Survey results √ 10 out of 15 people have responded

People were generally satisfied with time spent on each activity 4/9 wanted more time for TECH PRESENTATION and DISCUSSION 2/9 wanted more time spent in day 1 discussion and the Thursday night tech meeting On how our time was spent

What was most valuable? Of highest value were (1) open discussions and (2) better understanding the domain scientists’ work/data. These topics were echoed also as the ‘high point’ of the retreat. Other topics valued include participation and interaction of students and having time to meet face-to-face as a group.

Goals? Generally, most participants thought we were still ‘working toward’ or are ‘not yet working’ on the innovation goals. Most people felt we had reached goals such as ‘develop priorities’, ‘increased team collaboration’, and ‘developing a budget’ When probed, participants stated that √ problems (domain prbs or vis prbs? Or leaping from the domain to vis?) were ‘complex’, √ visualizations ‘useful, but not necessarily novel’, not necessarily the best way to communicate data, and ‘domain specific in order to be effective’, √ goals ‘vaguely worded’ (Susan’s interpretations of the ABI as stated in the survey?), √ and list of deliverables (as presented at retreat?) - ‘challenging’, ‘very optimistic’ Related: it is expected that at least two participants (at least 1 is a collaborator?) will be using VISTAS results in research publications by 2014.

Recommendations based on high and low points… in the future, a ‘dress rehearsal’ (e.g., checking out the rooms, the table size, the tech equipment) would make for a more comfortable and satisfactory experience the group would benefit greatly from having more big group discussions about collaborators’ work

Team collaboration & integration Most people (7/9) felt we reached this goal one felt that we team dynamics should be discussed by senior leadership, while another felt we had exceeded the goal of