View source for DBP2:Leadership

We are going to use this page to brainstorm leadership of DBP2 activities.... (Tina)

(From Steve Wong, April 13 2006): After two years of lesson learnt in DBP, I think it would be beneficial to implement some simple process of project oversight for managing the geographically distributed and inter-disciplinary DBPs. Just a thought, how about have each DBP team provide their initial project plan in terms of rough milestones and timelines of the project in the beginning of the project. The advantage include:

1. Provide some kind of blueprint as well as checkpoints for subsequent planning and discussion over the PI and AHM meetings. 2. Make individual DBPs more transparent to our peers and sponsors in the NAMIC community. 3. The explicit statements of resource requirement and tasks breaktown may help to see where we can leverage each other across projects and across cores. 4. It would provide a consistency in 'research' product quality and disseminate that to the community-at-large. 5. It would be rational to compose a progress report based on the targeted project plan.

Project oversight is a common practice in industrial R&D, but not for academia. However, as NAMIC reaches certain complexity and critical mass, I think we need some project oversight structure to get us to the next stage, making our process and R&D results scalable. The project oversight may include some education of simple R&D project management process as well as tailoring the process for collaborative academic environment.

Before working some strawman version of the project oversight process. Would be interested in your view and input?