Survey results √ 10 out of 15 people have responded
On how our time was spent • People were generally satisfied with time spent on each activity • 4/9 wanted more time for TECH PRESENTATION and DISCUSSION • 2/9 wanted more time spent in day 1 discussion and the Thursday night tech meeting
What was most valuable? • Of highest value were (1) open discussions and (2) better understanding the domain scientists’ work/data. • These topics were echoed also as the ‘high point’ of the retreat. • Other topics valued include participation and interaction of students and having time to meet face-to-face as a group.
Goals? • Generally, most participants thought we were still ‘working toward’ or are ‘not yet working’ on the innovation goals. • Most people felt we had reached goals such as ‘develop priorities’, ‘increased team collaboration’, and ‘developing a budget’ • When probed, participants stated that √ problems (domain prbs or visprbs? Or leaping from the domain to vis?) were ‘complex’, √ visualizations ‘useful, but not necessarily novel’, not necessarily the best way to communicate data, and ‘domain specific in order to be effective’, √ goals ‘vaguely worded’ (Susan’s interpretations of the ABI as stated in the survey?), √ and list of deliverables (as presented at retreat?) - ‘challenging’, ‘very optimistic’ • Related: it is expected that at least two participants (at least 1 is a collaborator?) will be using VISTAS results in research publications by 2014.
Recommendations based on high and low points… • in the future, a ‘dress rehearsal’ (e.g., checking out the rooms, the table size, the tech equipment) would make for a more comfortable and satisfactory experience • the group would benefit greatly from having more big group discussions about collaborators’ work
Team collaboration & integration • Most people (7/9) felt we reached this goal • one felt that we team dynamics should be discussed by senior leadership, while another felt we had exceeded the goal of