case study: caltech 'orchid' fundamental research project
Post on 17-Oct-2014
1.054 views
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CALTECH ‘ORCHID’ FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH PROJECT- CASE STUDY
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW This is a story of fundamental scientific research being conducted in a multi-university collaboration across continents and across various branches of theoretical and experimental physics. Specifically, one project in the ‘Orchid’ program (funded by DARPA) has combined the specialist expertise of two experimental laboratories, (one at Caltech in the United States and another at the University of Vienna in Austria), together with a global network of renowned theoretical physicists. Their shared objective has been to achieve a breakthrough in exploring frontiers of knowledge about ‘opto-mechanics’, a young field of science focused on the use of light to manipulate mechanical devices at nano-scale. Despite this ambition, however, it is known from previous studies that multi-university research has a tendency to be “problematic”. Multi-university projects, by comparison with multi-disciplinary projects within single institutions have been shown to have significantly fewer project outcomes. Within this particular global collaboration, the challenges have been heightened by the unpredictable nature of fundamental research, as well as by the diversity of laboratory technology and experimental processes being used by researchers in different universities. Therefore, it is notable that this 4-year DARPA project has produced some “milestone” experimental findings documented in internationally recognized publications1. Supporting the virtual organization of the research studied in this case, there appear to have been significant coordination mechanisms. For example, the compelling mission of the project, the contribution of graduate students from one institution “embedded” for lengthy periods as researchers in a counterpart institution/laboratory and acting in liaison or “straddler” roles, timely use of periodic face-to-face communication among scientists, and facilitation provided by the DARPA program manager, all seem to have made a positive difference in the outcomes of this project. Thus, this experience may offer insights about possible ways to meet the “costs” of multi-organizational collaboration, particularly in the field of fundamental research.
1 Among the publications supported by the Orchid project is: Safavi-‐Naeini, A.H. et al., 2013, “Squeezed Light from a Silicon Micromechanical Resonator”, Nature 500, pp. 185-‐189.
![Page 2: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
HISTORY/BACKGROUND-‐-‐SITE & PROJECT: In June 2010, faculty from the Division of Engineering & Applied Science and the Division of Physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) began a fundamental or pure research project, a theoretical and experimental program in ‘Optomechanics’ (i.e. use of light to manipulate mechanical devices at nano-‐scale). From the outset, however, Caltech scientists conceived of this project as a global collaboration with scientists at other universities in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and the United States. ‘Optomechanics’ is a very young field of science that started only 5-‐10 years ago, merging various branches of physics, namely, optics (the study of the behavior and properties of light), photonics (the use of light to perform functions like information processing and telecommunications, traditionally within the domain of electronics), and quantum mechanics (the study of the interaction of energy and matter at the sub-‐atomic scale). Consequently, scientists who work in the field of ‘optomechanics’ are all physicists but come from a diverse background of disciplines. The project is named “Optical Radiation Cooling and Heating of Integrated Devices” (ORCHID). It originated from an applied physics research proposal that was made in 2009 to the Microsystems Technology Office of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) of the US Department of Defense. The proposal built upon a theoretical proposition regarding the use of (laser) light to (cool)/reduce mechanical motion at nano-‐scale. Subsequently, DARPA incorporated this proposal into an overall program of study. The DARPA ‘ORCHID’ research program has had two phases. Phase One from June 2010 to June 2012 is fundamental research, (R1 on the R&D spectrum, see Fig. 1 below), exploring frontiers of knowledge about the physics of optomechanical devices through demonstration and measurement of various optomechanical effects on specific device platforms like microscopic crystals. Phase Two, from July 2012 to June 2014 called for applied research, (R2 on the R&D spectrum), thereby building a robust “toolbox” of techniques for a variety of application areas (sensors, oscillators, etc.), leading potentially to technology applications in cell phones and other telecommunications equipment. Within the overall ‘ORCHID’ program, in addition to the research team/project led by Caltech, there are 4 other projects/teams-‐-‐2 teams from Yale, 1 team from UCLA Berkeley, and 1 team from Cornell University. Supporting all 5 teams of ‘Experimentalists’ is one globally dispersed team of ‘Theorists’. The scope of this VOSS study is limited primarily to the team/project led by Caltech ‘Experimentalists’ (with support by the ‘Theory’ team), and is focused primarily on the time period involving the ‘pure’ research of Phase One.2 This virtual organization case study focuses, therefore, on work designated as ‘R1’ (Fundamental Research) on one extreme end of the Research & Development continuum, a format for R&D based on the classical work of Bell Labs, (Mashey as reported in Revkin, 2008) and illustrated below in Figure 1 as six stages or types of Research & Development work.
