Models of Leadership in Academia

After almost 20 years of watching academic leaders build and manage research programs, I categorize all leadership approaches into one of two models:

• ·         Departmental leadership
• ·         Principle investigator leadership

Departmental leadership stems from base funding that provides for core faculty positions.  Not only departments have this type of funding, but also many other organizational structures, and notably research centers with some longevity that has allowed them to develop such base funding.  With this type of funding the departmental leader can build an organization that fits with a particular mission.  If the mission is to create an organization that contributes to innovative research and education in bioinformatics, then the departmental leader has some leeway to hire core faculty in bioinformatics.  Typically the departmental leader will shape the specifics of the mission to their own perspectives gained from their past education, research and service.  Sticking with the bioinformatics example, the departmental leader may decide to focus on structural or systems biology because they have particular interest in this area and recognize this is an area with much research potential in the future since it may be clear that funding agencies are prioritizing the importance of these fields.  The area may also be one in which students increasingly have the aptitude and interest in pursuing.  Maybe most important, the departmental leader may recognize that many of the resources that are available to support the development of this area are already on campus.  The bioinformatics program needs resources on campus that have the potential to produce the biological data that can be analyzed, or a systems biology effort would require campus resources that provide mathematics and computer science expertise to collaborate in the development of the research programs of the core faculty. 

Departmental leadership is most effective when developing an existing organization.  By promoting the mission of this organization, the departmental leader increases the amount of funds for supporting core faculty, builds the reputation of the organization, and supports the education of future leaders according to the mission.  The departmental leader is most effective when their primary function is in motivating existing faculty to support the mission and succeed at their own personal missions for education, research and service.  Their ability to move the organization towards a reputation in a particular discipline is dependent upon their ability to gain a consensus among the faculty about the mission of the organization, and then to obtain that mission through faculty recruiting and the support of the faculties efforts in education, research and service.

Principle investigator leadership stems from a mission based on subject matter expertise and the funding that expertise attracts.  This seems to be the most effective model for leadership in developing new education, research and service initiatives.  In these cases, the principle investigator leader is the thought leader who takes ownership of an initiative.  In many cases this principle investigator leader is hired from outside the institution to build the initiative, but that isn’t always the strongest strategy, particularly when the success of the initiative depends in large part on the existing resources of the institution.  The principle investigator leader usually has an appointment as professor, and is rarely also the administrative head of a department, division, school, or college.  In cases where the principle investigator leader is an administrator, they are usually administrators of research.  This individual must have a reputation in the area that is being developed.  The stronger the reputation, the more successful the initiative.  A major component of the mission of the initiative will be in-line with this reputation and the principle investigator leader will lead many projects that could be considered “core” projects of the initiative.  Other faculty affiliated with the initiative are collaborators on grants and contracts, or full-time research faculty frequently funded by the grants or contracts.  These faculty usually will have some close connection to the leader’s area of interest, though they may be completely peripheral in that interest, being maybe focused on an area that was spun off from the principle investigator’s original efforts.  Faculty in these organizations will initiate their relationship to the young initiative through collaborations or full-time roles on initiative-funded projects, and then develop their own, though related interests, obtaining funding for them to establish their own role as a principle investigator in the initiative.

Initiatives with longevity are composed of faculty affiliates and core faculty who have varying degrees of connection to the research of the leader, with the initiative held together by a mission and frequently one or two large “core” grants or gifts.  These initiatives require the skills of a department leader, so either the original leader assumes this role by moving away from their function as key grant and contract principle investigator, or the individual focuses on continuing to build their own education, research and service activities and turns over the organization administration to a newly appointed individual with department leadership skills. 

If you don't know I have moved my blogs...

...to http://tpcaruso.com.  Also check out my tweets @tpcaruso and my Facebook page at http://on.fb.me/hel2ED.

