SESERV aims to facilitate discussion and debate on Future Interent Socio-Economics (FISE) by bringing together those who study and those who build the Future Internet. The outcomes will be a multidiscplinary community of researchers who not only understand Europe's contribution to the Future Internet but also what research priorities need to be tackled to ensure increased European competitiveness.
In this channel, we present the results of the FISE conversation. You will find information on community events, reports, publications, analysis and how conceptual
frameworks can be used to support effective discourse between both technical and
social science disciplines.
SESERV's paper "User Involvement in Future Internet Projects" has been recently published in The Future Internet Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 7858, 2013, pp
"To determine actual attitudes and practices of those in the Future Internet industry towards user involvement, delegates at the 2012 FIA participated in a focus group and a survey. Continuous user involvement is highly valued and expected to maximise the societal benefits of FI applications. However, just over half of the FI projects apply a user-centred approach, and a large number of survey respondents admitted to being not very knowledgeable about standard user-centred design tools or techniques."
FUTURE INTERNET ASSEMBLY - Thurday 9th May 11h30
Following on from SESERV's work on user engagement we're please to announce an exciting FIA session on Scaling-up
stakeholders’ engagement: ‘from the lab into the real world’
‘Future Internet’ projects face the challenge of scaling-up the innovative
internet services that they developed or experimented with in their projects.
Such scaling-up requires large-scale adoption by stakeholders, especially by
engaging (local) communities of users and engaging (local) businesses and
entrepreneurs. In this workshop, we will address this challenge. We will share
insights and practical experiences, regarding human-centred innovation and
business modelling. As a participant, you will increase your understanding of
possible approaches for successfully scaling-up innovative internet services:
‘from the lab into the real world’.
for more information about the workshop:
workshop title : Bringing users in
about the organisator
The “1st international conference on Internet Science”,
will be organized from April 9 to 11, 2013 in Brussels, under the
aegis of the European Commission, by the EINS FIRE project, the
Network of Excellence in Internet Science (http://www.internet-science.eu).
Hosted by the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for
Science and the Arts (http://www.kvab.be),
the event will be a highly multidisciplinary conference fostering dialogue among scholars and
practitioners belonging Computer Science, Sociology, Art, Mathematics, Physics,
Complex systems analysis, Psychology, Economics, Law, Political Science,
Epistemology and other relevant disciplines. It will also provide the EINS Network of Excellence with
an opportunity to interact with external stakeholders, detail project
objectives and methodological approach, and showcase its first results.
A Call for Papers has been launched, inviting papers
shedding light on Internet Science from all involved disciplines and in
particular papers crossing rigid disciplines boundaries, describing
original research and innovative ideas (see http://internetscienceconference.eu
for full details). A number of keynote and invited high-level speakers have
been secured (http://internetscienceconference.eu/programme).
The conference is open to any organizations and
individuals interested in the event topic. Pre-registration at http://internet-science.eventbrite.com
is compulsory since registration may be closed prior to the event date due to room
To contact the event organizers, please send an email to email@example.com.
SESERV coordination project has defined a systematic approach for analyzing and assessing the importance of socio-economic tussles in the Internet. The main idea is to make sensible predictions about the behavior of major stakeholders in several scenarios, each scenario reflecting candidate implementations of the desired protocol function. We argue that selecting the features of a technology in a more holistic way, by taking into account all major socio-economic factors would lead to more attractive outcomes and increase the chances of that technology to be adopted in the long-term.
Having applied extensively the SESERV tussle analysis methodology into several projects during the previous 2 years, we have gained significant experience that we would like to share with the Future Internet Socio-Economics community. The Tussle Analysis cookbook, which can be found here
, answers two important questions:
- Why use Tussle Analysis in the first place?
- How to perform the Tussle Analysis methodology when designing an Internet technology (such as a protocol, application, system)?
The answer to the first question describes the pros and cons of Tussle Analysis, for a wide set of Internet stakeholders.
SESERV believes that analyzing the anticipated tussles can help in better understanding major stakeholders' incentives. Furthermore, by following Clark's design principles, developers can tackle with conflicting incentives and increase their chances for building a long-term successful technology. However, it is true that taking into consideration the important socio-economic aspects of a technology can increase developers’ cost significantly. The main argument comes from Clark again; “fear and greed”. Developers compete with each other and thus will have the incentive to adopt tools and methodologies that make their technologies more attractive. In a similar line of thought, tussle analysis can be used as a strategic instrument for standardization bodies, research funding agencies and policy makers when selecting on which technologies to focus standardization efforts on, or to be funded (giving incentives to technology makers to deal with the most critical functions).