2 See Appendix 1: Methodology
![Page 3: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Figure 1: A Six-Stage Continuum of the R&D Process3
PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS: DARPA is the primary funding source (almost $5 M) to the Caltech team/project, over a period of 4 years. The mandate of DARPA is to support ‘hard research’-‐-‐out of the reach of current technology by a factor of 10. (For example, DARPA is the agency that gave birth to the predecessor of the Internet and GPS technologies.) Therefore, this is an agency very familiar with the challenges and requirements of sponsorship and management of highly exploratory research. The DARPA funding is supplemented by grants from the European Commission, the European Research Council, and the Austrian Science Fund. Nevertheless, DARPA is the driving force behind this research program, and the DARPA Project Manager is active in promoting “collaboration” among the scientific groups, in particular between the experimentalists and the theorists. Within the Caltech-‐led ORCHID project, there are 5 ‘experimentalist’ scientific groups, 3 located at Caltech, 1 in Austria, and 1 in Switzerland, (see Fig. 1). Two of the Caltech groups are located in the same building that houses the Department of Applied Physics. The third Caltech group belongs to the Department of Physics in a separate location on this small university campus. Each group is led by an experimental physicist/professor, with their
3 Bell Labs’ R&D Portfolio Management profile, as reported by John Mashey to Andrew Revkin (NY Times, December 12, 2008), and adapted by Carolyn Ordowich.
![Page 4: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
own laboratories staffed by graduate and post-‐doctoral students. Approximately 20 Caltech personnel are involved with the ‘ORCHID’ project in some way. While the Principal Investigators (PIs) of all 3 groups and a number of their graduate students have conducted research and published together quite extensively, for the ‘ORCHID’ project the 3 Caltech laboratories with their groups operate independently. The Micro & Nano-‐Photonics Group does, however, fabricate some of the devices used in experiments conducted by the Quantum Optics Group. Each group is conducting different experiments on 3 different types of optomechanical device platforms. This VOSS study focuses on the working relationship between the Micro & Nano-‐Photonics Group at Caltech and the Quantum Optics & Nanophysics Group in the University of Vienna, Austria. Among the collaborations the Austrian laboratory and the Photonics Group at Caltech have established the closest relationship. The Micro & Nano-‐Photonics Group fabricates its own devices (optomechanical crystals) and conducts its own experiments. It is also fabricating devices for use in similar experiments that are run, using different methods, on significantly different equipment in the Austrian Quantum Optics laboratory. Thus, there is strong interdependence between the Caltech Photonics Group and the Austrian Quantum Optics Group. The Austrian school is world-‐famous for their technical infrastructures that can do experiments at temperatures 1000 times lower than possible at Caltech. The Caltech lab has the advantage in the manufacture of quality devices for experimentation, and in this project, the Austrian lab depends upon the Caltech lab for state-‐of-‐the-‐art patterning of nano-‐structure devices. Another Caltech comparative advantage is its expertise in techniques of “getting light in and out of” these devices using a special fiber that has not been replicated elsewhere in the world. Until the ORCHID project, however, these 2 scientific groups had never collaborated. The idea for collaboration arose in an informal discussion between the leaders of the two groups at a scientific meeting after the DARPA proposal was submitted. Another aspect of scientific collaboration that is a focus of this study concerns interaction between the 3 groups of theoretical physicists and the experimentalists (see Fig. 2). The ‘Theory’ team was brought together for the ORCHID project at the initiative of the DARPA Project Manager who polled the experimental scientists for recommendations of specific theoretical physicists most capable of providing “support for experimentation” and for advancement of optomechanical theory based on ORCHID experimental findings. The 3 principal investigators on the theory team represented 3 different schools. The three worked in Germany, Canada, and the United States. Only two of the theorists have done substantial prior work together. Also, although the members of this theory team have a track record of collaboration with optomechanical experimentalists, in this specific case, only 1 of the theoretical physicists has worked previously with 1 of the Caltech professors on two joint publications. However, 2 of the theoretical physicists have contributed to a number of joint publications co-‐authored with one of the experimental physicists who leads another ORCHID project team at Yale University. Professional links may contribute to communications opportunities and past interactions may create assumptions about how work will progress.
![Page 5: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Indeed, the theory team proposal submitted to DARPA anticipated that the ORCHID project would be particularly challenging for them, with respect to scientific management. First, there was expectation of some “competition” for theory support from among the 5 experimentalist project teams, (the Caltech-‐based team + 4 other project teams at Yale, Berkeley, and Cornell). Secondly, the theory team assigned within its own DARPA budget a substantial provision for travel, as one way to meet the larger challenge of maintaining a “close connection” with the geographically dispersed research groups.
