|
|
|
|
Disruptive Technologies: A Holistic, Pragmatic Approach
New technologies are emerging at a faster pace than Agencies can swallow. The rate of obsolescence outpaces the rate of change.
Despite the new technology flood, Agencies lack a strategy to on-board these disruptions. As a result, they often react, flounder, or simply ignore them.
We can solve these problems in four major areas of practice:
Leadership and Management: How must leaders change with new technologies? How will this transform Agencies from the inside out?
Customer Strategy: How is the public behaving differently online? How can I reach them where they are?
Enterprise Strategy: Internal systems are connecting with external - How will I keep up with the dizzying pace? Employees are adopting collaboration and social tools without my control - How should I manage?
Innovation and Design: Experimenting on the general public is a bad idea, so how can I learn in a safe place? What vendors and providers should I lean on?
Here is a great slideshare webinar to get you started:
http://www.slideshare.net/charleneli/developing-a-social-strategy-webinar
|
|
|
NSF is hurting so many researchers especially researchers from underrepresented groups. The broad impact statement required in every NSF proposal is just for formality and no one believes it. I knew many researchers who gave up on writing proposals because of the abuse within the foundation. All programs aimed at attracting more members of underrepresented groups were conceived out of the guilt of many program managers who discriminate when awarding funding. My aim in griping is not to propose a replacement for the grant system and peer review but rather to point to the need to review the present system and come up with better reforms and alternatives. NSF needs to hire some program managers from underrepresented groups. The review should involve not only NSF program managers and staff but also members of the general public, all of whom have a stake in fairness and the promotion of scholarship in service to the community.
|
|
|
Lets get rid of, or at least make more exceptions to, the need for US grantees to use US carriers. This rule results in a waste of NSF research funds as US carriers are frequently much more expensive (not to say much less comfortable or accommodating) than their foreign competitors. Even when we have to use a foreign carrier due to lack of US carrier alternative, we are always charged an enormous premium for the "code share" label over what we could have paid to the carrier directly. We might want to support US air carriers but this should be something they earn, not get as a "birthright"
|
|
|
The proposal is to create a web site called www.humansupercomputer.org for the purpose of doing scientific collaboration and research. The structure of the web site will allow researchers to take advantage of thousands of people to help them overcome road blocks. For instance, a team researching battery technology may find that a material is not performing as expected. They can extract just the relevant information to the problem and post a request for assistance. People can offer solutions to the problem and the researcher can choose from these solutions to get new ideas for solving the problem. The following is the structure of the site.
1. The Filter is used to select users qualified to offer advice. The Filter works in two ways. The researcher can list specific users that they want to participate or they create questions that must be answered correctly to move to the research question. The details and number of questions are completely up to the researcher. I would suggest keeping the number down, so as not to discourage users from participating.
2. The Question is a request for a solution. The Question should include sufficient information so that users can answer it. So if the researcher knows that some of the variables are fact, because they are published or you have observed the fact, then include them in the Question. The answer is an open text box. The user can respond with anything.
3. The Evaluation is where users look at responses and help sort through them for validity. Once a sufficient number of responses are entered, as determined by the researcher, the users who join are given a multiple choice of the answers. The researcher can even choose how many answers are offered. The user can group duplicate answers, ranking the clarity of the descriptions. So that duplicates can be tallied and dropped. It will take a number of users to identify duplicates before they are categorized. There will also be the ability to select the top answers. As well as an “Other” checkbox, that allows the user to give their own text box answer. This answer will feed into the Evaluation.
4. The Results will include the counts of the choices made by the Evaluators and the number of duplicates for each solution. Using the solutions list, the researcher will see what the consensus view of each solution. Likely, the first few answers will be main stream; something the researcher already tried. But, as the researcher moves down the list they will see solutions that may allow them to solve the problem.