The second question explains the steps of the proposed methodology, providing methods and tools suitable for each step as well as taxonomies that can act as a starting point. Furthermore, the methodology is applied to a case study from a FP7 European research project, called ULOOP.
The next FIA will take place in Dublin, Ireland, on 8-10 May 2013. The FIA Steering Committee launches an open call for the 12 FIA working sessions. The deadline for submission of working session proposals is 20th
January 2013. Please follow the instructions
or go directly to the https://osqa.eurescom.eu
site, which has been made available to mediate the collection of working session proposals. More information concerning the overall conference is being published at the dedicated pages for FIA Dublin
After two years of effectively fertilizing the communication between specialists from diverse disciplines, that share an interest in the Future Internet, the SESERV project has been credited for this valuable contribution in that it was assessed as successful by the European Commission during its final project review. Although this officially ends the working period of SESERV, the insights into the socio-economics of the Future Internet and the stimulation and thereby densification of highly interdisciplinary liaisons throughout the Future Internet community, motivate project partners to partially continue their efforts. You are very welcome to become part
of this post project community work.
This whitepaper summarises the general approach as adopted by WP2 and WP3 in organising andanalysing focus group discussions on a range of socio-economic topics. Specific
conclusions from the various groups are reported in individual, targeted
documents (D2.2 and D3.2). Furthermore, the SESERV framework
(called Tussle Analysis) is described and demonstrated, which helps technology
developers and policy makers to understand the complex interplay of technology
and economics in the Internet.
The rationale behind
running focus groups as opposed to any other method arose from the observation
at the SESERV Oxford workshop that there was an urgent need to adopt a
multi-disciplinary approach to discussion. Focus groups are specifically geared
towards an examination of how ideas and concepts develop in a given context. A
focus group approach was an ideal method to encourage such cross-disciplinary
As described in the
preceding sections, the focus group methodology found in the literature was
reviewed and either applied directly to the SESERV focus groups, or modified in
some small detail as outlined to suit the topics and group composition
available to SESERV. WP2, focusing on economic issues, adopted a structured
approach, seeding discussion on the basis of a Challenge 1 project presentation
to describe one possible solution to the specific issues under debate. WP3 by
contrast used a less formal approach, using the occasional question to spark
off discussion. In both cases, conversations were lively and generated a
significant set of concepts and ideas which would be worthwhile pursuing and
which are developed in the corresponding deliverables in the respective work
The Tussle Analysis framework is
composed of a methodology for evaluating Internet technologies (called “tussle
analysis”) and a set of taxonomies. The latter include:
a) An extensive taxonomy of Internet functionalities, which
covers both aspects of how services are being hosted (cloud-related
functionalities) and their actual delivery (network-related functionalities).
A generic classification of Internet stakeholder into seven
high-level stakeholder roles, where each one is further decomposed into more
This methodology encourages and guides technology developers in
identifying the stakeholders of the technologies under
development/investigation, their interests and assessing whether these would be
met with a particular implementation of each such technology. The idea is that
designing a technology in a more holistic way, by taking into account the
interests of major stakeholders early in the process, would lead to more sustainable
socio-economic outcomes and increase the chances of that technology being
adopted in the long-term. The outcomes of all bilateral discussions, wider
focus groups and meetings resulted in a set of 6 economic SESERV recommendations to research projects, providers and policy
makers for successfully redesigning and configuring Future Internet
technologies. These are:
Technology makers should understand major
Technology makers should be neutral.
Technology makers should explore consequences and
dependencies on complementary technologies.
Technology makers and Providers should align
conflicting interests through incentive mechanisms.
makers should increase transparency.
Policy makers should encourage knowledge exchange
and joint commitments.
The project also had a set of 22 social SESERV recommendations, detailed above,
which fall into six broad categories:
1. Research Project Design / Project
2. Users/Participants Experiences and
3. Internet Data
4. Regulation and Public Policy
5. Transparency and Trust
6. Citizenship, Awareness, and Education
One effective way of bringing
stakeholders together was using a focus group methodology. As an approach, it
has been used many times, especially in the social sciences, to explore ideas
and their formation about topics ranging from proposed new brands (marketing)
to personal and sexual health (in nursing and paramedical social care). As
adopted by SESERV during the second year of the project to explore both
economic issues around network services and resource provision as well as more
generic societal and socio-economic concerns like user-centricity and the need
to involve all stakeholders, the methodology as described in the literature
suggested we needed to think carefully about the following issues:
* the adaptability of the method (flexibility): could it be used for our purposes?
* venue: where should we host the groups?
* participants: who could we get to take part?
* dominant voice: would anyone try to take over and control the discussion?