THE CHALLENGES OF ‘VIRTUAL ORGANIZATION’ FOR FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH: One of the central collaborative challenges in the virtual setting between the Caltech Nano-‐Photonics Group and the Quantum Optics Group at the University of Vienna is related to the very nature of their work. Pure or fundamental research, (R1 on our R&D spectrum—see Figure 1) is inherently unpredictable and fraught with ambiguity. The objective of the ORCHID project is discovery and knowledge generation, with no certainty of what will be learned about the capabilities of specific device platforms to actually display heretofore hypothetical optomechanical effects. Moreover, how to achieve such discovery has never been entirely clear during the early stages of the ORCHID project, in terms of questions that have remained about what would be the most productive experiments to run, and how such experiments should be designed.
![Page 6: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Research has often documented examples of the efficacy of clarity and predictability in work. Malhotra et al. described “innovation without collocation” in their case study at Boeing-‐Rocketdyne where the parameters of the desired outcome were clear, though not the ‘how’ of achieving a breakthrough design concept for liquid-‐fuelled rocket engine technology.4 Extreme unpredictability is also directly contrary to findings by Olson et al. in their decade-‐long study of science collaboratories, where a key factor leading to success has been work that is “unambiguous.” 5 Further evidence of the challenge faced by the ORCHID project team is found in Chudoba et al.’s conclusion that “work predictability” is a key mitigating factor for success in a virtual organizational setting6. Doing pure research in a virtual setting then, offers special challenges that are inherent in the work and the mode of interaction. A second criterion Olson et al. identified as a factor leading to success in collaboratories was an ability to act “somewhat independently from one another”. The Vienna laboratory is dependent upon Caltech to fabricate unique optomechanical crystal devices for use in experiments that Caltech is depending upon the Viennese scientists to run on their unique laser-‐cooling equipment. This substantial interdependence between the two laboratories implies a need for continuous and effective interaction, albeit in a virtual mode. On top of these challenges in the nature of work within this research project, there are other “discontinuities” (or factors that could contribute to a decrease in cohesion and a capability for collaboration). Chudoba et al. have already identified that “greater variety of work practices negatively impact performance” in virtual settings, and here within the ORCHID project, the two experimentalist groups, of Quantum Optics and of Nano-‐Photonics are based on related but very different disciplines, and use differing language to describe similar data. Moreover, the theoretical physicists have their own approach to problem-‐solving that differs from that of either of the experimentalist schools. Compounding the difference in disciplines or professional cultures that exists between the two laboratories is the difference in the equipment that they use for experimentation. It is an overall advantage for the ORCHID project that the University of Vienna laboratory has a technical infrastructure that can do experiments at 1000 times lower temperatures than is possible at Caltech. However, the techniques that Caltech has perfected for “getting light in and out of” its optomechanical devices do not work on the Austrian experimental infrastructure. Thus, a key challenge in this collaboration is for the scientists to invent a new technique for using their devices that would be compatible with the Austrian laboratory. Just the way this disconnect alone was discovered illustrates a need for close interaction. A graduate student from Vienna was visiting and noticed that there was a mismatch in the way the equipment was supposed to fit together. This coincidental visit and the discovery it triggered greatly facilitated the work of the entire process. Finally, all of these scientists have experienced or are familiar with some past failures or shortcomings in multi-‐university research7, often due to conflicting priorities among 4 Malhotra et. al., MIS Quarterly, Jun 2001: 25, 2; pp. 229-‐249. 5 Olson & Olson, Human-Computer Interaction, 2000: 15, pp. 139-‐178. 6 Chudoba et. al. Info Systems Journal, 2005: 15, pp. 279-‐306. 7 Cummings & Kiesler, Research Policy, 2007: 36, pp. 1620-‐1634.
![Page 7: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
diverse institutions. With the best of intentions, a conflict in priorities may not be apparent at the outset of a collaboration, but geographic separation has a way of expanding this type of inter-‐organizational “discontinuity”. Specifically, within the ORCHID project, this factor has potential for impact, insofar as here, exploratory research is being practiced under tight timelines with 6-‐month review periods (administered by the funding agency, DARPA). Given all of this background, the primary challenge has been to learn if and how the geographically dispersed teams of experimentalist and theoretical physicists might effectively converge their thinking and diverse perspectives, in order to answer the fundamental ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions posed by the ORCHID project within a virtual collaborative scientific organization. OUR FINDINGS: For this case the focus is on 3 topics; the nature of the collaborative relationships, identification of key deliberations involved in this research process, and the nature and media of communication used by participants in these deliberations. Each of these topics highlights an aspect of the work between ORCHID participant scientists and students as well as in part the influence of the funding agency in creating a more effective initial grouping of skills and capabilities. Collaboration The at-‐distance collaboration between the Caltech-‐based Micro & Nano-‐Photonics Group and the Austrian Optics & Nanophysics Group has proven to be even more challenging than anticipated. A major element of the challenge came from the need to invent a new methodology that would enable devices fabricated by Caltech to run on the experimental equipment in the Austrian laboratory. This co-‐invention required recognition or identification of the problem and an extremely detailed mutual understanding of the technical capabilities and limitations. The actual geographic constraints and virtual organization added to this very challenging task. Tremendous mutual respect between the leaders and staff of the two laboratories and the shared strong “motivation” to collaborate combined to enhance the chances of project success. In the opinion of the Austrians, “no group worldwide can make such devices as at Caltech”, and similarly, the view expressed by members of the Caltech Group is that the “Vienna school is world famous” for the quality of its experimental scientists and the capability of their equipment to do experiments at 1000 times lower temperatures than is possible at Caltech. The mutual respect between the labs has also led to a relationship that is “complementary” and “not competitive”. Most importantly, the combination of the two types of expertise creates a unique opportunity for scientific breakthrough. As one group leader said, it was “the first time in principle…to enter a regime that we can do [quantum] experiments with truly microscopic systems”. Even during the early intense period of experimentation within this collaboration, it has already yielded a series of internationally recognized publications and a “milestone” experiment/demonstration of a capability “to cool a miniature mechanical object to its
![Page 8: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
lowest possible energy state using laser light” which “paves the way for…quantum experiments that scientists have long dreamed of conducting”8 (See Fig. 3). Figure 3: Nanoscale Silicon Mechanical Resonator used in breakthrough Caltech Experiment
8 “Caltech Team Uses Laser Light to Cool Object to Quantum Ground State”, Caltech Media Relations News Release, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena CA, October 5, 2011.
