Successfully reported this slideshow.

Open Idea Development & Team Formation


Published on

Opening up the path between an initial idea to submission for review promises to improve final proposals and their supporting teams. This presentation summarizes status of current experiments at UCSF in biomedicine.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Open Idea Development & Team Formation

  1. 1. Clinical and Translational Science Institute / CTSI at the University of California, San FranciscoEnabling new models of pre-competitive collaboration inproposal development and team creation
  2. 2. ContextThe Internet allows for new ways to access a wider set of individuals and enable their contributions to various activities Explicit Implicit
  3. 3. CrowdsourcingMost current approaches fall under the category: CrowdsourcingCrowdsourcing = Outsourcing tasks or challenges to the broadest possible community, mediated by the Internet
  4. 4. Crowdsourcing to improve proposalsOld New? RFP RFP  Pre-reviews?  Add collaborators?  Improve submission?  Remove redundant submission? Review Review
  5. 5. “Open Proposal”Could we get a wider set of individuals to helpimprove ideas online and/or join teams theymay not have otherwise?
  6. 6. “Open Proposal”a process and online tool that enables broad collaboration in proposal development and team creation
  7. 7. “Open Proposal” General Process:Announce Deadline #1 Deadline #2 DecisionRequest for Submit Comment, joi SelectedProposals proposal n teams proposals online in an announced Revise Open Forum proposal for final version • No new proposals• Broadest possible community submits proposals • Broadest possible community comments on proposals and joins• Commenting open • Proposals reviewed internally teams SUBMISSION PHASE IMPROVEMENT PHASE REVIEW PHASE
  8. 8. Open Proposal - Example CTSI Pilot Awards to Improve the Conduct of Research (Feb-Apr 2012)• Eligibility: All faculty and staff at UCSF• Campus Coordination: RFP coordinated with UCSFs umbrella intramural funding organization, RAP.• Promotion: Promoted via RAP and independently through multiple channels• Review Process: Managed by CTSI
  9. 9. CTSI Pilot Awards: An Open Proposal RFP Three Phases Submission Phase: 5 weeks Improvement Phase: 2 weeks Internal Review: 2 weeks
  10. 10. CTSI Pilot Awards: An Open Proposal RFPSubmission (~5 weeks)• Applicants submit idea online with opportunity to • receive input (via on- and/or off-line commenting) • look for collaborators• CTSI board members and program directors review and make connections where possible
  11. 11. CTSI Pilot Awards: An Open Proposal RFPSubmission (~5 weeks) cont’d• Proposal submission = simple, online, “one-page” format including • Rationale • Plan • Criteria and metrics for success • Approximate cost and brief justification • List of collaborators
  12. 12. CTSI Pilot Awards: An Open Proposal RFPImprovement (2 weeks)• Applicants and community • browse proposals & comment to improve • indicate interest to collaborate • CTSI board members review, comment & solicit input from experts in community• Applicants • review comments on their proposals & revise as needed • required to post online constructive criticism on another proposal at least once
  13. 13. CTSI Pilot Awards: An Open Proposal RFPInternal Review (2 weeks)• Initial review and scoring of proposals by board – ID’d those most likely to be funded• Reached out to applicants with requests for additional information (e.g. budget) and proposed adjustments to proposals (e.g. scope, focus, partnerships)• Compiled reviewer comments and applicant responses for final review/award identification
  14. 14. Open Proposal – Basic Statistics28 proposals submitted, 8 awarded • 4 were from CTSI, 4 were notTotal $ awarded is approximately $327K • Award Range: $16,340 to $85,904 • Average award: $43,411
  15. 15. Open Proposals – How We Did
  16. 16. Open Proposal – Succeeded in being interactive
  17. 17. Open Proposals – Improved proposals• Iteration and improvement of proposals based on comments• Withdrawal: one applicant voluntarily withdrew after learning from a commenter about 2 resources already in existence that fulfilled the goal of the proposed resource!
  18. 18. Open Proposals – How We Did•Comment•Author
  19. 19. Open Proposals – What we learned about the process Need dedicated resource for forum management and monitoring • Encouraging commenting, soliciting input, fielding questions, etc. More time needed with authors once proposals filtered for those most likely to be funded Recurring issue – how to match proposers and ideas with the expertise they really need?
  20. 20. Extra slides