Member Survey

2005 Member Survey – Preliminary Results

The Member Assessment was created with several goals in mind:

§ To capture feedback about the services currently available to Internet2 members.

§ To learn about the ways in which members interact with the Internet2 community. and

§ To gather information as Internet2 looks ahead to serving the needs of the research and education networking community.

The survey instrument consisted of a main section with 70 rating-scale and open-ended questions, supplemented by four smaller sub-surveys on Network Services, Network Performance, Corporate Relations, and Member Communications. It was developed and administered using the Survey Monkey online survey tool. In addition to providing basic demographic data, respondents were asked to give feedback on the services their organization values, how their organization participates in Internet2-related activities, how their organization learns about Internet2-related opportunities, the services they use, and their future needs.

The survey was announced in mid-July to Internet2 Executive Liaisons, with targeted invitations going out for the subsurveys (e.g., the e2eperf-interest@internet2.edu list for the Network Performance survey). A second invitation was issued to the membership at large on August 1. The survey was closed on August 12.

Response Summary

136 individual responses were received by the deadline, of which:

80.8% were from University Members
5.4% were from Corporate Members
8.5% were from Affiliate Members
1.5% were from Association Members
3.8% were not sure

Of the 136 respondents, 62% identified themselves as the Executive Liaison

Of the 105 responses from University members, slightly more than half (50.5%) were from Doctoral-Research/Extensive institutions.

High-level Summary (preliminary)

Several key messages stood out in the first major review of the results:

§ Respondents overall had a very favorable perception of Internet2, and its services and activities

§ Production networking is highly important to the community and seen as fundamentally enabling

§ Abilene’s value was ranked very highly, specifically for network-dependent research and having access to advanced services (e.g., multicast)

§ There are concerns about the cost of Abilene, with respect to the apparent need on some campuses

§ Respondents ranked Internet2’s “convening function” highly as it supported relationships among institutions

§ Internet2’s services and initiatives were strong positives, and the broad scope was a positive for some, as well as a negative for others

§ Communication activities rated highly, and meetings and workshops were very highly valued. Member meetings in particular ranked very high, including the current schedule of two per year.

Perception of Internet2

The first major section was devoted to asking a series of specific questions about Internet2’s value and services, most of which were in the form of statements with which respondents could indicate various levels of agreement. These questions and majority responses are next. Comments on the first two questions are also included (and can be supplied for the remaining).

Question 1:

What is your perception of the following organizations and activities?

Very Positive

Positive

Neutral

Somewhat Negative

Negative

Very Negative

Don't Know

Response Total

Internet2

42% (40)

47% (45)

5% (5)

1% (1)

0% (0)

National LambdaRail

26% (25)

39% (37)

21% (20)

5% (5)

3% (3)

1% (1)

5% (5)

HOPI

12% (11)

17% (16)

34% (32)

1% (1)

0% (0)

36% (34)

InCommon

7% (7)

22% (21)

29% (28)

1% (1)

0% (0)

41% (39)

The Quilt

25% (24)

29% (28)

22% (21)

2% (2)

1% (1)

0% (0)

20% (19)

Shibboleth

26% (25)

35% (34)

19% (18)

1% (1)

0% (0)

18% (17)

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

Question 2:

This question asked respondent to indicate their level of agreement with the statement “Internet2 provides the capabilities and services my organization needs”. 58.2% agreed with this statement, and another 26.5% somewhat agreed.

Comments on this item were:

· The Internet2 organization has always been helpful with resources and new ideas.

· we use it as a 'fat pipe' almost exclusively

· Decisions are made on network expansion and initiatives that raise our costs. The decisions are driven by only a few and made without our participation or knowledge. In addition, the pricepoint for I2 connection remains relatively high when compared to my University's perception of advantages. Few faculty and researchers need the network. The Quilt has offered significant price point advantages for commodity internet. And, we are extremely pleased with our provider. NLR is of interest to one (1) researcher, but the price is too high.

· Internet2 has provided excellent support for local initiatives as well as national projects. I2 initiatives have been helpful.

· Much of research and instruction involves collaboration with peers at other institutions. Internet2 allows for interaction in a focused environment. The supporting programs and information are sources for outside perspectives.

· Middleware discussion, K-20 initiaitves, and professional networking...as well as high speed network access

· The interaction with other R1 Universities and like activities is nice. The questions are; how the advanced applications progress, how and to what degree Abilene continues to be a benefit verses commodity networks, how the merger occurs with both Abilene and NLR maintaining a clear mission and goals.