This model can be tailored for other types of research. Allow anonymous users. Have them only giving their Zip Code prefix or country and supply information about the drugs they use. Let them list all drugs, diet, life style, race, sex, age, etc. Then have them list health issues. You could look for trends like high blood pressure with drug combinations. You can use an anonymous email through the site to contact these people for additional facts if needed.
The business model is simple for the site. Every question posed requires answering 10 questions from someone else or paying $100. This is to discourage people posting homework on the site. If a solution is used, the site and all those that offered the solution as well as the Evaluators that touched that solution will be given credit in any paper resulting from the research. If there is a patent created using the research on the site. The site and each of the credited users will receive $1000. each within three years of the patent application.
I am looking for an organization willing to develop and administer this idea.
|
|
|
NSF is a tight net society that is hard to penetrate. The closed culture has the potential of making the organization stagnant. Many Program Managers have been there for too long. Science and the culture of scientific community are not stagnant and innovation needs fresh ideas. Rotators may have been thought of as a way to inject some of these ideas, but for them to get in they have to conform to the same ideals and standards of the insiders. The filter is too tight and the selection biased. I wish a truly new system for selecting program managers be in place that is truly fair and balanced. Open the organization up to truely new blood.
|
|
|
Provision a cyberinfrastructure 'Bazaar'[1] as an investment in the public interest[2] leveraging the Internet investment as a public interest artifact.
Mature the meaning of ‘public interest’ in the public interest paradigm. Confirm it with a pilot cultural demonstration.
A ‘Paradigm Shift Visualization’ framework and a ‘Paradigm Shift’ doctrine might guide new meaning formation.
One approach to manifesting a cultural demonstration might entail provisioning an expression of the human proclivity to "do the right thing[3]" in the public interest.
A trusted party ethos[4] guiding a collaborative[5] would manage and govern the public utilization of a GRID resource (i.e. information resources, capability provisioning, access policy authority) and Knowledge Management capability and tooling[6].
An exemplar of a Bazaar's potential is this site. What expressions might a national ‘Citizens Bazaar create?
Repurpose the deployment of this NSF trial balloon expression of the human spirit, while expanding the scope and span of its’ expression.
Leverage the power of the people at a NATIONAL SCALE with new tooling; more than just text input (until March 19, 2010).
'and thats' all i have to say about that'
[1] See Raymond's "Cathedral and the Bazaar"; the proletariat.
[2] Homeland Security, Democracy, Sustainable National Paradigm, American Competitiveness)
[3] Leggo's utilization of customer contributions, for product improvement, finds no national scale mirror image in the public interest paradigm. I don't know what would come of it, however, I am confident you will find expression of the human spirit 'doing the right thing'.
Leveraging the national investment in the Internet, not with more Internet capability and capacity, but rather with more public interest functionality that leverages existing Internet utility; without change.
[4] i.e. the 'Library Institution'.
[5] Eg. Stakeholders/collaborators might include the ‘Library Institution’, the ‘Academic Institution’, the institutions of governance (e.g. CBO, OIJ, NIST) and commercial sector collectives.
[6] Visualization, language processing, and data mining tooling (e.g. D2K) as tooling.
|
|
|
For those NSF programs really seeking high risk new ideas to fund, help shape reviewer incentives by making reviewers' comments public online together with the proposals. The idea should be to encourage reviewers to live up to the program descriptions' standards rather than the kind of risk-averse group think that's endemic to decisions by committee. And putting both funded and non-funded proposal ideas online gives their authors some claim to good ideas while discouraging submission of bad proposals.
Feel free to add more thoughts on ensuring reviewers have an incentive to participate and that authors get proper rights/credit for their published ideas.
|
|
|
It sometimes appears that the requirements/culture of a particular directorate sponsoring large education/training/cultural transformation grants seem mysterious (e.g. IGERT, ADVANCE, et al.), and reviews received for an unsuccessful proposal are baffling. What are the Program Officers and reviewers looking for in the proposal?
