Search

One slide presentation of the Esiwace 3 project at the DKRZ booth at the EGU General Assembly 2023 in Vienna, Austria. This slide was shown on a large TV screen as part of a compilation of DKRZ activities.

Advances in the field of climate science rely on the global and findability and low-barrier retrievability of very large volume datasets containing either observational or numerical model output data. Both aspects have to be assured for long-term preserved and newly created datasets alike. DKRZ provides services tailored towards the needs of the climate science community addressing these issues. On the one hand, DKRZ hosts the World Data Center for Climate (WDCC) – an externally certified long-term archive for climate data. Data preservation in the WDCC supports the FAIR data principles, data depositors obtain dedicated support during the archiving process and DOI-assignment to preserved datasets is also possible. Data access is open for the majority of datasets preserved in the WDCC. On the other hand, as one of the core members of the ESGF (Earth System Grid Federation), DKRZ provides user-oriented services facilitating the efficient publication, global dissemination and analysis of heavily-used, large-volume climate data. Publication in the ESGF thus lends itself for datasets which are expected to spark great interest in the global climate science community. DKRZ therefore provides data and repository services essential for the day-to-day work of the global climate science community.

This document describes scenarios toward sustainability for BioExcel. The described scenarios will be continuously refined during the coming months based on the progress made with our user community. This document should in its current stage thus not be read as a final plan, but rather as a guidance towards development of our final business plan. The first section presents the vision and mission statements that reflect the shared view of the partners at this early stage in the project. Closely tied into these statements are the success goals presented in the second section. These success goals generate our value proposition and serve as a baseline for our sustainability objectives. Section three gives a brief overview of the HPC ecosystem. About one-fifth of the European HPC server revenues are related to biosciences, which is the second largest technical segment right after computer-aided engineering. Revenue streams from HPC server revenues in Europe are predicted to grow with 6.9% annually, whereas HPC software revenues are predicted to grow with 7.2% annually until 2018. Section four presents BioExcel’s value proposition to different stakeholders in the biomolecular and HPC ecosystem. The key value that we provide is the enhancement of efficiency, scalability and usability of open-source software important to the biomolecular community. In addition, we will provide free support, including free training to non-profit users. These support offerings are accompanied by premium service offerings to paying users. Annual prices for access to a premium web portal with help desk are suggested to be €120 for non-profit users and €700 for industrial users. In addition, the intention is to provide different consultancy services, which are presumed to be most relevant to industrial users. Section five then presents a suitable governance structure that is driven by user needs, and gives a first hint on what needs to be considered when choosing a legal vessel. In section six, three different scale cost scenarios are compared. The common aspect of the scenarios is that revenue streams from our premium service offering allow reduction of our funding rate by partially covering costs of center operation and free user support. Section seven concludes this business plan with sustainability objectives that support our development towards achieving sustainability.

The objective of this report is to present the work that has been done in year 2 of the PRACE-1IP project work package 6 on the Operations of the PRACE distributed infrastructure. To support a good and complete overview, description and classification of PRACE Operational services, we have developed a PRACE Service Catalogue last year. In year 2 Tier-1 services have been added to this Service Catalogue to complete the picture of PRACE service provision. Further, the PRACE Service Catalogue has been fine-grained by naming and classifying for every service also the actual product that is used to provide the service. Every product has been classified as well. In this manner, a complete overview of all PRACE services, products and their classification has been made. In the process towards PRACE Quality of Service and quality control we have started defining PRACE Operational Key Performance Indicators. A first set of KPIs have been developed and proposed by a working group and these are currently discussed among the operational partners. In parallel, the measurement of the KPIs is being implemented. Based on the procedures for incident and change management that have been setup in year 1, we have operated a complete set of PRACE common services in year 2. Services that have been deployed include network services (e.g., Iperf), compute services (e.g., UNICORE), data services (e.g., GridFTP), AAA services (e.g., central LDAP, PRACE Accounting services, GSI-SSH), monitoring services (e.g., Inca), and user services (e.g., PRACE Common Production Environment, PRACE Help Desk). A number of Tier-0 systems have been installed and integrated in PRACE Operations in year two: an upgraded system of CURIE from GENCI@CEA; the new system HERMIT from GCS@HLRS; and the first nodes of SuperMUC from GCS@LRZ Preparations have been made for the integration of the FERMI system at CINECA. Collaborations on the operational level have been continued with EGI, EMI, IGE and MAPPER. On the technical evolution of the common services of the infrastructure, we have consolidated and extended existing services evaluating new technologies on the basis of requirements from users that have been collected. Moreover, we have improved the level of offered services through the definition of a service certification process. We have further extended the accounting systems to provide more information about allocated resource budgets, and we have laid a foundation for the development of a data management strategy.