![Page 9: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Credibility and capability have always been important in science but they become more critical in a virtual working relationship. Competence is, therefore, an equally significant motivation for collaboration between the theoretical and the experimental physicists within the ORCHID project. On one hand, theoretical physicists want to have connection with experimentalists to advance their understanding of what theoretical questions would be most relevant and even feasible for experimentation. In the words of a group leader and a colleague in theoretical physics, “you want to be the first to know about really interesting data…and so, you go for the best experimental groups that there are”, and the Caltech lab is “really one of the leaders in the field”, having “the most promising” set-‐ups/devices “in the world”—“it was extremely natural to start collaborating with Caltech”. Conversely the Caltech lab and experimental physicists at Yale and other laboratories, at the request of the DARPA ORCHID Program Director, actually selected this particular set of theoretical physicists, for their well-‐established reputation for collaboration and an ability to do the calculations and modeling necessary for optomechanical experimentation. One of the oft-‐noted features of this collaboration has been the respected and fairly active facilitation role performed by the ORCHID Program Director from the funding agency, DARPA, who is seen “to push the collaboration”. For example, the Program Director has convened periodic teleconferences among the theoretical physicists to promote and review their collaboration. And, on a semi-‐annual basis, the Program Director leads a thorough review of the overall ORCHID program, bringing together members of the theoretical and experimentalist groups, faculty and graduate students. Key Deliberations9 The nature of these scientific collaborations becomes even more evident through understanding the key deliberations involved in achieving this type of fundamental research project. For example, a key deliberation topic arising continuously during Phase One of the ORCHID project is the Selection of what Experiment(s) to run. This deliberation also illustrates the significance of serendipity that often surfaces in collaborations such as this one between the perspectives of theoretical and experimental physics. In one instance, a graduate student associated with the German theorists took note of experimental data that his Caltech colleagues had generated quite by chance. They were inclined to discount the data as an “artifact”. However, to the German student this data was indicative of an “interesting” optomechanical effect that had been predicted by theoretical physicists, although the same theory suggested it would be extremely difficult to achieve such an effect experimentally. Once Caltech physicists were informed and persuaded by this theoretical understanding, a new experiment was devised, and the predicted effects were then effectively demonstrated. Among the experimentalists, there have already been examples of joint participation in deliberations involved with the detailed Design of Experiments within ORCHID, both in terms of procedures and equipment design. The most complex example of a sub-‐topic in this type of deliberation involved the challenge of what and how to redesign in order to 9 “Deliberations are patterns of exchange and communication in which people engage…to reduce the equivocality of a problematic issue”; Pava, Calvin, 1983, Managing New Office Technology, The Free Press, New York, N.Y., p.58.