You should also know about the two white papers the Biomedical Informatics Think Tank:

The Biomedical Informatics Think Tan™ (BITT™)[i] brings together experts at major academic medical institutions who have been working in the fields of health information management, clinical informatics, public health informatics, clinical research informatics, bioinformatics, data mining, HIT training and high performance computing over the last thirty years.  These individuals are leaders in the field of biomedical informatics and many were involved in building the informatics infrastructure that supported the human genome project and have provided leadership in the development of the NCI Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid® (caBIG®), the largest single effort to integrate clinical and biomedical information for advancing biomedical research.[ii] Others are leaders in building a grid and cloud infrastructure to support academic science and biomedical informatics programs like caBIG.
Several white papers, a business plan, and relevant articles by or about the BITT members are provided as links below.  You can also read about the original thinking that went into the development of BITT in the blogs on this site about Think Tanks.  For more information about BITT™ or an interest in joining as a member of BITT contact Tom Caruso at tcaruso2@gmail.com.

BITT Links


4/12/2011 Spinor and Twistor Formalisms for Medical Data and Inference, Submitted to IEEE Computer-Based Medical Systems '11, Authors: Barry Robson^1,2 and Thomas P. Caruso^1,4
4/8/2011 T.P. Caruso comments on: Health IT Advisers Blast Data Exchange Policies, Information Week Healthcare
3/28/2011 Considerations for a Universal Exchange Language for Healthcare, Submitted to IEEE Healthcom '11, Authors: Barry Robson1,2, Ulysses G.J. Balis1,3 and Thomas P. Caruso1,4
3/25/2011 Secure Aggregation Model for a Universal Exchange Language - White Paper, Authors: Barry Robson1,2, Ulysses G.J. Balis1,3 and Thomas P. Caruso1,4
2/18/2010 A Universal Exchange Language Supports Comparative Effectiveness and Biomedical Research - White Paper
1/15/2011 Business Plan for the Biomedical Informatics Think Tank (BITT[TM])

---

[i] BITT is a division of Projectivity, Inc.  The Biomedical Informatics Think Tank and BITT are trademarks of Projectivity, Inc.

[ii] About caBIG® — http://bit.ly/exJs19
------------------------
1Member, Biomedical Informatics Think Tank, a Division of Projectivity, Inc.
2 St. Matthew's University School of Medicine, Florida and Grand Cayman, and Department of Mathematics & Computer Science, University of Wisconsin-Stout
3Associate Professor and Director, Division of Pathology Informatics, University of Michigan,
4President, Business Ambitions, LLC

Getting the Biomedical Informatics Think Tank off the Ground

My partner and I are quite excited about the progress we have made with our Biomedical Informatics Think Tank (BITT).  We are in a teaming agreement on an CIO-SP3 Unrestricted team and also a CIO-SP3 SB (Restricted) team.  In actuality, this is the easy part.  Turning awards into real task orders for the BITT will be much more challenging.  More likely for us is that an effort to develop specific opportunities with our contacts in government. 

We’re talking with potential partners who would assist us in developing opportunities if we have the relationships.  We’re putting BITT participants on advisory boards where they can gain insight into problems we could be pursuing.  We’re building awareness of BITT in the government by networking and meeting with our government contacts, and doing little things, like having questions and making comments at every event we attend which we can precede with “I’m _____ building a Biomedical Informatics Think Tank”.  You can imagine what type of seeds this statement might create, especially when they hear about BITT again and again over the next year.   We also have activity on Twitter and LinkedIn, to increase our visibility.  Furthermore, I’ve changed my business cards with the tag “managing think tanks in health, biomedical and Pharma IT.” 

