(written by John Shreve)
April 22, 2014
- John Shreve (KU)
- Greg Corpier (Telecare Global)
- Eric Humes (Keystone Technology)
- John Thompson (Keystone Technology)
1) The focus of the call today was focused on assessing what activities the I-70 discussion group should target in the short-term and long-term. While there have been a number of follow up meetings and initiatives after the November conference in Lawrence, the participants thought it worthwhile to identify some tangible steps to take. Andy offered to write a brief memo outlining some ideas that Keystone generated, which will be forthcoming.
2) Eric began the discussion by identifying various audiences that may be attracted to the idea of either joining the I-70 network or benefitting from its services. He mentioned “low hanging fruit” such as clinics or senior residential developments, with a few specific Keystone clients in the St. Louis area as examples. If we looked across our corridor, we should be able to identify several others who we could also target.
3) John agreed with this point, and added that it would also be helpful to classify the opportunities by project type. For example, one category of “projects” could be internal to the network, such as research grants. These, however, are often composed of multiple academic/institutional groups and have a relatively long timeframe to prepare proposals and to complete the actual work. A second category of “projects,” on the other hand, could be external to the network, such as the clientele that Eric mentioned. These may have a better chance of quicker timeframes.
4) Eric agreed with this, and commented that with either of these cases, it would be important to define the “value proposition” of exactly what skills and services the I-70 network individuals and/or team would bring to the table. Although we have identified a strong diversity of talent from the conference participants, there has yet to be an actual project which has directly spun out of the network. There are several sticks in the fire, however, such as the Bluebird fiber, Russ Waitman’s PCORI research grant, and ongoing academic initiatives such as aging-related classes and the New Cities lecture series.
5) John agreed with the need to clarify such a value proposition, noting that perhaps there is more than one, depending on the project type, timing, needed expertise, etc. He suggested that we should consider creating a matrix of possible project types and opportunities, along with different experts that could support the particular initiative or proposal. It would be even more powerful to link this to the Google Maps Engine, which can integrate databases and be customized to reflect the specific inquiries of a research group.
6) JT liked this idea, but also suggested other potential data sources and platforms that we should consider – upon further discussion, he agreed that a next tangible step would be to visit with Russ Waitman to learn how our interests may be able to utilize (and supplement) the bioinformatics that he is constructing with the PCORI project.
7) John mentioned that Dennis was organizing a follow up meeting with Russ sometime in the next few weeks to discuss his interactive platform could support a potential pilot project involving Occupational/Physical Therapy and architecture/urban planning variables.
8) Greg added that much their work with KC Digital Drive would integrate and support this kind of activity, and could be leveraged as the project(s) become better defined.
9) To close, the group agreed to review Andy’s memo; Eric will contact Russ directly to discuss possible partnering; John will touch base and update Dennis when he returns from Arizona to articulate a matrix of possible projects/clients to distribute for input.