Bamboo and institutional buy-in

""Accountability" - positioning ourselves so that whatever questions are posed to us by funders, etc., we can show we have value" (W2, Q&A, Thursday morning - pre-exercise questions)

"No matter which group you're trying to address, the angle has to be "why does it matter to faculty" - if it doesn't matter to them, this is pointless" (W2, Q&A, Saturday afternoon)

"Whether you manage a partnership between two universities or two schools in a university, you're managing an inside/outside problem in different ways" (W2, Analyzing Directions, Group K)

"Assuming we are working within institutions, where is the agenda set in the institution? Faculty, librarians, tech specialists, scholars, students, all of the above? How does one articulate and lead a consensus and agenda?" (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, questions and concerns, plenary notes, group 11)

"How can project Bamboo gain an adequate understanding of existing models of institutional partnerships/lessons learned? How to interact with capacity and scarcity of IT resources in different institutions?" (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, questions and concerns, plenary notes, group 3)

"What can Bamboo do to try to appeal in broadest possible way to humanists on campus who are somewhat resistant to spending time/energy/resources in this endeavor? Money: to garner support means financial support in some sense; we had people from different kinds of institutions, and everywhere it's hard to get an institutional investment at this point. What might happen, how might we get that? What kind of argument can we make ot our administration to support Bamboo financially?" (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, questions and concerns, plenary notes, group 3)

"How do we get top-level administrative buy-in? How should it be funded? At Berkeley - first time they'd had a top-level buy-in, and that was due tohow it was presented to administration." (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, questions and concerns, plenary notes, group 1)

"Different resources are available, so how can Bamboo connect those institutions and facilitate interaction inter/nationally? Figuring out ways the ideas and programs of Bamboo could be presented to deans, provosts, presidents, boards of regents, trustees, etc. to get financial support." (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, questions and concerns, plenary notes, group 10)

"Could Bamboo impact meetings of scholarly societies? Are their ways that Bamboo can promote objectives and ideals to trustees, deans, regents? What can Bamboo bring to UCLA? We should make the case. How can we reinforce the message that this is a shared effort involving faculty and staff?" (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, questions and concerns, group 5 notes)

"How to make a case for PB on campus; very different case in different places. Defining the business model and level of commitment in a way that everyone can participate, not too exclusive. Institutions taking the lead vs. being truly consortial. CIC digital repository is a good example" (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, plenary notes, risks and rewards)

"Priorities: Defining what's in it for various institutions, what are membership options? Develop examples of successful models to share. Defining forms of support and strategies for doing it." (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, plenary notes, risks and rewards)

"Also should create matrix that includes modes of communication, active engagement of faculty, range of financial support, financial sustainability (hard vs soft money), sustainable, impact on teaching/earlning/research, develop infrastructure/technology tools" (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, plenary notes, plan)

"Need to develop ways to articulate the case for Bamboo - demonstrator request for 2 min elevator speeches that demonstrate what/why important for target audiences. Benefits as we make the cases for how it can help hum research, cost of not doing anything. Affects student success/placement; public institutions - outreach to state in articulating advantages of traditional individualistic approach, what are advantages of collaborative." (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, plenary notes, plan)

"Can PB meet the needs of all, or do we need to focus the membership?" (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, plenary notes, plan)

"Institutional 'ask' hinges on what Bamboo is going to be. We have silos and we're trying to break those down. Finding examples of success. Solving knowledge problems in the disciplines. Articulating what the payoff is for humanities faculty. Bamboo can help maximize the things your campus does really well (watering 200 houseplants v. 10 mighty oaks). We're not focusing on a subject matter but a process---creating a backbone/new way for doing academic work that brings in humanities scholars, IT, libraries, etc." (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, group notes, scope)

"Top priorities for W3: 1) Defining what is in it for various institutions and defining membership options; 2) Identifying successful models; 3) Identifying forms of support and strategies for getting it." (W2, Institutional Partnerships and Support, group notes, top priorities)

"Looking at the elevated pitch, how to get faculty and administrators to support this? What are faculty and university needs, how do we support that? Concerns: need more clarity, concrete rational for long-term support. Don't end arguments for continuing, as long as we keep seeing traction." (W3, Institutional Support, Progress and Demonstrators)

"Proposition values of Bamboo: why Bamboo, how will it tie into other things, can begin to help build skeletal structure and answer questions as we go. Need a "commitment roadmap" - administrators want to see how much it'll cost, what it'll look like." (W3, Institutional Support, Progress and Demonstrators)

