1. Bench to Bedside -- Discussion
Jim Herbsleb
CMU

2. Outline
Kudos
Pick a few nits
Concluding thoughts

3. Kudos Selection of AIDS research as subject of collaboratory
Inherently multi-disciplinary (virologists, pathologists, immunologists, etc.)
Bridging communities (“bench to bedside”)
Speed is important
Systematic preparation
Collaboration readiness
Tool selection based on interviews -- address problems that are real to the participants
Training, infrastructure
Likely sped up adoption
Collection of both usage and outcome data

4. Benefits of Collaboratory
Clearly facilitated some existing collaborations
Apparently led to increase in cross-site publications
Sped up some tasks (e.g., developing protocol)
Mentoring junior faculty

5. Some Nits Non-human primate researchers??
I found the presentation of results rather confusing
Did increased number of collaborations come from recognizing need/opportunity more than availability of tools?
Some clear summary of before/after would be really helpful, e.g.,
contingency table of sites by sites, counts of collaborations before, after
Statistical modeling to see if introduction of collaboratory introduces more cross-site collaborations
(may need to add in conference, workshop papers, etc, to get numbers up)
Relationship of collaboratory use to new cross-site collaborations
Comparison of cross-site collaboration with CFARs without Collaboratory?

6. Couple More Nits Effect on clinicians?
How did multi-site collaboration on GLR CFAR happen without tools?
What were the problems, how were they solved or worked around?
How were later collaborations different?
Collaboration readiness -- what did the reported results actually mean?
There were 4 same-site, 4 cross-site, and many anticipated cross-site collaborations
If competitiveness/complementarity is so important, why doesn’t collaboration readiness focus on this?

7. Issues
Tool selection -- give participants exactly what they want? (fax, desktop video, coercive counseling for colleagues)
Do they know what will be useful? E.g., did they ask for web site with the specific functionality, distribution lists? Seem to have been used a lot.
Will they actually use what would actually be useful? (e.g., perception of “hallway conversation,” mixed record of chat, IM, MUD use)

8. Hypothesis -- distance matters less over time
Hypothesis -- distance matters less over time? (Early in relationship, early in work)
Group behavior changes greatly over time (e.g., “Time Matters,” Joe McGrath)
Nearly absolute barrier to initiating something
Early interactions create structure (e.g., identification of mutual interests, plans, awareness of style, expertise, etc.) that form framework for later communication
After FTF, other communication works better over distance
Software development -- early activities are the most collaborative
After some critical mass of development, open source becomes possible
Need collaboration tools to support some sort of life cycle?
How, in detail, did new collaborations progress in CFAR?

9. Understanding Dependencies in Work
Van de Ven, organizational assessments
Org theory -- information processing, certainty, stability, etc., influences how much communication is needed, how well other mechanisms (e.g., bureaucracy) work
Easy to identify “hard” dependencies, e.g., producer-consumer, shared resources
But how do you systematically identify and support “soft” dependencies?
E.g., A and B should really keep in touch on this issue
Would be potentially useful part of collaboration readiness