A Researchers’ Perspective

• Common CV

• CIHR Reforms

The Genesis of the CCV (circa April 2004)

CCV was launched in July 2002 but this was the first web archive capture

Nothing is New

Nothing is New

8 members (increased to 17)

The "Modern" CCVAlzheimer Soc

Canadian Council for ArtsCanadian Diabetes Assoc

CFICGSCIHR

Compute CanadaCRC

FRQSHeart & Stroke Fdn

IMHRMichael Smith Fdn HR

Multiple Sclerosis SocietyNew Brunswick HRF

NSERCNova Scotia HRF

OHTNOICR

Ont Mental Health FdnResearch ManitobaSt Josephs HamiltonSaskatchewan HRF

SSHRCU de SherbrookeVanier/Banting

Vancouver Coastal HRI

Dropped CCVArthritis Soc

Canadian Cancer SocGenome Canada

Lawson HRILung Assoc

26 members

1. Reliability of site - downtime

2. Useability/Design - user experience

3. Members ever changing fields

4. Data import/maintenance

Core Problems

grant deadlines

downtimes

traffi

c

Hosted by Shared Services Canada

2 days before the last CIHR grant deadline

As an aside, due to internal institutional deadlines,This penalizes those who submitted on time

7:17pmOct 17

Useability/Design

• More difficult issue as reflects core database structure

• Should not have to: navigate/field/enter/save/repeat• For sanity• For efficiency• For RSI

• Has had clear deleterious effect on collaborative science

• But, has probably created more jobs than any other piece of software….

Data import/Maintenance

The core issue - fragmentation of requests by members (too involved in website design?)

This problem was recognized relatively early in the development of web standards (JPEG, MPEG, HTML, etc)

Agree on shared components for wide compatibility, agree on rules/syntax, allow programmers to implement

Monopolistic TendenciesIf applicants are required to use a common process, make it easy to use and/or open it up for others to improve upon. Encourage compatible alternatives. Instead….

Captcha is implemented AFTER log in. Why? Why isn’t CCV open source or, at least, open to compatibility to outside developers.

Embrace ORCID!

The CIHR Reforms

Weren’t the reforms necessary due to application pressure and lack of funding?

http://www.acechr.ca

But cancellation of two open competitions led to real crisis in applications

You Are Here

$

Delayed Project

Issues: inequality

Gender inequalityFunding inequality

Career inequality(Michael Hendricks)

https://medium.com/@MHendr1cks/the-impact-of-cihr-reforms-on-early-career-biomedical-scientists-in-canada-6aef2f14bb12#.2witwodj6

Virtual Review

Virtual Review

Scientists are human. They will look for shortcuts. They will review at the last minute (possibly naked).

They, like everyone else, need peer pressure.

Ending Thoughts1. Critical to engage representative users of programs from the beginning and to maintain their engagement throughout and after roll out. Test widely and test changes as well (best intentions can lead to unanticipated conflicts).

2. Even if a process is designed to alleviate complexity, has broad support, and sounds like a fantastic idea, implementation is everything.

3. Trying to achieve all things for all people is a sure road to failure. This was a common feature of both the CCV and CIHR reforms. Too much crammed in, trying to please all but satisfying none.

4. If a feature cannot be easily integrated, don’t add it, work out how to make it seamless.

5. Time is money. Users time is 1000X designers time (users pay).

6. Ideological frameworks are easy to communicate but are no substitute for practical solutions. Admit errors, build empathy.

7. If you give people multiple paths to achieve the same goal, more of them reach the right destination.

8. Hide complexity: bury it (deep). The simpler something looks, the better it is often designed. LESS IS MORE!