Context• The rationale for the Common CV is easy to grasp

In the United Kingdom, most Commonwealth countries, and Ireland, a CV

is short (usually a maximum of two sides of A4 paper), and therefore

contains only a summary of the job seeker's employment history,

qualifications, education, and some personal information.

In the United States, Canada, Australia and India, a CV is a

comprehensive document used in academic circles and medical careers

that elaborate on education, publications, and other achievements. A CV

contains greater detail than a résumé, a shorter summary which is more

often used in applications for jobs, but it is often expected that

professionals use a short CV that highlights the current focus of their

academic lives and not necessarily their full history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curriculum_vitae

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)

Beware….

Original CCV site (www.commoncv.net) now owned by someone else.

The Modern CCV

Alzheimer Soc

Canadian Council for Arts

Canadian Diabetes Assoc

CFI

CGS

CIHR

Compute Canada

CRC

FRQS

Heart & Stroke Fdn

IMHR

Michael Smith Fdn HR

Multiple Sclerosis Society

New Brunswick HRF

NSERC

Nova Scotia HRF

OHTN

OICR

Ont Mental Health Fdn

Research Manitoba

St Josephs Hamilton

Saskatchewan HRF

SSHRC

U de Sherbrooke

Vanier/Banting

Vancouver Coastal HRI

Dropped CCV

Arthritis Soc

Canadian Cancer Soc

Genome Canada

Lawson HRI

Lung Assoc

26 members

The Modern CCV

Alzheimer Soc

Canadian Council for Arts

Canadian Diabetes Assoc

CFI

CGS

CIHR

Compute Canada

CRC

FRQS

Heart & Stroke Fdn

IMHR

Michael Smith Fdn HR

Multiple Sclerosis Society

New Brunswick HRF

NSERC

Nova Scotia HRF

OHTN

OICR

Ont Mental Health Fdn

Research Manitoba

St Josephs Hamilton

Saskatchewan HRF

SSHRC

U de Sherbrooke

Vanier/Banting

Vancouver Coastal HRI

Dropped CCV

Arthritis Soc

Canadian Cancer Soc

Genome Canada

Lawson HRI

Lung Assoc

26 members

The Tragedy of the Canadian Common CV

https://medium.com/@jwoodgett/the-tragedy-of-the-canadian-common-cv-

68063c4a8a3c#.k7gk80a2o

1. Reliability of site - downtime

2. Useability/Design - user experience

3. Members ever changing fields

4. Data import/maintenance

Core Problems

grant deadlines

downtimes

Hosted by Shared Services Canada

1. Reliability of site - downtime

2. Useability/Design - user experience

3. Members ever changing fields

4. Data import/maintenance

Core Problems

grant deadlines

downtimes

Hosted by Shared Services Canada

2 days before CIHR grant deadline last week….

As an aside, due to internal institutional deadlines,

This penalizes those who submitted on time

7:17pm

Oct 17

2. 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

• #FFS

• Has had clear deleterious effect on collaborative science

3. The Members Role

Notice of changes 1 day after 1st Foundation grant stage 1 deadline.

Likewise, 1 day after stage 2 deadline.

3. The Members Role

Notice of changes 1 day after 1st Foundation grant stage 1 deadline.

Likewise, 1 day after stage 2 deadline.

4. 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 Tendencies

If 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 (e.g. Proximify Uniweb)

Embrace ORCID!

Part Deux: CIHR Reforms

• The “Reforms” refer to the comprehensive series of changes to

CIHR investigator-intiated programs AND how they are adjudicated

• CIHR itself traces the beginning to their 2009 strategic plan “Health

Research Roadmap” which makes no mention of what happened

next.

But weren’t the reforms brought in due to

application pressure and lack of funding?

True - that funding (in real terms) had begun to flatline

but $ directed to strategic initiatives

But cancellation of two open competitions

led to real crisis in applications

You Are

Here

$

Delayed Project

Decreasing success rate/increased application pressure

13%

http://www.acechr.ca

Issues: inequality

Gender inequality

Funding inequality

Career inequality

(Michael Hendricks)

https://medium.com/@MHendr1cks/the-impact-of-cihr-reforms-on-early-

career-biomedical-scientists-in-canada-6aef2f14bb12#.2witwodj6

Issues: Technical

Issues: Technical

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.

• Execution of the inaugural Project grant competition was disastrous

• 3800 applications - 3000 applicants deemed ineligible to review

(later rescinded - but too late)

• Expertise matching algorithm ($1.7 million) failed, resulting in

manual matching…

• Resulting in delay of sending apps to reviewers….

• Resulting in reviewers dropping out (100 a day)…

• Resulting in desperate recruitment and considerable drop in quality

• #PScream - open letter to Minister of Health: 1300 PI signatures

• Working group established - recommendations are a start

Issues: Quality of Review

Ending Thoughts

1. 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.

9. Never have a list with 10 recommendations. At least one is redundant.

10. See 9.Ms Universe Canada

Ending Thoughts

1. 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.

9. Never have a list with 10 recommendations. At least one is redundant.

10. See 9.Ms Universe Canada

Do NOT Do This!!!