Member Survey

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 2005 to Internet2 Executive Liaisons, with targeted invitations going out for the sub surveys (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.

When reporting individual responses, individual and organization names have been removed to protect anonymity of respondents.

If you have questions about the survey process or results, contact us at survey@internet2.edu.

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

Type of Member Representative

Of the 100 respondents who identified themselves as Internet2 Member Representatives, 62 (62%) also identified themselves as the Internet2 Executive Liaison. (Please note, someone could identify him/herself in more than one category.)

If you are an Internet2 Member Representative, please select all that apply.

Response Percent

Response Total

Executive Liaison

62%

Engineering Representative

29%

End-to-End Performance Representative

13%

Applications Representative

17%

Middleware Representative

16%

Government Relations

Public Affairs

Billing Contact

27%

Total Respondents

100

(skipped this question)

Positions held

Respondents were asked to identify what positions they hold in their organizations. While it was sometimes difficult to categorize a reported position, e.g., “Manager,” it was clear that CIOs/Directors of IT represented the largest group of respondents, with 37 identifiable as such. Directors of Network Services represented the next largest group (17), followed by Network Engineers (14).

To view all responses to this question, please click here.

Connection to Internet2 backbone; office/lab Internet2 connectivity

92.1% of those responding indicated that their organization is connected to the Internet2 Abilene backbone network, with 85.6% reporting that their offices or labs have Internet2 connectivity.

Key Messages

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, though 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.

· There is some concern that Internet2, as an organization, is too ‘closed,’ with decisions made by a small group of insiders.

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 to which respondents could indicate various levels of agreement. Respondents reported a positive perception of Internet2.

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)

Does Internet2 provide needed capabilities and services?

The next question asked respondent to indicate their level of agreement with the statement “Internet2 provides the capabilities and services my organization needs.” 84.7% indicted they agree or somewhat agree.

“Internet2 provides the capabilities and services my organization needs”

58.2% agree; 26.5% somewhat agree

Because of the range of useful feedback in the specific comments provided, 20 of the 47 received are included here:

Internet2 provides the capabilities and services that my organization needs.

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 price point 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 initiatives, 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 - e.g., 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.

To view all responses to this question, please click here.

Satisfaction with Abilene

Respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with the Abilene Network, as shown in the following chart:

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

Response Percent

Response Total

Agree

55.2%

Somewhat Agree

28.1%

Neutral

7.3%

Somewhat Disagree

Disagree

4.2%

Don't Know

4.2%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

“The Abilene Network provides the capabilities and services that my organization needs”

55.2% agree; 28.1% somewhat agree

Again, specific comments are excerpted here because they provided informative feedback.

The Abilene network provides the capabilities and services that my organization needs.

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 governmen