We’re also planning our first all hands teleconference.  To plan this, I first had a phone call with two of the participants who seem most interested in helping with the governance and organization of BITT.  As a result of this conversation, I have a “straw man” agenda and we’ve schedule a teleconference with four of my closest associates to help finalize the agenda.  Scheduling this meeting has not been easy.   The “straw man” agenda includes three components:

1. 1.      A general discussion about what participants think that they will get from their efforts personally, and as a group.  This information would be useful for an eventual propPublish Postosal about the vision and mission of BITT.
2. 2.      A discussion about the type of work that BITT participants want, as well as the size and timeframes of projects that BITT might be able to deliver, considering the availability of participants and their interest in participating in BITT.  How should we structure a proposal? What's in it for us personally?  And as a group?
3. 3.      Finally, brainstorm among alternative problem contexts of specific projects that BITT could be pursuing, hoping that contacts could also be identified who we would be pursuing with the help of our partners. 

Watch for my Consultant’s Column in the HIMSS National Capital Area Newsletter.  I’m also expecting to write something soon about project management methodologies using Sharepoint as the basis for a PMIS.

Moving ahead with Creating a Think Tank

My efforts to create a Biomedical Informatics Grid (BIG) Think Tank has attracted twelve academics who have agreed to be included in the list of people we are calling “participants” in the think tank.  I’m not ready to share names of these individuals, but I will eventually when the time seems right.  We are collecting CVs and expertise area checklists from these individuals for sharing with prime contractors who might be interested in working with the BIG Think Tank. 

The time involved in reaching and then selling each of the people who I want to join the BIG Think Tank has been my most challenging work recently; however, once the individual understands that the initial commitment is limited to sending a CV, a completed checklist of expertise areas, and a letter of commitment for which a template is provided, the individual has usually agreed to participate.  The letter of commitment clearly defines that participation involves an option to participate in contract proposals, not a requirement to participate.   One person I recently contacted about a think tank said they had “nothing to lose.”  Except for a minimal amount of time upfront until a real opportunity for a contract presents itself, there really is nothing to lose.

Only two people, who didn’t even think they had the time to talk on the phone about the commitment level for participation, decided that they would not participate because they felt “over committed.”  I found that rather odd, because many of the others, to whom I spoke, also were had major commitments of time to existing projects, but they nonetheless decided to participate at this stage.  I am happy to accept their decision, since eventually I will hope for participation in specific projects that will require a significant commitment of time.  These individuals may well have been over committed for years in the future.

Participants have the option to be involved in any other think tanks, and they can serve as consultant or their affiliates can be subcontractors on any other contract.  This is not an exclusive arrangement, but by bringing together a full set of experts across a wide variety of expertise areas, the think tank will be able to pursue opportunities that each individual will not be able to pursue by themselves, at least not as easily. 

I am committed to making this a major opportunity for the participants, building an organization around their support as equity stakeholders, consultants, and subcontractors through their affiliate organizations (i.e. companies, non-profits, or academic institutions).  The initial relationship is only enough to get us a position in which we can develop opportunities. Once the initial participants are identified, we will meet via teleconference to appoint a small team who will develop and propose a governance structure.  Once a contract opportunity is clear, we will finalize the governance structure and create more formal relationships with the participants and their affiliated organizations. 

The first contract opportunity will involve firm letters of commitment and teaming agreements with those participants and their affiliated organizations who will be included in the particular proposal.  When an award is made, formal consulting agreements and subcontracts will be finalized prior to completing the contract agreement with the funding agency.  Operations for the organization would need to be supported out of contract fees.

I am excited about the possibilities not only for this first BIG Think Tank, but for other think tanks that might develop in sustainable energy, economics, communications, computer security, etc.  It is the opportunity associated with a wide variety of these think tanks that should attract investment capital into an organization that would manage these individual think tanks.  Equity investment would move these opportunities forward, starting with the BIG Think Tank.  Equity would not only be required to put together the legal structure and create relationships with the participants and their affiliated organizations, but it would also support the marketing of these resources to primes for building contract relationships that generate funding. 

If you have any interest in our activities, questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact me at tcaruso2@gmail.com.  

