5 the focus will be on ARL
PET and MSRC internal use.

BENEFIT TO THE WARFIGHTER:

The availability of tools which facilitate collaboration and the
efficient exchange of information among members of a working group
will result in higher productivity and efficiency for HPCMP
researchers working in groups and for those implementing the HPC
Modernization Program.  It will allow more resources to be devoted to
research and working directly with users.

PROJECT DEPENDENCIES AND SCOPE:

FSU and ARL on-site staff (particularly Derek Moses, part time on-site
I/C lead) will work together to develop the tools and to deploy them
into a testbed, but cooperation is required from the entire ARL PET
program and some MSRC staff to make this pilot project successful.

RISK ELEMENT:

The biggest risk of this project is that even a technically sound
system may be a practical failure if the user community does not
accept it.  To manage this risk, one must first recognize that
sociological factors as well as technical ones play a role in the
overall success of the project.  Then it is important that at every
step, the functionality and design be carefully considered with an eye
to the sociological factors.

REQUIRED FUNDING LEVEL
               Year X:
             Year X+1:
             Year X+2: