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

[Inigo San Gil]

John,

    I was trying to see where this document is coming from : the 
extended context and purpose. Thanks for clarifying.

I think it is really useful to flesh these ideas out with emphasis on 
ideas that propose overcoming barriers that might have prevented us to 
have a more agile collaboration.

cheers,
Inigo
On 7/5/15 11:44 AM, 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
>>>
>>


-- 

Inigo San Gil
+1 505 277 2625
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=foIppL4AAAAJ&hl=en