TeraGrid’s Processes for Collecting & Integrating User Input

1. TeraGrid’s Processes for Collecting & Integrating User Input Jay Boisseau, Texas Advanced Computing Center Dennis Gannon, Indiana University Ralph Roskies, University of Pittsburgh

2. How are user requirements collected? How well are users represented in the TG management process?How are user inputs integrated into the management processes and plans?

3. Comprehensive Input Collection Modalitiesfor User Inputs • Formal surveys • TG User Surveys: 2007 annual survey focused on functional requirements • RAT Surveys: Some RATs conduct surveys, e.g. HPC University (2007), Metascheduling (2006) • Advisory/Consultative/Review groups • CUAC/SAB, TG Annual Review, TeraGrid Futures Workshops, center advisory boards, etc. • Group meetings with Users • NSF workshops: e.g. CFD, Visualization, Petascale Applications • TGxy meetings: BOFs discuss TG services, priorities and planning (scheduling, portal, file systems, CI education, petascale programming, data management, TG software stack, Gateways) • Other professional meetings: SCxy, domain science workshops • One-on-one contact between user support staff and users: • In response to tickets/problem reports • Personal contacts assigned to each M/LRAC team • ASTA, SGW, and RP-specific programs • Training classes • Local campus activities • Unsolicited user comments • TG resource grant applications and progress reports • Feedback from TeraGrid web pages, User Portal, EOT activities, and Knowledge Base • Personal communications

4. Processing User Requirements Includes TG-Wide Discussion, Involvement User inputs collected by the various modalities are discussed by the GIG at weekly Access Grid meetings and via email list as needed • Issues requiring immediate action are assigned to an AD and sent for action to working groups • Strategic issues are referred to ESC and/or TeraGrid Forum discussion • Virtually all issues are discussed and tracked at the weekly TG-wide Architecture Access Grid meetings and quarterly face-to-face management meetings User requirements gathered in PY3 determined the formulation of the PY 4 and PY 5 objectives

5. Examples of Actions Taken in Response to User Requirements • Science Gateway operational needs stressed the limits of Globus Toolkit development and deployment: Special task force formed to enable user progress on TG systems as well as direct influence on Globus development. This resulted in profound improvements in middleware reliability • CTSS 4 Kits were defined and documented, and are being maintained, based on user and RP feedback and testing • User Facing Projects (web, portal, knowledge base) are designed, deployed, and updated based on user feedback and testing • Petascale workshop hosted to bring application and tool developers together to address user issues in scaling • New Extreme Scalability Working Group was formed, in response to the community’s need for assistance in scaling to Track-2, other petascale systems • Petascale workshop planned for TG08

6. User Representation in Management Processes and Plans • TeraGrid is a science-driven project: our users are scientists who need computational/CI tools for their research • We don’t burden them with day-to-day management of CI, but… • Users are well-represented in TeraGrid activities and decision processes • Resource Allocations Committee • Users determine what science gets done! • Science Advisory Board • Users provide guidance on how we enable science to get done • Center advisory groups (formal & informal) • Most centers have either formal committees or informal but persistent relationships with major/regular/friendly users to receive direct feedback • Special purpose advisory groups • Example: Ranger (first Track2 system) has a dedicated used advisory committee • Obviously, review teams include users and play major roles in TG management decisions as well

7. User Input Integration into Management Processes and Plans • User inputs are integrated into management plans in different ways, depending on the nature of the issue to be addressed: • xRAC inputs implemented almost directly • xRAC input on allocations also include recommendations for ASTA support • Advisory inputs receive formal responses, generate specific action items • SAB response in progress • Ranger advisory group generating action items • Etc. • Other user inputs integrated into GIG project priorities and/or RP planning as appropriate • Coordination and collaboration: GIG and TG Forum enable some inputs to be implemented across all sites--a key advantage of TeraGrid (e.g. working in improvements in TG-wide allocations process based on user inputs) • Site-specific: RP-specific inputs enabling increased impact are implemented by RP center management, but still percolate through ESC/TGF/WGs to other sites

8. New Modalities Will Contribute to ImprovedInformation Collection • TG has some new methods of collecting user inputs to improve our understanding of user requirements: • Encourage both users & support staff to log all verbal and email interactions that occur outside the ticket system • Science Advisory Board will provide additional high-level input and help us engage new communities • Campus champions program assigns aperson to become the link between the campus and the TeraGrid • Core-2 Services project will improve our ability to mine POPS and TG ticket system for recurring issues • Annual TeraGrid conference becoming gathering of users and potential users. Conferences like TGxy and SCxy provide opportunities to gather “focus groups” of users • User-to-user discussion groups?

9. Metrics for Evaluating Our Collection and Integration of User Inputs • In addition to measuring progress informally through reviews, advisory groups, etc. we can use metrics • Tickets on particular sore points should diminish/disappear • User surveys should show higher satisfaction if we have correctly identified, implemented and explained the capabilities based on user needs • POPS/Accounting should show more allocations requests, projects allocations & users, more usage per project, and fewer ‘unused’ project allocations • We should see increases in publications citing use of TG!