· We need fewer "facilitators" and more "doers". I would like to see I2 running useful bootstrap services - eg, have stuff operating an InQueue server, middleware enabled mailing lists, collaboration software etc. Use would be by working groups and planning groups, and could be used to demonstrate advanced applications on campuses without having to install the entire infrastructure yourself just to do the demonstration.

· I2 also provides services that I don't need.

· Too much focus away from providing network services

· The most important service is the provision of high speed networking.

· It is absolutely critical to our relatively rural, high-intensity research university to have high-bandwidth connectivity to the outside world via Internet2

· The only use to date for Internet2 is for large exchange of data. We do not use it for anything more elaborate.

· Abilene is a key resource, and the I2 Member Meetings, Joint Techs Meetings, and various working groups are tremendously useful.

· Mild concern that much happens within small circles within Internet2 and that regular, participating members can be left in the dark until after decisions have been made.

· I believe that we need to "push the envelope" of networking more, as NLR is proposing to do. I believe that there are national, economic benefits to be accrued by the US being leader in networking in the world, and I feel that the limitations imposed upon Abilene by Qwest have not allowed this objective to be met.

· It provides a subset of what we'd like, but certainly doesn't address the breadth we need.

· We are very interested in the proposed merger of Internet2 and the NLR.

· Internet2 is very expensive for the limited return our University gets on its investment.

· We have been very impressed with the ongoing communication and wide scope of initiatives under I2.

Question 3:

The Abilene Network provides the capabilities and services my organization needs.

55.2% agree
28.1% somewhat agree

Comments:

· High bandwidth/low latency backbone with native multicast support is really a prerequisite for a wide range of applications that we expect to need in the next few years - distance learning, VoIP and other initiatives included.

· The AUP has caused problems with other government organizations.

· NLR is a response to the limitations of I2/Abilene to a large extent

· It is becoming less compelling for us on a cost basis.

· Our sense is that our connection is necessary for our high performance computing researchers to send data and that the remainder of the university is really unaware of Abilene's existence.

· Abilene is a bit expensive for what we use it for and we haven't seen a need for lambda service for our downstream members, but we appreciate the need for a national testbed and think it is important to be a part of it. We do not see value in joining NLR and all of the higher education campuses in Connecticut agree at this time.

· Abilene had provided excellent, high-performance network service.

· Without the Abilene backbone, most of what we have done in using successfully Internet2 could not have been done at all.

· We have not had a need for excessive bandwidth as yet. Network administrators and managers have a love-hate relationship with Internet2. The business case for putting in very high speed lines to provide service to persons seen as dilettantes (those working on network video based projects only tangentially supporting their research endeavors) is weak and the costs for implementation are great in a time of scarce resources and increased cybersecurity threats. For those projects which have flourished (multicast digital radio and others) Abilene has been great. I've always had a difficult time understanding what NLR was supposed to be providing that was unique and couldn't be done better by Abilene. It just seemed like NLR was a shill for universities to cover the purchase of a lot of dark fiber at cheap rates. It seemed like universities were reinventing the wheel (Abilene). That's the main reason we didn't take part in NLR.

Question 4:

Access to advanced networking services has enabled my organization to achieve goals and milestones it could not have accomplished using commodity networking services.

53.6% agree
25.8% somewhat agree

Comments:

· Abilene's great benefit has been that its access was transparent to our users. this is also its downfall since researchers do not know they are using it or what they are getting. in that respect, it is more about 'adequate bandwidth' than it is about 'advanced networking services'

· There has been great excitement among scientists and about what we have been able to achieve working collaboratively real-time in data mining and data storage.

· Only a few faculty have used the service and most use has been for file transfers that could have been accomplished over commodity Internet.

· Some research projects have benefited from the higher performance and lower latency connectivity available through Abilene. We have not taken advantage of many of Abilene's advanced services, however.

· We rely on I2 to deliver reliable videoconferences in support of instruction, a service that wasn't possible with the commodity Internet

· we have been able to provide instructional access via multi media over I2 that would not have been possible on commodity internet.

· There's no way our multicast efforts could have proceeded without Abilene's capabilities.

Question 5:

The relationships within the higher-education community that Internet2 maintains and fosters are important to my organization.

66.7% agree
22.9% somewhat agree

Question 6:

Internet2 should support “common good” activities that are not being done by other organizations or by individual institutions.

60.4% agree

18.8% somewhat agree

Question 7:

Internet2 membership enhances my organization’s ability to compete for funding and research opportunities.

