Workshop Report - Pervasive Technology Institute - Indiana University

Perhaps the most surprising result is that 722 (53%) of the respondents indicated that they do
not use CI beyond their personal workstation or other CI operated by themselves and their team.
We believe that at least some of these individuals who responded in this way did not consider the
daily usage of networks, community datasets, communication/collaboration mechanisms, etc. as
CI. A useful follow-up activity would be to solicit these respondents to take a new survey to better
understand this issue.
Figure 1, showing type of CI usage cross-referenced with who operates the CI, indicates that overall
CI usage is relatively evenly distributed across the “who operates the CI” dimension.
Data storage
Large scale
data analyses
Visualization
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Data movement
Data
management
Simulation HPC/HTC
Remote instrument
access
Collaboration
Workflows
You and team
National
Local campus
International
Another campus
Commercial
State/Regional
Figure 2. Type of CI cross-referenced by type of operator. The figures shows data
storage, movement and management are highly concentrated local to the researchers.
Figure 2 indicates that data storage, movement, and management is highly concentrated at the
individual, local team, and local campus level, with commercial providers coming in significantly
less, yet still meaningfully more than “another campus” and national resources. In this data
space, state/regional and international are nearly negligible. The commercial CI providers show
a significant usage in collaboration tooling, and not surprisingly, the national resources are used
most heavily for simulation, data storage, and large-scale data analysis. Outside of the local campus,
access to remote instruments was most often accommodated by another campus.
9