A possible solution might be to webcase (and archive) PI meetings for these programs, so all can learn (but not necessarily attend, nor comment at them) the priorities of the particular program and good ideas (and time spent proposing them) are not derailed by being unaware of certain nuances, or intentions of the program.
|
|
|
Accessibility is the key to an open government. But having a government "web site" does not make it accessible if the web site is so horribly designed. (BTW: I am not referring to this site!)
Imagine if Apple was the interface design Tzar for the federal government? Wow, horrible nightmare web sites like usajobs.gov would never have existed! MORE qualified people would actually have been able to complete the application process on the site and BETTER people would have been hired for government jobs. But the site is a total nightmare and one could spend hours on it and still not have completed the sequence to apply for a federal job.
The key to open government is making information clear and very easy to find. Most of the information the government places in the public web arena is hard to understand and hard to find. There are some exceptions but, this inconsistency of information gathering methods and sources is a problem in itself.
Over 10 years ago, the British government began to promote British design. China is now doing the same.
It is time for the U.S. to promote and encourage good design of all kinds in the U.S. Product design, graphic design, architecture, engineering design, digital media, etc.
Great design is what created the great 20th Century for the U.S.A. We need to encourage and educate for great design to keep moving to the 21st Century.
|
|
|
Surely we need a discussion of the level of public support for the public media outlets: PBS, NPR, ... Our national funding of our public media is on the order of 20% of the per capita in the UK. As a close follower of "World Focus", an attempt here in the US to develop an international outlook, I'm saddened by it's soon termination next month.
|
|
|
(1) It has been observed that many of the best within the research community are relatively inept and naive in effectively conveying the importance and excitement of their work to the public. Surely a national funding organization can find ways to reward and make more visible those who spend quality time on public outreach. If Michael Faraday could give Christmas lectures to children and families, why not better recognize effective researchers today who can do the same?
(2) Why should the voting public support an elitist science community who not only hesitate to share their work in open publications - but also convey a "we know things you could never understand" attitude? While some are quick to criticize the quality of real "science" done by NASA, there may be things we can learn from their public presence and accountability.
(3) In some cases this commitment to a breadth of public understanding can also drive science researchers to interact with those who would champion the societal and artist dimensions of their work. Cannot NSF help stimulate the likes of Fermilab's late Robert R. Wilson who truly believed good science must not ignore its broader implications for art and society?
|
|
|
1) Not clear that NSF has a coordinated view of teacher professional development or teacher preparation. Given the recognized importance of teachers, and role played by NSF in developing the STEM workforce, there should be a coordinated, and easily recognized effort to support these activities.
2) Undergraduate research is a key component in advancing undergraduates to pursue research careers and to build confidence in understanding the nature of science. The NSF should gather data to evaluate the needs of the nation in these areas and provide adequate support for meeting the needs.
3) The NSF has developed numerous examples of high-quality, research-tested curriculum. These materials and methods have proven especially useful in retaining women and under-represented groups. Unfortunately, changing the paradigm of introductory undergraduate courses from lecture-based weed-out courses to supportive student-centered curriculum requires a commitment beyond the resources of typical departments. The NSF should play an increased role in reforming these experiences in all schools.
|
|
|
While collaborative research no doubt has merits, over-emphasizing it in funding and subsequent research is fostering dilution of skills and intellect available in the scientific community. It seems that these days starting from graduate students to senior researchers, nobody can handle a project by oneself. Everyone doing a small piece of work and getting a share of the pie is counterpoductive to producing the next generation of leaders in science because piecemeal work stifles creativity and independent thinking. PIs need to train undergraduate and graduate students who can DO a project, not ones who can simply MANAGE a project with little elves. The fundamental ideas in science have mostly come from independent work, not from large-scale collaborations.
|
|
|
The narrative of sustainability should be overarching guiding paradigm of all human activities. Sustainability narrative covers all issues: global climate change, biodiversity, ecological services needs, economic and human activities, etc. More importantly the narrative of sustainability means not only human needs, but needs of all other species. The time frame is not 30 or even 50 years, but it is indefinite. It cannot be addressed by present “business as usual approach”. Rather it must be addressed by coupling of natural, economic and social systems.