![Page 10: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
achieve a match between the wavelength characteristics of the optomechnical device fabricated at Caltech, and on the other hand, the wavelength of the light source to be utilized in experiments to be run in the Austrian laboratory. A related deliberation topic has been the Design of Measurement—what to measure and how to measure—where once again, the combination of theoretical and experimental perspectives has been very helpful. Within the process of actually implementing a specific experimental design or fabricating a specific device, there are inevitably multiple problem-‐solving iterations. In one instance, a Caltech graduate student spent 6 months “putting out fires” in trying to develop just one experiment that had a wide variety of issues ranging from inaccuracies in certain sensing equipment to inconsistencies in the production of the optomechanical crystal device itself. During these trouble-‐shooting deliberations within the experiment conducted at Caltech, the experience and perspective provided by members of the Austrian laboratory were key. Other deliberations for both the theoretical and experimental physicists have involved more logistical topics, such as the timing and coordination for the transport of optomechanical devices between Caltech and the Austrian laboratory, the allocation of staff resources (i.e. specific graduate students or lab technicians) to work on specific theoretical questions or to develop specific experiments, or even the “partitioning” of research questions among the theorists for particular study by each of their respective groups. In the way that the various physicists have described these deliberations, it is apparent that a particular deliberation topic could not only re-‐cycle in a non-‐linear fashion, (for example, the ‘choice point’ of whether to run a particular experiment), but it might also carry on over an extended period of time, with substantial lapses or “incubation” time in-‐between communications—“it’s a constant re-‐evaluation; where do you want to put your effort?” Communications The choice and use of communication media are central factors in the functioning of research networks or virtual organizations because deliberations are patterns of exchange and communication to resolve issues of equivocality in knowledge work processes. Nevertheless, to maintain communication between two geographically separated scientific groups has, in the view of the Orchid project participants, required “enormous effort”. Furthermore, within the Orchid project experience, there appear to be certain patterns, whereby different modes of communication seem to have come into play at different stages of specific deliberations and within the overall research process. One pattern that has been common for both the experimental and theoretical physicists is that “a lot of the collaboration really goes on via email”, exchanging documents or experimental results without the expectation of instant response. Email as a communication mode allows contemplation and preparation for what is very often a next step in the deliberation, namely, one or more synchronous Skype conversations or teleconferences to discuss and make “sense” of the shared information. Sometimes, a “screen-‐sharing” feature has been utilized to supplement this ‘sense-‐making’. Sometimes, Google-‐Plus has also been used, particularly by some of the graduate students, to supplement email.
![Page 11: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Skype calls have had another use, distinct from email exchanges, for what some ORCHID participants term “strategic decisions”, for example, weighing options about if and when to run a certain experiment, or whether or not to allocate additional resources to a specific aspect of the project. The visual as well as audio capability of Skype calls has also enabled ORCHID participants to sit in pairs or threesomes around a computer and use Skype (only very occasionally) as a means to hold a modified form of videoconference, rather than use a more elaborate, specialized video conferencing technology. In fact, most teleconferences seem to have involved pairs or trios of (distributed) ORCHID participants, rather than the larger group ‘gatherings’ for project teleconferences that might have been contemplated at the outset of the Caltech-‐based ORCHID project. Virtual large group ‘gatherings’ of diverse faculty and graduate students have proven to be an overwhelming organizational challenge. One of the principles of virtual communication that seems to be foremost in the ORCHID project context is that communication technology and procedures need to be “simple and robust” or they will not get used. Some of the ORCHID project members have participated in videoconferences within other research networks, and there are now plans in the forthcoming year for both the Caltech lab and the Austrian lab to utilize newly installed videoconference facilities, particularly as the need will increase for inter-‐group discussions and interpretation of a growing amount of data from the intense period of experimentation in the Austrian lab. Nevertheless, most of the ORCHID project participants would claim that much of the most significant progress has been made in the research process when there has been the opportunity for face-‐to-‐face (F2F) communication between members of these geographically dispersed scientific groups. For example, the ‘idea’ for this scientific collaboration “all started” through a series of F2F meetings at Caltech and conferences involving faculty and graduate students from the Caltech and Austrian laboratories. And now, these scientists who are now collaborating within the ORCHID project renew their F2F contact, at scientific conferences to which they are invited several times a year, as well as at the semi-‐annual ORCHID Program review meetings convened by DARPA. Similarly, within the early months of the ORCHID project, the ‘theory’ team worked entirely at a distance from the experimentalists, studying research papers and slides presented at the ORCHID program launch, in order to make sense of “where the experimentalists were going”, and “what questions would be important to the success of their experiments”. However, “in terms of real [theoretical] research being conducted…the most impressive example” occurred when the leader of the German school of Theoretical Physics sent one of his graduate students to work for 5 consecutive months in the Micro & Nano-‐Photonics lab at Caltech. During this period, the graduate student (linked by frequent Skype and email communication with his German colleagues) was “able to give real time suggestions to the experimentalists on what they should be measuring” or quickly to interpret experimental data that “it would have taken [the experimentalists] a long time to figure out”. Another example of this type of “embedded researcher” was the graduate student from the Austrian laboratory who came, quite by chance, to Caltech for 5 weeks in September-‐October 2010, when it so happened the project was experiencing an unfortunate delay in development of the optomechanical device and experimental design intended for use in the
