1. The Advance CV Workgroup The Advance CV Workgroup October 20, 2014

2. 2 Welcome The Advance CV Workgroup Overview The redesign process Section by Section Analysis Agenda

3. 3 Welcome Why you? –You have expertise that will help us redevelop the Advance CV for use as an Academic Review tool and as a general-purpose CV for faculty Reviewer CV User –Please try to attend all meetings

4. 4 Workgroup Members NameAffiliation Brian AlldredgeAcademic Affairs* Ann BolgerMedicine Shari DworkinSocial & Behavioral Sciences* Mitch FeldmanMedicine Paul GarciaNeurology* Ned HamiltonIT Academic Admin Systems* Peter HuntMedicine Tom KearneyClinical Pharmacy* Cynthia Lynch LeathersAcademic Affairs* Jacqueline LeungAnesthesiology Jeffrey LotzOrthopaedic Surgery Carol MillerAcademic Affairs* Peter SargentCell & Tissue Biology* Kanade ShinkaiDermatology Freddie TaiIT Academic Admin Systems * Steering Committee for Academic Information Systems Initiatives (SCAAISI) member

5. 5 Workgroup Charge Develop an updated CV format that allows faculty greater flexibility to represent the full range of their academic accomplishments Provide feedback and guidance on functionality for uploading/editing the CV Determine and maintain a standard CV format to provide efficiency for faculty reviewers Represent your constituencies during the revision process Advocate for the CV Module we develop

6. 6 The Advance CV History –Developed in 2009 –Based on the 2005 UCSF CV Guidelines Created by CAP to facilitate academic review –Solicited CVs from ALL faculty and imported CVs from most faculty who submitted one

7. 7 The Advance CV Features –Import text from a Word document Entire CV or section by section –Import publications from UCSF Profiles/PubMed –Rich Text in pubs and summary fields –Export to Word document –ID items to include in NIH Biosketch

8. 8 The Advance CV Why make changes? –User feedback Make it more flexible for other purposes As is, I have to keep a Word version of the CV too I want to add a section to the CV I want to segment my publications by specialty Why now? –Stable format for three review cycles –Nearly all faculty have used the CV for the Academic Review process –We’ve received funding to make improvements

9. 9 Workgroup Overview What we hope to accomplish –Re-design the CV used for academic review –Design a CV that can be used for more than just the academic review process –Decide what works for UCSF faculty Reviewers CV Users What I will ask of you –It’s your CV; what do you need/want? –Step outside of your expertise to accommodate other views and think about the user experience

10. 10 Workgroup Overview Meeting Structure –The Advance CV Overview –Section by Section review, ideas, and comments This process will take several meetings –Develop examples of new ideas Mock ups of ideas discussed here may be presented at each meeting Feedback, comments, and additional input about the mockups will be used in the design process

11. 11 The CV Redesign Process Section by Section analysis –The content perspective Does the structure of this section allow the user to tell their story? –Ideas: sub-sections, new sections, etc. –The functionality perspective Is this section easy to use, modify, export? –Ideas: sort options, moving things around, filters, etc. Is it easy to create a CV for different purposes? –The academic review perspective Can a reviewer easily find what’s needed to evaluate academic accomplishments? –Ideas: Required vs Optional sections; “Do you need this?” “Does this help you evaluate the academic accomplishments?”

12. 12 Section by Section Analysis DEMO

13. 13 The Advance CV Other topics that need to be discussed: –Rich Text fields Rich Text enables bold, underline, italics, formatting tricks like bullets, indents, hanging indents, etc. Opens “paste” process to introduce unwanted code Can we “strip” rich text when pasting, forcing the user to add formatting using the rich text tool? –Sharing your data Default is NOT to share data – user can enable sharing Do we want system-defined access to some data? –“Granularity” of fields Original design considered sorting and reporting Do we need more granularity?