Collapse of the global financial system, ecological degradation, resource depletion all are rooted in unsustainable practices in all spheres and it is a matter of time when next calamity can happen that may lead us even to regional or World Wars.
Federal government should lead the effort in the development of Sustainability Science Centers where natural, economic and social scientists can work together to produce tools and incentives for sustainable future for many generations to come.
|
|
|
NSF could save millions by implementing a non-proprietary computer desktop to NSF employees, contractors and grantees etc. Using a freely available package such as Open Office would save millions in software licensing fees. The functionality of such suites are quite adequate for the majority of users. Power users could be offered alternatives such as Microsoft Office on an as needed basis.
|
|
|
One aspect of the NSF review process that I have always found curious is that proposals are almost funded retroactively... you have to present so much preliminary data that the project is virtually half-done before you even have a shot at being considered for funding. I understand that presenting hard data is an important indication of feasibility, which can be a concern, but similar agencies in other countries (such as the Australian Research Council), view ambitious yet realistic projects favorably, if only because very often one does actually need the money to get the data!
|
|
|
The National Science Foundation is dedicated to fundamental research in the sciences, but if you ask the average US citizen what that means, the answer might be a less-than-supportive reference to research grants for obscure projects. We need a "Marshall Plan" type mobilization of our citizenry where everyone learns the importance of innovative, scientific research and how that translates into the many various impacts on our economy. We need to enlist the media into helping the average TV viewer understand why researchers need NSF grants to, for example, buy the latest electron microscope to advance the state of bionano research so a future company can give us better treatments for cancer or implantable computing devices.
|
|
|
Use funds to employ MBAs and experienced Commercialization Experts to transfer NSF's research and development projects into the private marketplace. The foundation should target technologies that fall within Obama's national priorities, and support their commercialization, either through partnerships with larger corporations or the growth of small companies.
Obama's stategy is:
1. Invest in the Building Blocks of American Innovation. We must first ensure that our economy is given all the necessary tools for successful innovation, from investments in research and development to the human, physical, and technological capital needed to perform that research and transfer those innovations.
2. Promote Competitive Markets that Spur Productive Entrepreneurship. It is imperative to create a national environment ripe for entrepreneurship and risk taking that allows U.S. companies to be internationally competitive in a global exchange of ideas and innovation. Through competitive markets, innovations diffuse and scale appropriately across industries and globally.
3. Catalyze Breakthroughs for National Priorities. There are certain sectors of exceptional national importance where the market is unlikely to produce the desirable outcomes on its own. These include developing alternative energy sources, reducing costs and improving lives with health IT, and manufacturing advanced vehicles. In these industries where markets may fail on their own, government can be part of the solution.
|
|
|
Just as the title says. What do the people at NSF, the grant recipients, and former grant applicants think?
|
|
|
One of the greatest shortcoming in the SBIR offerings from all agencies is the lack of an open category for ideas that have merit but do not 'fit.' You do not get innovative projects if all you advertise are the same old/same old. Why not have an open category titled "What do you have that we don't know about?"
|
|
|
Question: Is the current Funding process of the NSF transparent?
The review and score the NSF panel provides is hardly articulate. There must a be a numerical score (journal reviews ask them) rather than five possible options from which we do not even understand where it stands. The numeric score should be input before the panel meets for review and should be disclosed to the PIs before the final decision (that is on the day the panel meets, of course after the meet). Statistics about what was the cut-off (number) above which proposal was funded and below which proposal were not funded. If the numeric score is really hopeless, PIs would avoid revision and re-submission and the panel should also write in the reviews whether or not to re-submission is allowed like in a journal. I believe these things are done in NIH. I guess good and useful things should be spread across all governmental funding agencies. The above points will certainly help beginning PI's (who struggle to get their first funded project) to improve.