![Page 12: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Austrian laboratory. By all accounts, this graduate student and his colleagues in Austria could not have been nearly as helpful with expediting this key experimental design, without his physical presence and F2F communication with the Caltech scientists. In the words of the Austrian graduate student: “it’s very hard to really get on the same page and really understand what the other one means if you don’t see…the design, see how the people work…I wasn’t really aware of how different the experiments were [in Caltech] than in Vienna. And, we just had to merge those two different approaches together.” From late 2010 to March 2011, this graduate student continued his F2F contact with Caltech, traveling back-‐and-‐forth from Austria, transporting various prototypes of the optomechanical device for test runs in Austria, and since March 2011, he has begun a two-‐year post-‐doctoral assignment with the Caltech Nano-‐Photonics Group. During 2011 and 2012 of Phase Two of the ORCHID project, he joined Caltech graduate students in periodic visits to the Austrian laboratory where they have taken the refined optomechanical crystal device and worked with the University of Vienna staff to set-‐up the actual experimentation, now successfully underway in Austria “with a full-‐blown structure fully operational and completely unique”. Without this F2F contact by this second “embedded researcher”, the general opinion is that this experimental design “would have been worked out, but it would just have taken much longer”. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS: Researchers know that “technology-‐mediated interactions…complement face-‐to-‐face interactions” in virtual settings. Dixon and Pantelli (2010) documented this in their study of a UK government-‐funded program establishing a ‘virtual centre of excellence’ for technology development10. In the ORCHID project experience much of the face-‐to-‐face interaction actually occurred by happenstance, and for periods of time longer than typical for graduate student exchanges. These factors raise questions and may also provide answers about the nature and dynamics of this complementarity of communication media in virtual settings. More to the point they raise questions and may also provide answers about how this dynamic works in fundamental research collaborations. The project participants interviewed generally acknowledge that email, videoconference, or any of the technology-‐mediated forms of communication “work best when you already have an idea of where you want to go”, with a particular work process question or research topic. So, determining the direction or strategies of a project may require concentrated F2F communication. Some of the ORCHID participants commented that this is most apparent “in the early stages of a project, when things are so confusing…everything is so unclear—you need a lot of random discussions that may lead to nowhere…we just have to talk again and again—it seems to depend very much on personal interaction, the chance element.” This leads to three inquiries.
• First, to what extent is this initial confusion temporary and is it only initially needed to develop an understanding of each other and ‘get on the same page’?
10 Dixon and Pantelli, 2010, “From Virtual Teams to Virtuality in Teams”, Human Relations, 63(8), pp. 1177-‐1197)
![Page 13: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
• Second, how much is this challenge one of “perspective-‐taking” among participants from different disciplines and with diverse work practices?11
• And third, in this virtual setting where most of the geographically dispersed participants had not previously worked together, how much of the challenge of mutual understanding involves trust and relationship building?
Taking these questions in reverse order, the answer from Caltech participants and from the two “embedded” European researchers, is that it has been “very crucial” to work together, “eat lunch, and have coffee together”, or “to spend time together”, just “to get to know each other”. These interactions make it easier to “just get on the same page”. Caltech graduate students and their “embedded researcher” counterparts have developed a “personal” friendship more than just a “professional” relationship. As a result, they are “more willing to have discussions [with each other] when [they] don’t have clear, conclusive ideas”, and are “more willing to share data that [they] don’t understand”—in their words, “we are not as hesitant with each other”. These participants now also speak in a way that suggests they are more tolerant or open to some national “cultural differences” between the scientific groups. Such differences could otherwise have been serious “discontinuities” in the collaboration, especially given the delays that have occurred with various pieces of work in this project, disrupting coordination between laboratories. One Caltech graduate student gave this example: “when the German scientists say that they will have a result ready in 4 months, it is ready in 4 months; whereas when Americans say that they will have a result in 2 months, it often takes longer—we [North Americans] over-‐promise, while the Germans are more cautious”. Building respect and trust is thus clearly connected to the second challenge of “perspective-‐taking” across the disciplines of theoretical and experimental physics, or across the disciplines of quantum optics and applied physics, and even more particularly, between scientists from two laboratories with methods and equipment for experimentation that are “very, very different”. Beyond this interpersonal dimension, though, the process of integrating multi-‐disciplinary and multicultural perspectives to solve technical problems has required that scientists “actually sit together…make drawings on the blackboard and discuss things…again and again”. The nature of these conversations appears to closely resemble the use of “narrative” and “boundary objects” cited by Boland & Tenkasi, in their modeling of language and cognition to assist in the design of electronic communication systems for “communities of knowing” within and across organizational boundaries.12 Indeed, some of the ORCHID project 11 Boland & Tenkasi, 1995, “Perspective-‐making and perspective-‐taking in communities of knowing”, Organization Science, 6 (4), pp. 350-‐372. 12 Bruner (1986) contends that rational analysis of data is supplemented by how we construct stories or metaphors to make sense of unusual or unexpected events in an interesting and believable way that fits with our particular cultural field. Similarly, Star (1989, 1993) has observed how a picture, map or diagram can provide a visible representation of one’s thinking and becomes a “boundary object” that makes one’s knowledge available for analysis with another individual or scientific community.
