�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

• #2: The Clinical & Translational Science Institute (CTSI) facilitates the translation of research to improvements in health. CTSI provides infrastructure, services, and training to support clinical and translational research. Oksana Gologorskaya, Product Manager for the Virtual Program here at CTSI. I manage technology products that support various initiatives in translational research, including Open Proposals. I studied applied math then worked as a software engineer and designer for about 13 years, in tech industry,before joiningUCSF as a product manager.
• #3: This presentation will be about the new collaborative approach to developing proposals for academic initiatives. It started as an internal experiment with social media and crowdsourcing model and turned into a service and a supporting technology used to support various projects at UCSF. We believe it has enough value and we learned enough about it to be worth sharing with other institutions and hopefully some of you will get inspired to try this approach in your institution.
• #4: First a bit of theory, then I will share some practical insights.In Academia research funding is often distributed via the RFP mechanism that intends to collect and select the best ideas available for a given opportunity.RFP process is commonly used for other kinds of initiatives – infrastructure improvements, innovation projects. Traditionally, it is a black box approach.
• #5: This diagram is a simplified research grant submission process (NIH Grant).Every horizontal line here is a separate proposal team. Proposals that end up getting an award are shown in orange, and the purple ones are those that do not get an award.From a proposal team’s perspective, everything happens during the first phase – they put in as much time as possible to make their proposals perfect, then submit. Then they just wait to hear back. If you don’t make it through the peer review, you may not even know why exactly your proposal was rejected. And you also don’t know what your proposal was competing against. So in this process all people that submit proposals are just a bunch of competitors for the same award.
• #6: Now imagine there is also a friendly professional community that wants your proposal to win. What if you include this community in the process, kind of like this…
• #7: So you add a social phase to the process.Again, purple lines indicate non-winning proposals, and orange lines are the winners.Little black arrows are the community members contributing to proposals. This diagram shows a few possible scenarios.1) Uncompetitive proposal – drop out early and go prepare for the next round.2) Two similar proposals decide to combine their projects into one and submit one proposal, instead of competing with each other.3) a non-winning proposal was strengthened by community input or team member and turned into a winning one.4)The quality of each submitted proposal improves because authors see the level of other proposals submitted.With this structure, you can see that it is more time-efficient for proposers than black box approach. It is also more efficient for the reviewers as they don’t get to review some uncompetitive proposals, and also they get a higher quality bottom line.
• #9: From the Proposal Author’s perspective, the second step in the process makes all the difference – it is where the proposal may change, the people collaborating on it may change and even the decision to submit the proposal may also change based on the situation in the community.Now let’s see how this theory works in practice.
• #10: -not only it went mainstream, but businesses realized that they could use it to connect with the customers and grow business
• #12: First practical application – a 2009 strategic planning forum.CTSI wanted to prioritize projects for the next year and the leadership decided to host an open forum on the CTSI’s website. It was a success – some of the ideas submitted have come to life as complete projects and some grew into bigger programs and services.
• #13: In terms of technology, it was really minimalistic: a section on the website, with basic features like adding posts, comments and voting to support ideas.
• #14: Second use case – using the open forum to collect ideas for applying for an external grant.11 of the 53 ideas proposed were included as renewal initiatives.
• #15: Here comes first practical insight - in order for the approach to work, you need to meet certain starting conditions.Collaborative audience, motivations to participate and support from the top (leaders should say this is the only way to participate in the opportunity). Otherwise, people will just send their ideas the way they are used to.
• #16: Third use case is interesting because we added something to the process that influenced level of participation.It was a funding opportunity to improve methods of research. CTSI was the sponsor so we had the freedom to change the process.We got 28 ideas and 292 comments from community.
• #17: The boost in participation happened because of how the process was designed and how it was managed.We added a requirement for each proposal owner to comment on another proposal in order to be considered for funding. Also, we added this first submission deadline to make sure people share their proposal with community early enough, to allow time for community to contribute.In addition, the opportunity manager was constantly communicating with the audience to remind them about deadlines and to do some match making between proposals and potential contributors.
• #18: As a result, we’ve seen all the scenarios that our theoretical model suggested: some proposals were improved, people got to work together for the first time, and also, some proposals were withdrawn early.There was a case when someone proposed to build a solution for a problem with a research method. A community member commented on the proposal to point out to already existing solution the proposer did not know about. So they withdrew their proposal.
• #19: (comments required)Time driven process(reminders, matchmaking)
• #20: My next use case is about the first use outside of out own department – external customer, cross campus initiative, competing against other solutions.
• #21: Email = black boxSalesforce Chatter is nice, kind of like FB for employees, and we have this great arrangement with Salesforce at UCSF, but 1) not web 2.0 savvy people would have a learning curve 2) UI is branded for SF and your organization – UCSF – but not so much for the specific opportunity.
• #22: Branding is importantYou can see right away who is sponsoring the opportunity, and it hopefully invites people to trust it with their ideas.
• #23: It looks and feels like a separate website, without extra noise, it is all about a given opportunity. Simple and structured enough, not too casual.
• #24: Summary of Proposals page allows both Reviewers and Proposers to quickly scan through all proposals, see the current stats of the forum.You can also export this summary data or generate a document with all the proposals to read through off-line.
• #25: It was not al there yet – but we built it on Drupal
• #27: Back to case study
• #28: Case study 4 – a hard learning.
• #32: We looked at the reasons for this negative outcome, and it turned out thatPeople thought it was a popularity contest - they thought proposals would be judged by the number of comments they getProposals were submitted when they were quite mature already, that left little room for feedback.The sponsors or organizers did not believe in the process and did not work with the audience to encourage collaboration.
• #38: The tool is designed to enable collaborative, transparent proposal development and submission processDesigned specifically for academic RFP processes.Time-driven processAutomated notifications
• #39: The tool is designed to enable collaborative, transparent proposal development and submission processDesigned specifically for academic RFP processes.Time-driven processAutomated notifications
• #40: The tool is designed to enable collaborative, transparent proposal development and submission processDesigned specifically for academic RFP processes.Time-driven processAutomated notifications
• #41: The tool is designed to enable collaborative, transparent proposal development and submission processDesigned specifically for academic RFP processes.Time-driven processAutomated notifications
• #42: The tool is designed to enable collaborative, transparent proposal development and submission processDesigned specifically for academic RFP processes.Time-driven processAutomated notifications
• #43: The tool is designed to enable collaborative, transparent proposal development and submission processDesigned specifically for academic RFP processes.Time-driven processAutomated notifications
• #46: Access to collaborative community is one thing, another thing is how to encourage collaboration.Depending on the opportunity, there could be direct and indirect ways to do it. Setting aside some type of awards for valuable contributors, with some tokens of appreciation could be helpful. Also educating the community about the benefits of participating.
• #47: Transparent process helps build credibility for the sponsorCollaborative space – another way to find collaborators and meet peersEfficiency – saves time for all