* thematic focus/seeding: would it help to set the scene?
* recruitment: how would we get participants?
This post briefly summarises the
way we implemented focus groups; all issues and considerations are discussed in
detail in [D1.5
]. Topic selection was reported in elsewhere
. Our experience can be summarised
- Flexibility the
overall methodology lends itself well to adaptation. It is based on a guided
discussion amongst a number of participants with more or less control exerted
by any facilitator. The WP2 (economic) focus groups involved more explicit
stakeholder role-assignment and thematic seeding than those (societally
focused) in WP3.
- Venue we
took advantage of other related events, organised by SESERV, the FIA or other
external bodies. This provided access to potential participants who were by definition
interested; and to a setting familiar to them (being part of the umbrella
- Participation as
above, exploiting a related event meant that participants would more likely be
knowledgeable and motivated in the area. After all, they had chosen to attend
the umbrella event.
- Dominant voice this is a recognised issue in
focus groups or indeed any group discussions. The facilitators in the SESERV
focus groups were asked to look out for this, and take whatever action may be
necessary to manage the problem. It turned out that this was not so much of an
issue: perhaps because all participants were equally motivated and
knowledgeable, as well as knowing each other in many cases professionally.
- Thematic seeding/focusing again, delegates at the umbrella
events would be expected to be knowledgeable and experienced in the areas under
discussion. In each case, there was a formal (WP2 introduced sessions with a
technical project presentation) and informal (WP3) scene-setting to help bound
- Recruitment within
the constraints of other project and professional commitments, the channel for
recruitment was obvious in connection with the umbrella event. A balance did
need to be struck though: sometimes delegates were leaving straight after an
event and could not spare the time; at other times, other ad hoc project meetings might interfere. WP2 did make an attempt to
mitigate these factors to some degree by assigning stakeholder roles that the
participants would recognise if not typically represent.
The overall experience with the
methodology was very positive and allowed us to explore the issues highlighted
in the first year, especially at Oxford, and move forward to make the
recommendations we have in the various deliverables [D2.2, D3.2]. By way of conclusion, SESERV was flexible in its
approach to focus group methodology: we were dealing with motivated
participants who had significant experience and interest in what we were
discussing, but who were time- and resource-constrained; we chose to exploit
associated events organised by FIA and the like, as well as the second workshop
we organised, since this meant participants would be on site and more likely to
attend. Nonetheless, recruitment proved
the main challenge. Ultimately, this led to a one shot approach: whereas focus groups are often repeated with the
same or different participants, reconvening with the same participants was
avoided for pragmatic reasons.
The focus groups turned out to be very successful though in moving the FISE Conversation forward.
The new NoE FLAMINGO started on Nov 1, 2012 and integrates the research of leading European research groups in the area of network and service management, including their economic, legal, and regulatory aspects, to strengthen the European and worldwide research in this area and to bridge the gap between scientific research and industrial application.
To achieve these goals FLAMINGO performs a broad range of activities, such as the development of open source software, the establishment of joint labs, the exchange of researchers as well as jointly supervised Ph.D. students, the development of educational and training material, and the interaction with academia and industry to organize events and to contribute to (IETF, IRTF, and ITU-T) standardization.
UZH will be a NoE partner and leader of WP7 on "Economic, Legal, and Regulative Constraints", thus, in a great position to leverage SESERV results and outcomes in those domains.
Stakeholders are entities supervising or making decisions that affect how the Internet ecosystem operates and evolves. A usual phenomenon is that the same entity plays multiple roles, for example ISPs (Internet Service Providers) offer connectivity services but at the same time can provide entertainment content services. In the first SESERV report on the Future Internet economic challenges
, an initial taxonomy of Internet stakeholder roles has been formed, by studying a number of research projects and identifying missing roles from previous attempts.
In our interactions with the FISE community and Challenge 1 research projects, we had the opportunity to present this taxonomy, encourage them to identify roles that may have been excluded from their analysis and provide us feedback on the taxonomy itself. This feedback resulted in a revision of the taxonomy, as shown in the next figure. More details can be found in the Final Report on Economic Future Internet Coordination Activities
Connectivity Providers refer to the entities responsible for the delivery of traffic from its source to the ultimate destination. This traffic may involve Users consuming services in order to meet their business and personal needs or Information Providers that offer service applications to address other, non-networking needs. Both Connectivity and Information providers may depend on Infrastructure Providers for leasing the necessary components (computational, network and storage resources). Content Owners produce content items such as movies. Technology Makers make available Internet protocols, software and hardware that seeds new needs and services. Last but not least, Policy Makers supervise the operation of the Internet and intervene when necessary.