"One other suggestion from faculty member: possibly having the PIs from the team and others contact each provosts/chancellors and thank them for their continued support. We've done some ground-up stuff, but how about the other way?" (W3, Institutional Support, Progress and Demonstrators)

"Ferris wheel wasn't ready when fair opened, didn't open until 6 mos later. Just that people are talking about something is all it takes for success-- you don't have to do it." (W3, Perspectives: Information Technology, Greg Jackson)

"Institutions: "What will PB do for us?" We can't give you that answer - we need to now who'll be in the effort, and what kind of resources you'll have
Important here: as we think about what PB is going to do is continue to compile examples of how to leverage Bamboo. Where some of the best investments are." (W4 Introductory Remarks, David Greenbaum)

"Schedule conversations w/ institutions and organizations to gauge interest/commitment. What being part of PB means; a lot have been asking for printed materials - value statements, elevator pitch. Also need room for conversations re: what it means for institution to be in PB. We won't know what we can do with PB (what we have at this workshop today) until we know who's interested in being part of PB in our implementation proposal." (W4 Introductory Remarks, flow between workshop, Chad Kainz)

"With extended teams, it's important to have conversations w/ us to get a better sense of where we're going, what it means for your institution/community. Continue editing and refining process until when we submit this, and well after. Need to keep tuning this, making sure the program and long-term mission are right. Over time, we'll continue to refer to it and look back on. "Back in 2008, we had this idea..." Hopefully in 2011 we'll look back at that. Things have changed, but maybe we can evolve that concept." (W4 Introductory Remarks, flow between workshop, Chad Kainz)

"Institutions need to see value of PB, for teaching and research. Use of IT services for archiving material (possibly even unpublished research outcomes); this is important. Supporting work of upcoming scholars in particular is important " (W4, Program Document Section 3, Discussion of Poll #1, Faculty table discussion)

"Benefits of technology: keeps us focused on core mission of university, which is exciting. Risk: appears to administration like it's tech for tech's sake. We have to show a clear value to participants/administrators. Need to have a 1-year implementation forces us to do that." (W4, Program Document Section 3, Discussion of Poll #1, IT table discussion)

"Convinced table to agree there's a problem here. Looking at 7-10 year program, why we're doing Bamboo. Have to go back and justify to administration why they should be invested in PB. Maybe we don't need to hassle them with document, we need something that catches the excellence of why it's worth coming together. Risk in document is the document itself - creating high expectations of what PB can develop. Benefits - faculty might be grateful to us. We should get on with what you can do with a million dollars a year. Not publish a document re: what we'd do with 20 million dollars, because we're not going to get it." (W4, Program Document Section 3, Discussion of Poll #1, IT table discussion)

"This comes up in service atlas, but also in recipes: idea that there needs to be a tight focus on what needs to be built in years 1/2. Proof of overall vision/design for going forward. Nothing explicit in plan in terms of activity. Highlights need for "This is good technology" - tool, interoperability standard, dependencies, etc. How is that going to evolve, does there need to be more work about why a tool is good, why standards should be adopted, why Bamboo?" (W4 Action Plan - 4.1 Services Atlas, discussion)

""What am I gonna tell my administration? Why support this? Why do we do anything? How do we evaluate/justify what this is going to be?" How can we measure? Quantitative? Qualitative? I don't see that. We're assuming we know what we're doing, why this matters I don't have a concrete narrative, but it's beyond that. I don't have anything I can tell the administration about how they'll get more bang for their buck, why not just put the money in financial aid? We need to crystallize this. It's sorta in scholarly narratives, but that's just raw material for this - it's not this." (W4, Discussion of Section 3 and Section 4 Poll #2)

"Will need a lot of trust in partnerships between institutions. Talked about institutions - modular/granular, people can buy into parts they think they can justify/need." (W4, Section 4 Table Discussion)

Bradley Cohen: "In document, but not presentation, members pay to play. Pay for privilege. What's the sell for my institution to pay to play when several of us are happy to play and contribute whatever we can find. Chance to lead and shape? Why would we pay when you can just be a member of the community?"
Chad Kainz: Universities are all paying in some way; ~million and a half hours been invested. That's a lot of investment - how do we capture that? Dollar amount question is one we need to wrestle with. How do we do that without pushing people out the door, but also doesn't turn into an incentive for creating an administrative monster that consumes all the available resources that don't end up generating much stuff. Like any project, PB needs to give value back in some way. Could show up more in research administration area. There's value in being associated with it - formal contribution to formal relationship." (W4, Program Document Section 5)

Bamboo tags: 

Add new comment