The search for factors that influence user behavior has remained an important theme for both the academic and practitioner Information Systems Communities. In this paper we examine relevant user behaviors in the phase after adoption and investigate two factors that are expected to influence such behaviors, namely User Involvement (UI) and Personal Innovativeness in IT (PIIT). We conduct a field study to examine how these factors influence postadoption behavior and how they are interrelated. Building on theoretical premises and prior empirical findings, we propose and test two alternative models of the relationship between these factors. Our results reveal that the best explanation of post-adoption behavior is provided by the model where UI and PIIT independently influence post-adoption behavior. Our findings have important implications for research and practice. To that end, we offer directions for future research., {"references":["Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. \"Time Flies When You're Having Fun:\nCognitive Absorption and Beliefs about Information Technology\nUsage,\" MIS Quarterly (24:14), 2000, pp. 665-694.","Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. \"A Conceptual and Operational Definition of\nPersonal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology,\"\nInformation Systems Research (9:2), 1998, pp. 204-215.","Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. \"Rethinking the Concept of User\nInvolvement,\" MIS Quarterly (13:1), 1989, pp. 53-64.","Blili, S., Raymond, L. and Rivard, S. \"Impact of Task Uncertainty, End-\nUser Involvement, and Competence on the Success of End-User\nComputing,\" Information & Management (33), 1998, pp. 137-153.","Boffo, C. and Barki, H. \"Conceptualizing Information System Use: A\nBehavioral and Perceptual Framework,\" Unpublished paper, 2003,\nhttp://gresi.hec.ca/SHAPS/cp/gescah/formajout/ajout/test/uploaded/cahie\nr0305.pdf (accessed October 11, 2006).","Bommer, M. and Jalajas, D.S. \"The Threat of Organizational\nDownsizing on the Innovative Propensity of R&D Professionals,\" R&D\nManagement, (29:1), 1999, pp. 27-34.","Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L. and Sein, M.K. \"The Importance of Learning\nStyle in End-User Training,\" MIS Quarterly (14:1),1990, pp. 101-119.","Bowman, B., Grupe, F.H., Lund, D. and Moore, W.D. \"An Examination\nof Sources of Support Preferred by End-User Computing Personnel,\"\nJournal of End User Computing (5:4), 1993, pp. 4-11.","Brancheau, J.C. and Wetherbe J.C. \"The Adoption of Spreadsheet\nSoftware: Testing Innovation Diffusion Theory in the Context of End-\nUser Computing,\" Information Systems Research (1:2), 1990, pp. 115-\n143.\n[10] Brown, C.V. and Bostrom, R.P. \"Organization Designs for the\nManagement of End-User Computing: Reexamining the Contingencies,\"\nJournal of Management Information Systems (10:4), 1994, pp. 183-211.\n[11] Carson, S.J., Madhok, A., Varman, R. and John, G. \"Information\nProcessing Moderators of the Effectiveness of Trust-Based Governance\nin Interfirm R&D Collaboration,\" Organization Science (14:1), 2003,\npp. 45-56.\n[12] Chau, P.Y.K. and Hui, K.L. \"Identifying Early Adopters of New IT\nProducts: A Case of Windows 95,\" Information & Management (33),\n1998, pp. 225-230.\n[13] DeLone, W.H., and McLean, E.R. \"The Delone and McLean Model\nof information systems success: A ten year update,\" Journal of\nManagement Information Systems (19:4), 2003, pp. 9-30.\n[14] Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. \"Attitudes toward Objects as Predictors of\nSingle and Multiple Behaviour Criteria,\" Psychological Review (81:1),\n1974, pp. 59-74.\n[15] Flynn, L.R, Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.K. \"Opinion Leaders\nand Opinion Seekers: Two New Measurement Scales,\" Journal of the\nAcademy of Marketing Science (24:2), 1996, pp. 137-147.\n[16] Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. \"Evaluating Structural Equation\nModels with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,\" Journal\nof Marketing Research (18) February, 1981, pp. 39-50.\n[17] Govindarajulu, C. \"The Status of Help Desk Support: A Survey,\"\nCommunications of the ACM (45:1), 2002, pp. 97-100.