It began as a concept in one physicist’s mind and quickly evolved in to a multi-million dollar international science project. The IceCube Project, a high-energy neutrino observatory, is currently being built and will be installed within the clear, deep ice of the South Pole during the Austral summers over approximately six years.
IceCube will be comprised of approximately 5,000 basketball-sized sensors, known as Digital Optical Modules (DOMs). These DOMs will be assembled and deployed on 70 vertical cable strings, buried 1450 to 2450 meters under the ice surface. Together these “strings of pearls” will form an observatory occupying over one cubic kilometer of space, making it the largest science instrument in the world.
With the data this observatory collects, physicists and astronomers will be able to better understand previously unexplored energy bands, provide additional information about black holes, and give insight into the particle nature of dark matter.
As IceCube transitions from its design development phase into its testing and production phases, communication among its numerous international and national collaborators has become increasingly vital to the project’s success. Until recently, much of the project’s communication relied on e-mails, teleconferences, and site meetings. Today these technologies are still the primary forms of communication. However, the demand for site meetings has increased rapidly during the last few months. As a result, project management looked into alternative methods to conduct reviews and meetings so that the “face time,” or exposure gained when attending a meeting in person, is not lost and funds that would otherwise be spent on travel expenses could be conserved.
Since January 2004, IceCube has been using videoconferencing services on a monthly basis. Communication has improved and travel expenses have been reduced. With the addition of webconferencing services to these videoconferences, collaborators who are traveling or without videoconferencing capabilities may participate from any location with an internet and telephone connection. Through the project’s continuous use of these technologies, collaborators are also becoming familiar with these media and are beginning to request videoconferencing and webconferencing services beyond the Monthly Status Meeting.
INTRODUCTION
The University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW), appointed as IceCube’s host institution, serves as a point-of-contact between foreign collaborators, national collaborators, the National Science Foundation, and Raytheon Polar Services Company (an NSF subcontractor). As a result, UW IceCube employees are often in charge of organizing meetings/reviews to discuss project matters.
Every month, the UW hosts an internal status meeting. Participants from various institutions gather by means of videoconferencing or webconferencing to discuss engineering, project support, implementation, instrumentation, data systems, detector verification and commissioning, and polar support activities/status. These institutions include: Stockholm University, Penn State University, University of Delaware-Bartol Research Institute, University of Maryland, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Raytheon Polar Services Company (Denver, CO), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California-Berkeley.
Originally, key collaborators would have had to fly into Madison from these institutions on a monthly basis in order to attend this meeting. However in order to keep project efforts flowing, this meeting must be brief. It did not seem feasible for these members to have to deal with the hassles of making travel arrangements when an effective meeting could be conducted within a few hours. It was decided that IceCube would give videoconferencing a try.
The first videoconference was a bit rocky, as most collaborators were unfamiliar with the preparation required for videoconferencing meetings and inter-institutional connections had not been established. Many of the local participants did not look at the remote site projected on the screen while speaking. The anticipated benefit of “face time” seemed hopeless. Participants also forgot to activate and deactivate their microphones as needed. It was also discovered that a handful of the institutions had videoconferencing systems which did not correspond with the videoconferencing systems implemented by a majority of the participating institutions.
As a result, the second Monthly Status Meeting was organized to incorporate a dual conferencing system. This meeting would utilize videoconferencing services in conjunction with webconferencing services. A participant unable to participate the month before would now be able to view presentation materials in real-time and have audio capabilities. As an added bonus, these participants may attend from the comfort of an office or participate while traveling. This meeting ran relatively smoothly. Some remote attendees indicated that because their institution’s videoconferencing systems were voice-activated (video feed switches to the site that is speaking), they were unable to view presentation materials when a non-UW participant spoke.
For the third Monthly Status Meeting, additional web “seats” were reserved for those remote participants. That way they were able to view an “active” presentation on a personal computer or project the material via LCD projector within their conference room for the duration of the meeting. Local participants began to acknowledge their remote colleagues by looking at the projection screen as they spoke. Activating and deactivating their microphones also became automatic.
DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS
About the middle of each month I send an email notification to all collaborators who have been requested to participate in the next Monthly Status Meeting. This email not only lists the date, time and location, it also requests that recipients do the following: confirm whether or not they will be able to participate, how they plan to participate (via videoconferencing, webconferencing, or in person), verify that their videoconferencing contact information is correct, and notify me of any additional collaborators they would like to invite. At this point, I submit an online event reservation form to the scheduler at Instructional Communications Systems.
The logistics involved in a Monthly Status Meeting from a UW standpoint includes: a room reservation for approximately 25 people, multi-point videoconferencing capabilities with valid videoconferencing contact information for each remote site, approximately 10 webconferencing “seat” reservations with corresponding phone lines, a dual projection screen setup (one screen displaying presentation materials, and the other screen displaying incoming video feed from the remote sites), a presenter’s computer, a second computer to view webconferencing output, wireless web access, and satellite microphones for local participants.
Shortly after submitting this web form, I receive an email notice, which states that my application has been received. Within a few days an ICS employee emails me a Videoconference Event Confirmation form. If a participant notifies me that they would like to invite a fellow collaborator, I contact that individual to inform them that their participation has been requested. Once I know how that individual plans to attend the meeting (video, web or in person), I make arrangements with the appropriate ICS personnel.
As the meeting date draws near, I check the reservation to make sure that everything is set. Working with a broad range of international and national collaborators from physics and engineering backgrounds can be difficult, as last-minute changes to meeting arrangements are to be expected. Final email notices are sent out to all participants informing them of the meeting’s date, time, location, and the location of presentation materials on the project’s document database. A separate email containing webconference and audio dial-in information is sent to webconferencing participants.
Once the meeting date arrives, everything is set to go. All participants are asked to arrive, login or dial-in a half-hour early so that all technical problems may be squared away prior to the meeting. This has proven to be very useful as we have a four-hour time limit. The Monthly Status Meeting has a single PowerPoint presentation, which is comprised of slides for each area of the project. As the PowerPoint presentation is displayed, one spokesperson from either the UW or a remote location talks to the slides representing their area of interest. Questions often arise during the presentation and may result in discussion, the establishment of future meetings/teleconferences/videoconferences, and new project action items.
In the days that follow the Monthly Status Meeting, follow-up action is taken. Action items are drawn up and assigned to individuals/groups for execution, meeting minutes are disseminated, and an email notice is sent announcing the next Monthly Status Meeting.
RESULTS
The number of expected participants for any given Monthly Status Meeting fluctuates from month to month. However, there are approximately 35 participants at each meeting. Between 20 and 25 of those participants attend from the UW alone. By making three modes of participation available for attendees, we have opened doors for non-UW collaborators as well as members who are traveling. Everyone has an opportunity to attend this meeting from almost any location and view materials (i.e. cost charts, photographs, etc.) inserted into presentation materials, allowing for effective discussion. The Monthly Status Meeting was designed to be an informational mechanism, which will allow collaborators to gain a better understanding of the status in other areas of the project, while expressing issues/concerns they face themselves.
LESSONS LEARNED
Past experiences have resulted in the following tips and lessons learned:
- Allow enough time for technical setup prior to meeting start time. (A half-hour works well.)
- Prior to the meeting, make sure to explain to local attendees how their microphones work.
- Make sure to request that all participants, local and remote, mute their microphones when not in use and remember to activate them when they wish to speak.
- If a member is not able to participate via videoconferencing, provide webconferencing services as well. (This allows these participants to view information at the same time, and eliminates the risk of participants falling behind or viewing the wrong material.)
- Allow enough time for attendees to pack up their belongings once the meeting has concluded. (A half-hour added to the meeting reservation allows sufficient time for this and acts as a buffer, should the meeting run long.)
- Videoconferencing saves money when compared to the costs incurred when traveling.
- Videoconferencing allows participants to use hand gestures when describing processes/assembly, which otherwise may be difficult to talk through.
[Home] [Order the Book] [Accessibility Statement]
[Other Distance Education Resources] [The Essential Videoconferencing Guide] [Training for Videoconferencing] [Instructional Design at ICS] [Interactive Services at ICS]
If you have trouble accessing this page, require this information in an alternative format or wish to request a reasonable accommodation because of a disability contact: Rich Berg berg@ics.uwex.edu.
© Copyright 2006 Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin
Last updated May, 2006