Structuring a Think Tank for Government Contract Opportunities

In thinking about how a Think Tank would operate, I drew the figure shown with this blog.  Several stakeholders are involved in the success of the Think Tank:

• The Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who provide the expertise and past performance to qualify the Think Tank as a resource for contracts;
• The Think Tank and its investors (including the participating SMEs) and its employees which staff the various operating Think Tank R&D Programs;
• The Management Company that provides the infrastructure for the Think Tank including business development (contract opportunity identification and development), business capture (proposal writing, team building, etc.), contract administration (teaming agreements, contract negotiation, post-award contract administration, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) compliance, etc), and portfolio, program and project management;
• The SME-Affiliated Academic Institutions that, post-award, negotiate and administer subcontracts for the SME R&D Program;
• The Prime Company which prepares the proposals for which it teams with the Think Tank, and upon award, it administers the Award Program and subcontracts with the Think Tank to provide expertise (through consulting from SMEs) and program support (either in the Think Tank R&D Program or the SME R&D Program; and
• The Government which solicits for bids, makes awards, negotiates contracts with the Prime Company, and then administers those contracts for the government according to FARs.

Pre-award Activities

To produce funded subcontracts the Think Tank must first establish relationships with SMEs.  At this stage these relationships can be established with simply a letter of intent (LOI) to consider participation in contract capture efforts.  With the LOIs from six or more SMEs who have exceptional experience, a portfolio of curriculum vitae of the SMEs can be offered to potential Prime Company partners as a resource in their efforts to capture government contracts. 

The Management Company of the Think Tank then works to identify opportunities in which this portfolio of SME expertise could contribute to the success of a bid for a contract.  In this process the companies that are likely to pursue these contract awards will be identified and the best Prime Company candidate will be determined and approached.  If a Prime Company decides to team with the Think Tank, then the Management Company begins the capture process by completing a non-disclosure agreement with the Prime Company and defining the roles that each of the SMEs will play in the proposal. 

At this stage, the SMEs have the option to participate or abstain from a particular proposal, though they may still obtain benefit from an award if they have an equity position in the Think Tank or Management Company.  (These equity relationships are not shown in the figure, and could not exist to a non-profit Think Tank, which could be created instead of a for-profit entity.)  If they participate they will need to provide a letter of intent to participate as a consultant, or they will need to work with their affiliated Academic Institution to define a teaming agreement if there will be a subcontract to support work in the SME R&D Program.  Once the first teaming agreement has been negotiated future teaming agreements should be relatively easy, and an academic institution may agree to signing an umbrella teaming agreement to cover all future teaming arrangements with the Think Tank.  They will also need to provide information about pricing and past performance on tasks similar to the tasks proposed in the bid documents.

The Prime Company will then prepare and finalize the bid proposal to include the teaming agreement with the Think Tank, as well as the past performance and pricing information from each of the participating SMEs.  The Think Tank will make sure all the necessary information is provided to the Prime Company.

Post-Award Activities

If the Prime Company receives an award, then it negotiates a contract with the Government and it negotiates a subcontract with the Think Tank.  The Management Company of the Think Tank negotiates consulting contracts with the SMEs who are providing their expertise for the either the Think Tank R&D Program that supports the Prime Company Award Program or directly with the Prime Company Award Program.  It will also negotiate subcontracts with the participating SME-affiliated Academic Institutions if the award will fund work in the SME R&D Program.  Again, the first of these subcontracts could serve as a template for subsequent subcontracts, or a master subcontract could be created to reduce the amount of negotiation required with each new award that requires a subcontract.

The Prime Company will administer the contract with the Government and the subcontract with the Think Tank.  The Management Company of the Think Tank will administer the subcontract with the Prime Company, the consulting agreements with the SMEs, and the subcontracts with the SME-affiliated Academic Institution.  Project management will be provided by the Prime Company for the Prime Company Award Program, while project management will be provided by the Management Company for the Think Tank R&D Program and by the SME for the SME R&D Program.

