Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Workshop 5 - Project Management and Governance

This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

6/18, Overview

3:21

Bamboo Community: all the people on the wiki, anyone who might use the services/capabilities

3:21

Members - everyone at the workshops, people who have invested in Bamboo

3:21

Affiliates - organizations that have material interest in Bamboo, willing to participate as a member; usually commercial entities

3:22

Q: Excluding non-profit that are still revenue-driven? (JSTOR?)

3:22

CJK: There's a place for that

3:23

Our activity as defined right now in v0.5 of impelementation proposal - structured around parallel activities of these working groups

3:23

Could be people in PB community as a whole - individuals

3:23

All working together as a working group to deliver something for Bamboo

3:23

Could be Services Platform, Atlas, what Scholarly Networking becomes, etc

3:24

W/in those working groups, working groups function such as is appropriate to the work

3:24

Not one model that fits all kinds of activities

3:24

Makes more sense when bamboo Community was a different element - would've functioned differently than services platform

3:24

At some level, things have to connect together

3:24

At least two lead institutions associated w/ each working group that would connect in with Bamboo

3:25

Why 2? Based on our expereince - huge benefit of working between Chicago and Berkeley - trading perspectives, bringing different ideas together

3:25

If there's a situation where an institution can no longer participate, entire work of working group won't come to a screeching halt

3:25

Leadership in a working group - more than managing mailing list, but trying to shape/guide working group

3:26

How it proceeds re: scope, does all the "right" things

3:26

That's a serious investment

3:26

Question for us right now - community piece folded into section 5, are there other types of activity that need focused leadership that aren't necessarily a working group

3:27

As an abstainer of moving Community into section 5, concern that people represented in Bamboo, danger of that being lost

3:27

Focus too heavily on the stuff, individuals working together may disappear

3:27

We may want to call out specific leadership to make sure right things are moving forward, might want to consider that for community

3:28

Will have to wrangle a lot of "stuff" to coordinate things and keep it together

3:28

Shift of scholarly networking to UI-focused entity: one problem is coordinating activity across units

3:28

Executive committee: leaders of different working groups, executive director, "Bamboo office", and a program manager who is responsible for wrangling all the activity to keep it on target/path/message, all the "on's"

3:29

Need to make sure that on proposals submitted, Bamboo continues to deliver on what it's promised

3:29

Focus on program-related duties; how does services platform and work of services platform folks interact w/ other services activities

3:30

Ongoing dialog/connections w/ Clarin, DARIAH

3:30

Responsibility through executive committee to make sure Bamboo connects with that

3:30

Type of work that needs to be done, materials people want to use, etc, are not bound by own institutions/connections

3:30

All trying to use materials that are used globally

3:30

Taking into account the world, not niche, in which we live

3:31

The way the project has been working thus far: David and I and Rich have been filling this role so far

3:31

Recommend things, take things, etc to leadership council

3:31

Questions and challenges we're facing

3:31

That is built into mechanism we've seen work well

3:31

Talk about over time, transition from Chicago-Berkeley leadership to an advisory board made up of representitives of projects moving forward

3:32

In executive commitee, people worried about completing activities - short-medium term effort; strategic direction- where to go, what doing - greater than executive committee

3:32

Leadership council does the strategic vision

3:32

Leadership council made up of executive committee members

3:33

And other members at large

3:33

Need to have majority of faculty representation

3:33

Certain amount of executive commitee, project leadership, but most of it comes from community

3:33

"in 4 years what should we be doing?"

3:34

Provides advisory board function with gearing towards not technical advice, but strategic advice around where scholarship is going, what we should be doing

3:34

Worthy: How does this relate to explore/plan/build?

3:35

In each of working group areas, explore/plan/build component

3:35

Executive Commitee-- plan component

3:35

Leadership commitee - high-level explore/plan

3:36

Where a bit of the community not being a working group anymore (this is a challenge for us to draft with your input) in section 5 - strong explore component in what was formerly community, that informs the rest of the work

3:36

DAG: Given the way we've defined work in services platform, there's explore/plan/build components

3:36

These working group make sure that explore/plan/build happen

3:36

Managing overall set of work, and each individual area of work can have explore/plan/build

3:37

Worthy: A few years out, idea that a group of scholars could get together an suggest they want the possibility of bringing together repositories, and curating content with certain tools, etc - that activity, I don't see where that happens

3:37

CJK: Yup

3:37

I don't see that either

3:37

There's a hole

3:37

Things were changed when community went somewhere else. how do we build that and that exploration back in?

3:38

How do we get that back into the process instead of ignoring it?

3:38

Worthy: 2 things that play here - going to go to Mellon and put in a proposal, that will have resources; how to do something appropriate for that?