![Page 14: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
participants agree that this kind of interdisciplinary problem-‐solving discussion is definitely “possible at a distance, over the internet, on a [video or tele] conference call where you can just draw things…But it’s not as efficient as if you come for a week or two and just sit together and just concentrate on one thing.” Nevertheless, the two “embedded researchers” have continued to perform within the ORCHID project a function with respect to colleagues in their ‘home’ scientific groups that is very similar to what Boland & Tenkasi refer to as “semiotic brokers”.13 Knowing the ‘language’ and the capabilities of the Caltech lab, they have been able to establish a liaison or “straddler” role14 ‘translating’ and expediting communication between the Caltech staff, the theory team, and staff associated with the Austrian experimental lab. From the perspective of the European leaders of the ORCHID project, this linking role has been “absolutely essential”. Without this role, and without it being performed effectively, graduate students in one or more of the labs would lose interest and engagement with the project. Critical opportunities to focus the research would be missed or adjustments would not be made. Unlike a situation where the two lab groups might have been co-‐located, in this case of a trans-‐Atlantic collaboration, regular and spontaneous meetings to critique progress don’t happen easily, given all of the local distractions and priorities that take over one’s attention”. To the first question about how ‘temporary’ the need is for F2F communication in this work, the perception expressed by many of the ORCHID participants is that there is a general “threshold” or set of constraints associated with a phone call, videoconference, etc. Part of this perception, even for many of the younger Millennial generation graduate students, is that there is “a raft of minor issues”—audio noise, crossing over from one information source to another, time zone issues—“that all add up to make virtual communication less appealing, not as easy for most complex problem-‐solving”. More important, though, is that F2F enables “a non-‐restricted occasion, meaning there is no phone that when you hang up, the person is gone…[no] 1-‐hour time slot for a phone call…you just are around…there is the possibility to interact 24 hours in principle”. Thus, what is seen to be lacking with electronic communication media is “intensity and spontaneity” that these scientists contend are vital when “developing new ideas, new directions—about the experiment, and so on”. In science, “there’s this random-‐chance occurring of ideas…you chat about a lot of different topics, and then, somehow the germ of a new idea comes up” whereas “teleconferences don’t happen by chance”. Or, as another Caltech scientist expressed the dilemma, without opportunities for F2F communication, “Eureka moments won’t happen”. Along with this spontaneity, there needs also to be the “pressure” or “intensity” of “constant exchange” because in “generating new ideas, you always have an incubation time”. 13 Lyotard (1984) refers to the important role of agents that help to translate and integrate the representation of concepts. 14 Heeks et al., 2001, “Synching or Sinking: Global Software Outsourcing Relationships”, IEEE Software, March/April 2001, p.59.
![Page 15: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The question remains whether this need for F2F communication to help generate “new ideas, new directions” exists primarily or solely at the beginning of a fundamental research project like ORCHID? Perhaps, it is so for projects more on the ‘Development’ side of the R&D spectrum. For fundamental research, however, that has as its core objective to generate ‘breakthrough’ concepts, knowledge, and experimental data, it seems more likely from the experience of the ORCHID project over its extended period of three years, that there is a rhythmic cycle moving from one ‘unknown’ through to discovery of ‘known’ results that evoke their own new questions and definition of a new ‘unknown’ followed by a further search for ‘findings’. In the words of the European science leader for ORCHID, “in fundamental research, one never knows in which direction research is taking you—new opportunities and new challenges are continually opening up”. Indeed, the experience of the ORCHID project has persuaded this European scientist that timely, periodic F2F communication is vital in virtual scientific collaborations involving fundamental research. F2F communication within the virtual organization of the ORCHID project may have additional importance. Findings from the study of other virtual teams suggest that they have a need for “deep temporal rhythms of interaction”, with “face-‐to-‐face meetings…as a heartbeat, rhythmically pumping new life into the team’s processes”. The goal is “to draw team members together…to connect, couple, and integrate team members so that they communicate more effectively.”15 In this ORCHID project, the process of drawing people together began early and continued into the virtual setting. Early F2F communication was combined with the unique and very powerful motivation that the dispersed parties seem to have for this collaboration. The science leaders of the ORCHID project “had talked to each other a lot of times before starting this program”, and “it helps that a program like ORCHID is very focused on one topic” of vital interest to all the relevant scientific groups. Indeed, the speculation of at least one experienced research scientist in the ORCHID project is that success in such multi-‐university research “does not depend so much on technical difficulties in collaboration, but more on motivation”. A strong motivation can combine with the intensity of relationship building, F2F or virtually, to enhance and support deliberations across multidisciplinary and geographic boundaries.
15 Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000, Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness, Organization Science, 11 (5), pp. 473-‐492.
