[LTER-imc-ddms] Types of Projects & Products

[Wade Sheldon]

John, Inigo and all,

I'm still playing catch-up as I emerge from the post-site-review fog, but I wanted to add one small point to the current discussion about salary vs sub-contract. Another useful model for site IM compensation in a distributed IM system is the sales & service contract approach that we recently adopted at GCE. We just had to apply for permission from our office of sponsored programs, and now we (GCE) can enter into direct contracts with outside entities to provide IM-related services with no overhead other than fringe benefits on salaries.

This is proving to be a very cost-effective approach for resourcing short-term leveraged projects, like 1-2 mo/yr for 2-3 years, very much in line with some of the specialized tasks we're envisioning IMs could handle on behalf of the network like maintaining and improving specific software or CI. This would also provide the project manager and fiscal entity with the needed flexibility to adjust tasks and associated resources on a year-to-year basis in response to new directives and priorities.

So there are at least 3 models to consider based on the amount and priority of work:

subcontract with home institution
service contract with home institution
consulting contract/honorarium direct to IM

I'll try to contribute to the remainder of the conversation early this week.

Regards,

Wade


On 7/5/2015 1:44 PM, John H. Porter wrote:
> Inigo,
>     My purpose was to put down on the printed page some of the ideas that
> had come up during discussions of how the DDMS might generate the needed
> results.  Your earlier email regarding centralization made me think that
> it would be useful to explain that just because the Project Manager or
> other staff were there, we did not anticipate or desire that they should
> do all the work themselves.   The document doesn't try to say how often
> any given mechanism should be used.... just that it is there.....  This
> is a companion to the other working group document which focuses on the
> Project Manager....
>
>      You are right that ways of moving money around are complex and pose
> a challenge. In the draft document, when I was thinking of "salary" I
> was meaning salary from their home institution - provided under a
> subcontract (yes, the double overhead problem), whereas honoraria were
> on top of salary (for those IM's whose institutions allow them to
> undertake outside consulting). However, the details of this go beyond
> the purpose of the document, which was to sketch out some possible ways
> of making the "distributed" in DDMS have real meaning.  I'd expect that
> negotiation of the terms (e.g., some universities give "breaks" on
> subcontract overhead if they are negotiated when the proposal goes in)
> and that dealing with the fiscal options will be a big part of the
> Project Manager's job.   But the goal wasn't to really flesh those out
> here....
>
> Hope that helps!
>
>   -JP
>
> On 7/5/2015 12:00 PM, Inigo San Gil wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing.
>>
>> Question - what purpose serves this classification of mechanisms for
>> IM-related products ?
>> I.e, would it help with compensation mechanism?  provide a framework
>> for future projects? or the prioritization?
>>
>> I ask because I do not quite find context for this document that would
>> explain beyond how is presented in this email  (I quote:
>>
>> NIS modules might be produced under a distributed system)
>>
>> Without knowing what is this framework for, it is harder to provide
>> some basic feedback.
>>
>> I also notice that there are products that may cross over these
>> disconnected categories.  I am unable to see a connecting thread for
>> these 'product mechanisms' categories, that would account for the lack
>> of orthogonality (fit products in several categories)
>>
>> But since you mention compensation, this touches an important blocker
>> for cooperation in a distributed network.
>>
>> One of the 'historical' barriers for contribution has been the
>> compensation. We have heard that 'IMs primary responsability (and
>> time) is the LTER site'.  This fact was brought as a barrier for
>> collaboration. It seems that IMs could not sell to their PIs that the
>> network product benefit to the site was not a good argument to release
>> their time.  Perhaps this could be changed if addressed properly in
>> this model.
>>
>> But compensation adds an extra obstacle which would be actually quite
>> helpful to clarify and solve.
>>
>> *  funds are moved from one institution to the other, the double
>> overheads kill the budget.  this should be avoided as much as we can,
>> will erode the reduced ability to be productive, specially with the
>> budgetary prospects.
>>
>> *  funds awarded to the collaborating IM mechanisms:
>>   - When we say "salary", how do you award the salary without creating
>> a conflict with the primary paying institution?  as an extra
>> compensation?
>>   - Honoraries may make it easier to "compensate", although I am not
>> sure about the overheads.
>>   - Per diems - this seems to me a great way to compensate an IM.
>> Instead of a meager per diem, produce a generous per-diem, which may
>> not be subject to double overhead, may solve the 'salary' concept and
>> may be easy to handle from the personal taxation point of view (this
>> is a phenomenal barrier too).
>>   - A competition prize (overheard this a while ago as a mechanism).
>>
>>
>> cheers, inigo
>>
>> On 7/5/15 9:12 AM, John H. Porter wrote:
>>> Gastil and Kristin,
>>>         I've put a brief draft document describing the mechanisms by
>>> which
>>> NIS modules might be produced under a distributed system. Please take a
>>> look and set me straight where I went wrong.... or add in all the
>>> important things I forgot.
>>>
>>>         Given the short time frame, I've CC'd the whole DDMS group
>>> just in
>>> case they want to pitch in as well.
>>>
>>>         It is in our shared Google Docs folder under Project Management
>>> and Task as "Types of Projects & Products" or via the link:
>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o3aqtxxHVcqJeQqRIZ6TWJ6OqLf3piHPNAmhoVU_SA8
>>>
>>>
>>>         I will also go through the task spreadsheet in the "services
>>> bucket" and note any disagreements with Gastil's categorization.....
>>>
>>>    -JP
>>>
>>