3:38

Organizational process that has to go on to distribute money

3:38

But there's also the issue of the larger community that's going to be facilitated by that activity - need a different kind of organization for that

3:39

Can understand this for Mellon grant, that makes sense, but how that is done in the first year grant, how this anticipates future organization > goes back to "fuzzball" diagram

3:39

Q: Each working group would have its own modes of interacting w/ larger community, may step on toes if not coordinated

3:39

Had there been a community working group, could've helped organize outreach, membership involvement, etc

3:39

More orchestrated explore work necessary across all working groups?

3:40

CJK: Statement on ballot was a brief summary; tried to capture in discussion yesterday a lot of the details attatched to the notes in 4.4

3:40

Advocacy, etc, across the different working groups

3:41

If you build it into how PB functions, that's a little easier; having it by itself is a little harder

3:41

Q: Principal investigators are part of leadership council; who are those?

3:42

DAG: Trying to figure out for institutions who are members, some may be making a large commitment, taking a greater degree of responsibility for submission of proposal/guiding project

3:42

May have a number of "principal investigators"

3:42

People in big leadership role may need to be represented appropriately in executive commitee and leadership council

3:42

Right now, we have formal PIs + representatives from other parts of institution that are fundamentally important

3:43

Want to move work forward and get it done, but have a kind of openness and inclusiveness that allows guidance from broader community, exploring other projects

3:43

Trying to get that balance - we have requirements for year 1-2 building, and evolving more long-term

3:43

Kaylea: As I see member institutions expressing/steering/driving/working with project is entirely through working group; certain working group members are also members of leadership council. Is that too much to ask, esp for faculty members?

3:44

CJK: One question that's come up - membership fees

3:45

Discussions between W4 and today, leadership council, talking with people, etc

3:45

How to sustain PB over time, maximize investment of external funds to get things done

3:45

Concern re: governance and other things - any external funding would be eaten by administration

3:45

How do we minimize that?

3:45

Membership fees: financial investment and resource investment

3:46

Fees = what does it take for us to sustain this community? Workshop(s). Outreach, coordination, contest idea, that takes resources

3:46

Potentially in the future, as services platform comes up, eventually you have to pay for technology underneath these things for them to run

3:47

Membership fees look at sustaining/maintaining Bamboo as a community moving forward

3:47

Members: student enrollment of 3500 or less: $6000/yr + $9k equal resource investment; over 3500, $8k/$12k ERI

3:48

Affiliates: non-profit: $6k/$9k ERI

3:48

Commercial, for profit, up to $2.5m; $8k/$12k ERI

3:48

Commercial, for profit, over $2.5m; $10k/$15k ERI

3:48

Looked at Sakai for the commercial rates

3:49

Leadership requires an additional financial/ERI requirement

3:50

Don't have anything for financial model for this at this point

3:50

Idea is for leadership part to focus in on project management/coordination across all different projects

3:50

Trying to keep overhead to a minimum

3:51

Executive director, program manager, part-time communicators officer

3:51

Looking at Kuali, other projects

3:51

Comparing to things like Internet2 with a lot of overhead

3:51

Being creative about how we can accomplish work with different institutional investments

3:53

Needs to be more put into governance section; how much do we need for proposal vs for community?

3:53

DAG: Keeping this as initial framework

3:53

Keeping dollar figures on the lower end

3:53

Reasonable questions about contribution model needed to sustain model and growth

3:53

Issue around leadership for major area of work, what's required, want to get that fleshed out ASAP

3:54

Some people have indicated contributions matching/above what we've outlined here

3:54

That's good, what does it mean to be a leader? Whats' required to make sure work gets done and commitment level?

3:54

Questions and suggestions welcome

3:54

Q: Expectation/assumption is a million from Mellon

3:55

Projected cost for first year - $3 mil?

3:55

DAG: What's the resource pool? Not what's the projected cost.

3:55

Six weeks ago, doing rough projections for what the total resource pool might be - rough estimate of $3 mil including Mellon money; could be higher/lower

3:55

Let's say resource pool (cash/in-kind) is $2-3mil; cash can be moved around more easily than in-kind

3:56

May have some areas with gaps due to lack of in-kind

3:56

Q: Dollar specifics less important than areas where finances get applied

3:56

Expectation is that Mellon money would be used for project activities

3:56

What is the other money going to be used ot pay for?

3:56

Slim project management team - so where does the money go?

3:56

Or is it that Mellon will only pay for a piece?

3:57

CJK: Yes, Mellon will only pay for a piece

3:57

DAG: It's total combo of Mellon money + institutional commitment that will fund MAoW

3:57

Lightweight management overall, but need right amount of people guiding/managing each piece

3:57

Get work straight, build project management around work, lightweight overall structure

3:58

Q: If you want larger to be 50% larger than smaller, math isn't quite right

3:58

Leadership role = a lot more investment

3:58

Why charge a leader added fees?