52.1% agree
27.1% somewhat agree

Question 8:

Internet2 membership enhances my organization’s ability to build and leverage partnerships.

54.2% agree

25% somewhat agree

Question 9:

The international connectivity and relationships that Internet2 maintains and facilitates are important to my organization.

55.2% agree
26% somewhat agree

Question 10:

The corporate relationships that Internet2 maintains and facilitates are important to my organization.

         27.4% agree
         32.6% somewhat agree
         28.4% neutral

Question 11:

The connections to the broader K/20 education community that Internet2 maintains and facilitates are important to my organization.

         30.5% agree
         29.5% somewhat agree
         18.9% neutral

Use of Abilene Network

The survey yielded information about how Internet2 members are actually using the Abilene network, with regard to types of advanced services, types of applications, and middleware as follows:

For which of these advanced services are you using your connectivity to the Abilene backbone? (select all that apply and note current vs. future interests)

Current

Future

Not Sure

Response Total

Testing of advanced services

38% (18)

34% (16)

28% (13)

Multicast

62% (33)

34% (18)

4% (2)

IPv6

23% (11)

58% (28)

19% (9)

Network measurement (e.g., Abilene Observatory)

34% (16)

30% (14)

36% (17)

Advanced capabilities: raw HDTV streaming

6% (3)

50% (24)

44% (21)

Advanced capabilities: bulk data transfer

63% (31)

24% (12)

12% (6)

Advanced capabilities: other

17% (8)

20% (9)

63% (29)

Leading edge applications: grid computing

40% (20)

20% (10)

Leading edge applications: interactive collaboration

55% (27)

33% (16)

12% (6)

Collaborations in advanced content delivery

20% (10)

41% (20)

39% (19)

Connectivity to: U.S. research universities

96% (50)

4% (2)

0% (0)

Connectivity to: broad U.S. educational communities, including state education networks

79% (41)

12% (6)

10% (5)

Connectivity to: other research and education networks throughout the world

87% (46)

9% (5)

4% (2)

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

My organization uses the following Middleware tools and services

Current

Future

Not Sure

Never

Response Total

InCommon

16% (12)

20% (15)

34% (25)

30% (22)

InQueue

8% (6)

16% (12)

49% (36)

27% (20)

Shibboleth

29% (22)

40% (31)

14% (11)

17% (13)

USHER

3% (2)

11% (8)

57% (42)

30% (22)

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

It was interesting to note that respondents are not overly concerned that security concerns override the value of advanced networking:

To what extent do you agree with this statement? Campus/organization security concerns are overriding our ability to utilize our Abilene connection to its fullest capability.

Response Percent

Response Total

Agree

10.7%

Somewhat Agree

16.1%

Neutral

32.1%

Somewhat Disagree

8.9%

Disagree

32.1%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

Participation in Internet2 Activities and Initiatives

The survey yielded interesting information regarding the extent to which members participate in Internet2 activities and initiatives.

How extensively does your organization participate in Internet2 activities?

Response Percent

Response Total

Very Active Participation

15.7%

Active Participation

38.2%

Limited Participation

42.7%

No Participation

3.4%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

To what extent does your organization participate in the following Internet2 activities?

Very Active Participation

Active Participation

Limited Participation

No Participation

Response Total

Meetings and workshops

25% (22)

45% (40)

26% (23)

3% (3)

Internet2 Days at your Organization

6% (5)

14% (12)

31% (27)

50% (44)

Middleware Initiative

12% (10)

24% (21)

31% (27)

33% (28)

End-to-end Performance Initiative

4% (3)

8% (7)

36% (30)

52% (44)

Security Initiative

12% (10)

18% (15)

35% (30)

Next generation network infrastructure

8% (7)

21% (18)

33% (28)

37% (31)

Total Respondents

It was important to assess not just the level of participation in Internet2 activities and initiatives, but also the degree of satisfaction, as shown in the following graphics and charts:

Which types of events are highly valued by your organization (check all that apply)?

Response Percent

Response Total

Internet2-sponsored virtual events

43.4%

Internet2-sponsored in-person meetings and conferences

78.9%

Internet2-sponsored workshops and hands-on training

65.8%

Internet2 Days at your organization

18.4%

Internet2 presentations held in conjunction with other conferences or meetings (e.g. EDUCAUSE).

61.8%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

The responses suggest that members participate most extensively in (and value most) meetings, workshops, and working groups, with moderate levels of participation in middleware and security initiatives, but little participation or value found in Internet2 Days.