![Page 16: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
REFERENCES: Boland, R.J., Tenkasi, R.V., 1995, Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing, Organization Science, 6 (4), pp. 350–372. Bruner, J. S., 1986, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caltech Media Relations, 2011, “Caltech Team Uses Laser Light to Cool Object to Quantum Ground State”, News Release, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena CA, October 5, 2011. Caltech Media Relations, 2013, “Caltech Team Produces Squeezed Light Using a Silicon Micromechanical System”, News Release, Caltech, Pasadena CA, August 7, 2013. Safavi-‐Naeini, A.H. et al., 2013, “Squeezed Light from a Silicon Micromechanical Resonator”, Nature 500, (August 8, 2013), pp. 185-‐189. Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., Watson-‐Manheim, M.B., 2005, How Virtual are we? Measuring Virtuality and understanding its Impact in a Global Organization, Information Systems Journal, 15, pp. 279-‐306. Cummings, J. N., Kiesler, S., 2007, Coordination Costs and Project Outcomes in Multi-‐University Collaborations, Research Policy, 36, pp. 1620-‐1634. Dixon, K.R., Panteli, N., 2010, From Virtual Teams to Virtuality in Teams, Human Relations, 63 (8), pp.1177-‐1197. Heeks, R., Krishna, S., Nicholson, B., Sahay, S., 2001, “Synching or Sinking: Global Software Outsourcing Relationships”, IEEE Software, March/April 2001, p.59. Lyotard, J. F., 1984, The Postmodern Conditions: A Report on Knowledge, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Carman, R., Lott, V., 2000, Radical Innovation without Collocation: A Case Study at Boeing-‐Rocketdyne, MIS Quarterly, 25 (2), pp. 229-‐249. Maznevski, M.L., Chudoba, K.M., 2000, Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness, Organization Science, 11 (5), pp. 473-‐492. Olson, G.M. Olson, J.S., 2000, Distance Matters, Human-Computer Interaction, 15, pp. 139-‐178. Pava, Calvin, 1983, Managing New Office Technology, The Free Press, New York, N.Y., p.58. Revkin, A., 2008. Dot Earth: ‘R2-D2’ and Other Lessons from Bell Labs, New York Times, December 12, 2008. Star, S. L., 1989, “The Structure of Ill-‐Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving”, in M. Huhns and L. Gasser (Eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence 2, Menlo Park, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Star, S. L., 1993, “Cooperation Without Consensus in Scientific Problem Solving: Dynamics of Closure in Open Systems”, in S. Easterbrook (Ed.), CSCW: Cooperation or Conflict, London: UK Springer.
![Page 17: Case Study: Caltech 'Orchid' Fundamental Research Project](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051512/54416f8fafaf9f5a208b46ee/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY During the late spring of 2010, the VOSS research team opened discussions with Caltech’s Micro & Nano Photonics Research Group in the Applied Physics department. This research group had previously agreed and formally expressed an interest to participate as a site in he VOSS project. However, a preliminary ‘scoping’ discussion was required to determine the most appropriate multi-‐university research activity to focus upon for this VOSS study. After ‘kick-‐off’ of the ORCHID program at a meeting of the various research teams from Caltech, Yale, etc., held in Santa Barbara, CA in June 2010, preparations for the eventual experimentation began slowly both at Caltech and at the University of Vienna Quantum Optics Group. Preparations were complicated by the need to coordinate the planning of what research to do and how to do it, between two laboratories that operated with very different equipment and methodologies. Hence, it was not until the spring of 2011 that the ORCHID project Principal Investigator signaled to the VOSS research team that it was timely to hold the first of a series of (one hour) teleconference interviews to review the project’s progress. In the summer of 2011, one member of the VOSS team made a visit to the Caltech laboratories and conducted face-‐to-‐face interviews with the Principal Investigator and with two of the graduate students involved very substantially with the ORCHID project. Plans were also made at this time for phone interviews (held in the autumn of 2011) with faculty and graduate students located at the University of Vienna laboratory, and with European and Canadian members of the ORCHID project team of theoretical physicists. It was emphasized by the ORCHID project Principal Investigator that PhD students and Post-‐Doctoral associates within each of the laboratories in Europe and Caltech were the individuals most involved in the day-‐to-‐day process of this scientific collaboration, and thus, would be preferred subjects for interviews in this VOSS study. Finally, a second round of interviews were conducted with the leaders and selected members of the ORCHID project during Phase Two, in the autumn of 2012. Overall, during an elapsed time period of three years, approximately 20 (60-‐90 minute) interviews have been conducted in person or by phone, involving two members of the VOSS research team and one subject/participant of the ORCHID project. Interviews have sought primarily to identify:
i) perceptions of the nature and challenges of this scientific collaboration from the perspectives of the various scientific Groups;
ii) key deliberations (“choice points”) in this particular process of fundamental research; and
iii) the qualitative nature and frequency of use associated with various media of communication among participants in the ORCHID project.