3:58

It's a disincentive

3:58

Unless you're looking for people to buy into leadership role

3:58

CJK: This is why it hasn't been built out; figure out right balance

3:59

Whatever the "leadership fees" are - how do we fund overall program management coordination piece?

3:59

Haven't sorted out yet that cost

3:59

Could be in-kind

4:00

Bamboo as a project, like Kuali, or Sakai - could say " we need someone to dedicate their time, we're investing in hiring someone"

4:00

We need Rich to keep the project moving forward; most of his time is on Bamboo, Berkeley has made that investment

4:00

Q: Why tax the leaders and not just everyone for that?

4:01

Q: From a timing standpoint, first year is Jan 1 - value of PB doesn't kick in for some point down the road

4:01

A lot of other projects, you don't pay up-front

4:01

Until you see what it is

4:01

From a budgetary perspective, you're hitting mid-year for an academic institution

4:01

When you're doing model of how to pay for things, is that the window you're thinking? Sept 1?

4:02

DAG: Timing of planning project leads us to have start date of Jan 1

4:02

All convinced we don't want to wait until July 2010, want to start January or earlier

4:02

Just have to deal with the awkwardness

4:03

Want to add in something - point of reference/comparison - Kuali Student. Modeled some of planning process on it. Early on they said that each leader has to put up a million dollars a year-- who's in?

4:03

Took almost opposite approach-- put up a big number, got 5-6 institutions, that was it

4:03

We wanted to get the right kind of community, different areas and diversity of institutions from the start, but right now we need people who can/will carry a heavier load

4:04

Now, what's the right shape of that? Especially with amorphous result re: when/what.

4:04

CJK: Other thing that has created a challenge, prior to W4 we had an epiphany, if all these institutions continue forward, it changes the financial model

4:04

If you read original proposal, were supposed to fill half the room

4:04

Figured 7 institutions left standing; there's about 25 still here

4:05

A lot of things here coming from phonecalls - what are people willing to do, what can they do

4:05

Creative thinking about structuring PB participation in other ways

4:05

Tryingto grapple with this here; we're all struggling with cost of participation in any of htis

4:05

Want something that'll do the right things to keep the activity of PB moving forward even if we hit sin wave things where things aren't going on

4:06

feedback/thoughts/ideas/comments, we appreciate them

4:06

Want to make sure PB exists over time, not a single project effort

4:06

Building that into how we work/function now

4:07

Q: Goals for what membership needs to be over 3 years?

4:07

What kind of mass we need for success?

4:07

Promoting use of Bamboo, not discouraging

4:07

DAG; Good point, esp re: cost of running services platform

4:07

Lots of costs not calculated into year 1-2, need to be indicated for the future

4:08

Q: In W3/W4, beginning of discussion about what incentives the larger community has to become a member rather than being passive

4:08

Haven't looked at 3 major areas through that lens; that's important

4:08

What's going to be limited to members?

4:09

What's the incentive to be a member?

4:09

Q: Gonna kvetch about how we've been pushed to structure this

4:09

A little like Mellon stepped back when they needed to step forward

4:09

You will get more buy-in once they see what they get for buy-in

4:09

Stepping off the edge of a cliff and assuming it'll be ok

4:09

Asking re: relative amount of Mellon vs community investment

4:09

It's not just year 1 - it's ongoing

4:10

At my institution, $20k cash + ERI won't break banks, but would be better if there were funding up front to prove concept before we have to go talk to chancellors

4:10

Worried it'll be too long before payoff

4:10

CJK: So do we feel that given what we've suggested for target funding ($1m from Mellon) - is it worth harvesting funding to deal w/ overhead outlined here?

4:11

Is it worth taking from that pool to do that, reducing funding amount for other project areas?

4:11

That's doable, but it does change allocation

4:11

DAG: We've tried to bring this up, fundamental to PB model is that there has to be investment at institutional level from start for this to succeed or it's not sutainable as an overall project or locally

4:11

Trying to keep it modest, but there has to be an argument made locally everywhere that this is worth doing - there's risks, but it's worth it

4:12

Can't keep relying on kindness of strangers

4:12

Mellon money is icing on cake; we need to bake the cake

4:12

Q: Agree - was going to have another question, to what extent would affect Mellon's attitude if a lot of their funding went to seeing whether it would be administered and managed; and they'd say "you have an unsustainable model for future?"