\n[18] Govindarajulu, C. and Reithel, B.J. \"Beyond the Information Center: an\nInstrument to Measure End-User Computing Support from Multiple\nSources,\" Information and Management (33:5), 1998, pp. 241-250.\n[19] Harris, D.P. An Investigation of the Factors Affecting Where Desktop\nComputer Users Go for Computer Support in an Academic Environment,\nUnpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University,\nUSA, 1994.\n[20] Hartwick, J. and Barki, H. \"Explaining the Role of User Participation in\nInformation System Use,\" Management Science (40:4), 1994, pp. 440-\n465.\n[21] Heide, J.B. \"Interorganizational Governance in Marketing Channels,\"\nJournal of Marketing (58), 1994, pp. 71-85.\n[22] Hwang, M.I. and Thorn, R.G. \"The Effect of User Engagement on\nSystem Success: A Meta-Analytical Integration of Research Findings,\"\nInformation & Management (35:4), 1999, pp. 229-236.\n[23] Hynes, N. and Lo, S. \"Innovativeness and Consumer Involvement in the\nChinese Market,\" Singapore Management Review (28:2), 2006, pp. 31-\n46.\n[24] Igbaria, M. and Iivari, J. \"Microcomputer Utilization Patterns Among\nManagers and Professionals: The Case in Finland,\" Journal of Computer\nInformation Systems (38:3), 1998, pp. 28-43.\n[25] Jasperson J., Carter P.E. and Zmud R.W. \"A comprehensive\nconceptualization of post-adoption behaviours associated with\ninformation technology enabled work systems,\" MIS Quarterly (29:3),\n2005, pp. 525-557.\n[26] Kappelman, L.A. \"User Training, User Involvement, and IS\nImplementation Success,\" Journal of Computer Information Systems\n(36:3), 1996, pp. 1-9.\n[27] Limayem, M., Khalifa, M., and Frini, A. \"What Makes Consumers Buy\nfrom Internet? A Longitudinal Study of Online Shopping,\" IEEE\nTransactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and\nHumans (30), 2000, pp. 421-432.\n[28] Mittal, B. \"A Comparative Analysis of Four Scales of Consumer\nInvolvement,\" Psychology and Marketing (12:7), 1995, pp. 663-682.\n[29] Munro, M.C., Huff, S.L., Marcolin, B.L. and Compeau, D.R.\n\"Understanding and Measuring User Competence,\" Information &\nManagement (33:1), 1997, pp. 45-57.\n[30] Nilsen, H. and Sein, M.K. \"Determinants of User Satisfaction with the\nSupport Function,\" Proceedings of the 2002 ACMSIGCPR Conference,\n2002, pp. 47-51.\n[31] Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, 1978.\n[32] Ram, S. and Jung, H-S. \"The Link Between Involvement, Use\nInnovativeness and product Usage,\" Advances in Consumer Research\n(16), 1989, pp. 160-166.\n[33] Rogers, E.M and Shoemaker, E. Communication of Innovations, A\ncross-cultural approach, The Free Press, 2nd edition, New York, 1971.\n[34] Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M.J., Frambach, R.T. and Moenaert, R.K.\n\"The adoption of information technology in the sales force,\" Industrial\nMarketing Management (34:4), 2005, pp. 323-336.\n[35] Schneider, K.C. and Rodgers, W.C. \"An ÔÇÿImportance- Subscale for\nConsumer Involvement Profiles,\" Advances in Consumer Research (23),\n1996, pp. 249-254.\n[36] Seddon, P.B., Staples, D.S., Patnayakuni, R. and Bowtell, M.\n\"Dimensions of Information Systems Success,\" Communications of the\nAIS (2:20), http://cais.isworld.org/articles/2-20/article.htm (accessed\nOctober 11, 2006), 1999.\n[37] Singletary, L.A., Akbulut, A.Y., and Houston, A.L. \"Unanticipated\nSoftware Use by Adolescents Following Mandatory Adoption,\"\nProceedings from the Twenty-Third International Conference on\nInformation Systems, Barcelona, Spain, December, 2002.\n[38] Speier, C. and Brown, C.V. \"Differences in End-User Computing\nSupport and Control Across User Departments,\" Information &\nManagement (32), 1997, pp. 85-99.\n[39] Thatcher, J.B. and Perrewe, P.L. \"An empirical examination of\nindividual traits as antecedents to computer anxiety and computer selfefficacy,\"\nMIS Quarterly (26:4), 2002, pp 381-396.\n[40] Whitley, B.E. \"Gender Differences in Computer-Related Attitudes and\nBehaviour: A Meta-Analysis,\" Computers in Human Behaviour (13:1),\n1997, pp. 1-22.\n[41] Wolfradt, U., and Doll, J. \"Motives of Adolescents to Use the Internet as\na Function of Personality Traits, Personal and Social Factors,\" Journal\nof Educational Computing Research (24:1), 2001, pp. 13-27."]}