Revisions on unfunded proposals should be treated similar to a journal article and should not be reviewed by a totally new group of reviewers (again, I believe NIH does this). If the reviewers who commented earlier cannot attend the panel review on a rejected proposal, the least they can do (a service to the community) is to send their reviews (upload on fastlane), and specifically mention if their queries and comments have been answered in a revision along with a numeric score (either improved or deteriorated). Currently re-submission of a rejected proposal starts from scratch and one cannot understand how they (PI) did in the revision.
|
|
|
I agree that science makes great strides from its focused, specialized approaches.
However, I also know that making science relevant and meaningful emerges from translational practices that run on the trading and exporting of knowledge, tools and practices across disciplines, social groups, and locations. Innovation happens when valuable tools are made relevant in context so that they support new ways of working and being, alternative cognitive opportunities, and the development of social, political, and economic agency.
NSF should support hybrid spaces and 'neutral territories' that encourage the growth and development of new scientific practices and cultures--in dialogue with other, non-science or allied disciplines or cultures. Defining science is not the same as doing science. Nor does interacting and engaging with different patterns of working necessarily make science less robust. Create shared spaces where research and knowledge discovery and development can happen concurrently to find overlaps and new opportunities.
In addition to 'neutral' spaces, develop training programs that focus on translation and transference skills and behaviors (and reward them) that allow knowledge and practices to bridge the academy, industry, main street, the domestic setting, grades 4-12, AND our cultural institutions and entrepreneurship classes.
|
|
|
Start to ask questions, experiment, and engage in the narrative characteristics of science. Find collaborative ways to build synergies between the 'what' of science (its content) and the 'how' its process. If we start to view and make labs open spaces (literally and figuratively) there will be dialogue.
Unfortunately everything about their current organization says 'closed to the public'. Only museums, as science worship spaces, are open to public discourse...but does that really feed back to the NSF or the labs themselves?
There are lots of models for doing this--from science shops as commercially-located spaces for research to labs that are literally visible to the public in a variety of ways. The question is where the political will, motivation, and funding will come from. It also means changing value systems. Perhaps there are graded approaches that do this.
For what it's worth, here's a blog post that discusses this in more depth: http://tinyurl.com/yg8u5uj
|
|
|
NSF lead public-private stakeholder sessions to define the scope of impact - and road maps for developing bio industrial processes across all industries (e.g. energy, materials design, human health, food-agriculture, electronics, et al)
Develop a communications strategy for promoting young people to build this new industry - on par with semiconductor/software industries- that will span next century.
Inspire next generation of bio industrialists and bio researchers to see broad impact of field.
|
|
|
The U.S. is noticeably behind many nations (Israel, 32 EC countries, Scotland, Ontario Canada) in k-12 Computer Science education. The distinction of the countries listed is that CS (or Informatics) is a required subject for all students.
Considering the importance and ubiquity of computing in our present way of life, and the fact that the computer-software industry grew up almost singlehandedly in the U.S., and has contributed enormously to our ecomony, can anyone explain why the k-12 education system treats this essential cultural knowledge as less important than Math or Language Arts?
NSF has been a major champion of k-12 CS, but still lacks a clearly identifiable program "home" for developing k-12 CS education. Rather, responsibility is diffused across programs in DRL and CISE, where it has to vye for visibility and funding with k-12 Math and Science, and with undergraduate CS and PhD-level CS domain research.
Things will be better when there is clearly authorized responsibility in NSF for developing k-12 Computer Science as a mandatory area of study for US students. Or, we can just cede leadership of this industry to foreign countries who have their education act more together. Which would you prefer?
|
| Displaying 1 - 25 of 50 Ideas |
|
I Agree
I Disagree
Close