4:12

Leaves open question of what the member benefits are

4:13

Benefits have to go to generalized criteria, taking a leadership role in creating something that'll make fundamental difference, give profile to those institutions; those members are going to have some influence over trajectory and kind of priorities

4:13

We have ideology of open source; trying as much as possible to enable fellow academics to work together in teams, distributed ways

4:14

Institutions we're working with are realizing that distributed services are the only way to get high-end research

4:14

Invest a little bit of resource into something that will have a big return

4:14

Everyone will benefit - our ideology is that we want to share

4:14

Q: During conference call, talked about Madison going in for Hub Zero, talked about numbers; went to talk to CIO w/ executive research committee -- we're putting up $100k to Hub Zero.

4:15

$100k for them was chump change. Part of me now says that the ask should be bigger-- get people's attention

4:15

Potential funders beyond Mellon?

4:15

DAG: This is important point; we may have under-set what the ask should be

4:15

This is a resource request from your allocators to help w/ combo of both local and Bamboo coordinated effort

4:15

If you're trying to secure a new faculty/program/etc, if it's tied to your local work, provides value on both sides

4:16

Should the ask be higher?

4:16

(A few hands)

4:16

Q: Might consider breakdown so larger universities - have research 1, teaching 1, asking more from research 1 universities w/ larger resources than research 2, or teaching-intensive

4:17

Q: Was thinking, how long are you asking for this commitment? 2 years? Or do you want to ask to commit $20k + cash/ERI over 5 years? It's a way to up the ask -- "the longer and higher up the ask goes..."

4:17

DAG: A faith-based initiative?

4:17

Contract offices will freak out if asking a 5-year commitment for 2-year grant

4:18

John Wolffe: OU - it's easier to get contribution in kind (esp for staff) than to get authorization of cash payment

4:18

Balance may need to be changed

4:19

Q: From perspective of large state university, FY11 could be terrible, horrible; if I said to dean, all I need is $8k for Bamboo, he would give me counterstories about other units in the college right now who all need money, why would this be more important?

4:19

Easy answers in the past are when "we'll be doing work that will bring money back in"

4:19

That will be the easiest way to have memberships-- schools doing part of the work, so funding is going back into them

4:19

To be realistic with FY11 budgets, tough sell unless there's specific member-only benefits

4:19

Q: How does money come in?

4:20

Q: If work has to be done, people will be given money to do it.

4:20

"Bamboo Fellowship" model - also a way for universities to get something back

4:20

Faculty/students get something tangible right away

4:21

DAG: Almost no discussion yet about distributing yearly resources

4:21

Some proportionality to cost-share commitment, helping make cost-share more reliable, things we couldn't make happen if we did "take money and divide by X"

4:21

But now, based on work/institutions, what's a reasonable way to do the right kind of seed investment

4:22

Q: Looking at these numbers, I come from a R1 institution, but our endowment is small

4:22

Seems like in-kind is low

4:22

I can make cases for more in-kind

4:22

Cash contribution - CIO will say "so what're you not going to do"

4:23

Understand long-range benefits, but in an organization that has to deliver things to faculty on short-term, not going to be easy saying " we won't do any projects this year"

4:23

Q: Cost structure - talking with other small arts college folks, might be easier to make things match rather than separate for yearly investment

4:24

Rick (small liberal arts): If I said "we're all paying $8k" rather than "we're paying $6k, they're paying $8k"

4:24

How to manage a fifth of 25 people to do a project?

4:24

Q: Coming from multi-institution w/ Cal State system; would this count for all of CSU's, or each one. Can we get a bulk deal?

4:24

In-kind contribution is much easier than cash; can do a lot of in-kind fundraising

4:25

Q: Similarly - if membership is institutional, this raises tricky questions about schools and divisions w/in institution. Don't want to say free-rider, but there's internal and external free-riders

4:25

Maybe large institutions need to see if the case can't be made to involve other divisions

4:26

Q: We'll have to sort that out w/in our own institutions

4:26

No Oxford pot of money, there's lots of departments and sub-divisions

4:26

Argument that we want to be part of this project because of potential spin-offs and other projects that can be built on this platform

4:27

Humanities computing project can say they're part of Bamboo - good for visibility

4:27

How easy is it to get ahold of this amount of money, who pays it, how to get in-kind contributions - this is different for everyone

4:27

Advantage of cash contribution is that it's easy to cheat and fake on contribution in-kind ("let's call this an in-kind because it's sorta related")

4:28

Easy to not really get places on-board if they can just say "oh yeah, this is Bamboo"

4:28

Cash requires work of persuading people

4:28

Before we get used to "ERI" abbreviation, that's European Research Infrastructure

4:28

Try something else

4:29

Institutional Resource Investment? IRI?

4:29

Q: At UW, recently tried a humanities audit, where are humanists outside of humanities? There's humanists in medical school, law school - a way of advocating for relevance of humanities to non-humanists


  • No labels