Cyberinfrastructure project lifecycle

Sharing materials

"When you survey what's already there, you could put that out and help people who want to do something today, even if they're not interested in PB. You don't have to join the community to benefit from it, you can benefit from the product of the community because the community publishes." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Facilitated Discussion with Greg Jackson)

Buy-in

"Kuali story: continuing attempt between Kuali and University of Chicago comptroller to have conversation - "Here's things we need, and when we need them - can we get it?" Kuali: "Well, this is a collaboration - what will come is product of collaboration. Yes, it'll happen if you persuade everyone." "I can't get into it unless I know." "Unless you're in, we can't guarantee anything." Different than vendor/customer relationships - real dilemma; there'll not be a satisfactory resolution in a way. Lots of linguistic issues floating around: different between "plan" and "promise". Plan - best thought about best steps to get to a given goal. Most of us don't do what exactly we planned, sometimes to a different goal. Can't confuse plan with promises to achieve particular ends, and proceed in particular ways. Nature of implementation plan/proposal - have to remember both ambiguities" (W3, Straw Consortial Model, Greg Jackson)

"Faculty not feeling comfortable w/ language we're using as focus of work. "So IT oriented, not sure of concrete value of what they're going to get out of this". How will a scholar/teacher see how to use all this. Value propositions - not clear how institutions could see moving ahead. We could see our institutions participating, even smaller institutions about faculty pushback - the faculty here feel comfortable, but pitching to other faculty is a problem." (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 2)

"Should there be a clear communication goal specified in the plan. A lot of faculty needs would be/are getting solved in variety of ways. We all need bamboo-like conversations at local institutions. PB has to make sure it adds value to these conversations; if not, members need to effect change." (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 3)

"One thing that would help clarify: ultimate goal of advancing hum and arts research through new tech has appeal to humanities faculty but goal of PB, deliverable, are services which are great and networking, all is valuable in preparing the way for ultimate goal. There's a gap between goal of what PB can contribute to ultimate goal, and other pieces that will make the ultimate goal happen may not be in PB's provenance. PB can connect to, support those things - help explain to hum faculty how this is valuable, even if it itself isn't going to fund dig research labs." (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 5)

"Articulation of value propositions is important, understanding of what it means for people/institutions to be involved. Need arguments to take back to their institutions, make the case with people there. We recognize that in working group; want to rename as "strategic communications" - arguments for involvement, roadmap for involvement and contribution - what are the steps an institution might follow as they participate in PB. Practical point about the timescale - we go into the work plan of implementation project, we need to do that NOW, before the proposal. Can be part of the work plan to refine, improve, etc but we need a statement ASAP" (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Chad Kainz)

Defining community

"Interesting question particularly about the question of who the community is. Is it the people in the room or the institutions we represent? Tension between that and that goes back to question of individuals as members." (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 5)

"What do people put in, and what do they expect to get out? People will be involved if they have resources like access to experts, projects relevant to them, etc. But as soon as they start putting something into the larger PB community (hosting, also, participation in workshops and discussing ways where institutions could add something in the long term. At that stage, they're exercising a leadership role at a generalized level within PB. A year isn't a great deal of time (or money). There should be leadership at a slightly more centralized level. Be aware of individuals with expertise/commitment even if they're not in a participating institution" (W4, Program Document Section 5, Q&A)

Distribution and prioritization of work

"Scholarly network is important, overlap with the 'build' side; clear description of work and what parts need to be planned/built (incl services, scholarly networking, stories, exploratory labs), clear description of resource requirements, clear description of what the different roles are that are possible in the consortium to do that" (W3, Details of Straw Consortial Model, David Greenbaum)

"That kind of mismatch of local timelines, how local groups would be able to match their timelines with their projects up to larger group being able to do it is a question. Also, aligning priorities-- suggestion that whatever inst might think it's gonna do, proportion to how we'll they can show their local priorities can be aligned with larger priorities." (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 1)

"Started out with feeling that we're confounding project and consortium, it's all intertwined. Important to tease them out to be more articulate about needs. Important to have assessment mechanisms in each layer to know we're on track." (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 7)

"Project phase and project, community, consortium, what's beyond the project phase. What comes after, continuum is more important? We're on the cusp of having to make decision if we're a commune or constitutional assembly - one requiring more resource to sustain and manage than the other"." (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 8)

""Exploration lab" - what is it? Concept of lab resonated w/ members of leaderships council. Place with interesting experimentation. Where people solve problems at large scale/small scale. Cluster around getting something done. Think about work that needs to be done in PB as a collection of labs. Not a grand, big project of developing something like Kuali. New possibilities, existing possibilities for research/scholarship/learning, etc. Cluster around particular areas of common interest; promoting idea of innovation; if you want something done, you work towards that goal. By keeping activity in smaller clusters, you can react more quickly to particular problems. For any of this to work, there has to be some structured activity/effort. Focus on getting things done: "let's get started with something!"" (W4, Program Document Section 5, Chad Kainz)

Tension between administrative control and innovation

"Innovation is when people have an idea and want to act on it quickly. If we really believe our core value proposition about enhancing arts and humanities, we have to allow that to happen. Can't be tied closely with every major administrative move. Some aspects have to operate and move in that lockstep movement. How do you separate the two so you can have activities that move quickly. If things become important for community, they can be moved into and formalized as part of what PB is." (W3, Details of Straw Consortial Model, Chad Kainz)

"There's also a reality of administrative overhead we have to deal with to get through funding stage, etc. Don't want to wait on BAMBOO to make a big decision - that slows everybody down. Reducing the amount of administrative overhead necessary. Get to the point of getting stuff done." (W4, Program Document Section 5, Chad Kainz)

"Too much governance at this stage. Scalable governance is a good idea, as lightweight as possible at each stage. Avoid a structure that will require all/most time to be dumped into meetings. Use enthusiasm/commitment from so many institutions as the main asset, Bamboo to coordinate, promote interoperability. This is the right time for Bamboo because institutions are already engaged in the work PB proposes to address ... so Bamboo need only coordinate/leverage this pre-existing interest." (W4, Program Document Section 5, Q&A, Martin Wynne)

Specialization

"Mature organizations develop specialization (this is a generalist body), for making progress we might want to develop specialized parts of the organization relatively early." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Facilitated Discussion with Greg Jackson)

Wrap-up

"How can Bamboo wither effectively if necessary? Bamboo should be prepared to die or evolve functionally - a sense of its own temporal limitations." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table H)

Bamboo tags: 

Add new comment