Contracts Awarded for ONC Standards & Interoperability Framework

Today I attended the first class of the the National eHealth Collaborative’s Fall Semester of NHIN 2010, titled “NHIN 201  - The Importance of the Standards and Interoperability Framework” (http://www.nationalehealth.org/NHIN-U/).  This web class was presented by Douglas Fridsma, MD, PhD - Director, Office of Standards and Interoperability, Office of the National Coordinator (of Health Information Technology).  The entire lecture was an excellent review of the plans of OSI to vet standards and specifications that lead to improved health information system interoperability, and the questions and answers were also stimulating.  I was most interested in the diagram Dr. Fridsma provided of the contract infrastructure for this process.   Apparently seven contracts have been awarded.
Awardees include

• Accenture - Use Case Development and Functional Requirements
• Deloitte (2 awards) - (1) Harmonization of Core Concepts and (2) Implementation Specifications
• Lockheed Martin (2 awards) - (1) Pilot Demonstration Projects and (2) Reference Implementation
• Stanley - Tools and Services (to support all processes)
• Stanley/Deloitte - Certification and Testing

One opportunity for the Standard Development component remains unawarded and I have not seen the solicitation for this component.

I thought others might be interested in this publically available information, so I am sharing it in my blog.  

Creating Think Tanks for Government Contract Opportunities

I propose that experts at different academic institutions in related, but complimentary areas, band together into consortium-like groups, let’s call them “think tanks” for the lack of a better word, to pursue contract opportunities that they could not pursue as individual investigators or even in teams made up of other experts at their own institutions.

Opportunities abound from federal, state and private organizations which need expertise in a particular area.  Furthermore, there are private companies who pursue these opportunities that need this expertise to compete against other companies trying to amass the expertise internally and through “teaming” agreements with other companies.  Typically, once the prime of these teams gets the funding, they rarely go to their teaming partners for assistance.  Instead, the prime will find the expertise internally, or hire what they need to keep as much of the profit from the contract. 

If academics concentrated their expertise into think tanks they could be pursuing these contract opportunities themselves to increase the benefit they gain when the contract is awarded because they were on the proposal.  The think tank would have a component that captured awards and managed the contract once it was awarded.  The individual academics providing their expertise would support the think tank as necessary through their subcontract relationship with the consortium.  The decisions of the think tank would be controlled by the academics themselves, so decisions to hire or pass through to a subcontractor would be based on agreement from these academics.

These think tanks are simple to create once a group of academics who can serve as subject matter experts (SMEs) in a particular area is identified who have an interest in pursuing contracts through a consortium.  First, find a lawyer to create a legal operating entity.  This entity should be created with a governance structure that allows for the participating academics to control its decisions.  Then the legal entity would either hire experienced staff to pursue contract opportunities or hire a management company to provide these services.  For each proposal opportunity, a standard “teaming agreement” can be signed for consortium members, the details of which will need to be worked out to be agreeable to each institution of the participating academics, since this is how the institution will relate to the think tank until a contract is awarded.  Once contracts are awarded to the consortium, subcontracts would be developed with each participating institution to allow funds to be distributed to their academic participants.

The biggest challenge I expect would be in the governance of the consortium, since the academic institutions will probably want to have a role; however, academics may act independently from their institutions, so to insure quick decision making, they need to be creating these consortiums as independent entities with subcontracts to the participating institutions.  Those subcontracts will govern the role of each academic institution participating in the awards of received by the think tank, and will not hinder those willing to accept the terms of the subcontract from participating.

With stellar resumes and qualifications comprising the proposal assets of the think tank, generating government contract awards would be easy, but sometimes long.  However, the infrastructure provided by the think tank allows for the long latency required to win government contracts, sometimes measured in years.  Furthermore, once the awards are made, the think tank infrastructure also allows for a means of addressing the typical short-term milestone-oriented requirements of contracts with the challenges created by the academic year and requirements for integrating educational and research objectives.

I will be further expanding on these ideas in future blogs.