**caBIG™ Mentoring Capability Plan**

**December 22, 2006**

**The Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid ™ Program**

**Prepared by Jessica Bondy**

**University of Colorado Task Order 4**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

> **Executive Summary ........................................3**
>
> **Introduction ...................................................6**
>
> **Goals / Scope of the Mentoring Program \............7**
>
> **Background .................................................12**
>
> **Leadership and Structure ..............................15**
>
> **Use Scenarios ..............................................20**
>
> **Implementation of the Mentoring Program .......22**
>
> **Remaining Issues .......................................\...23**
>
> **Appendix A: Text of the Mentoring Survey ......26**
>
> **Appendix B: Mentoring Evaluation Forms .......27**

**[Executive Summary]{.underline}**

**Mentoring Program Goals.  **The Mentoring Capability Plan recommends
targeting specific, well-defined technical areas, some of which are
already being covered under existing mentoring structures.  

-   Mentoring should target topics that cannot be completely addressed
    by other information-exchange approaches and for which there is a
    clear, well-defined goal to be achieved.

-   In the near term, mentoring should be provided on VCDE, Grid
    architecture, Grid services, documentation and training, and
    adopting specific caBIG™ tools. Mentoring areas that were considered
    but rejected in favor of other educational resources include: caBIG
    business processes, the "science behind the tools," and methods for
    ensuring data quality on the Grid. 

-   Annually, ongoing mentoring topics should be reviewed and additional
    topics solicited from the caBIG™ community.  A mechanism for
    proposing topics at any time during the year should be publicized.

-   The most general level of outreach is not appropriate for mentoring,
    but those responsible for such outreach should foster a continuing
    dialog with prospective participants.

-   The marketing and outreach effort should be coordinated with the
    mentoring program such that clients experience a clean hand-off as
    they move from one form of support to the other.

**Factors affecting mentoring effectiveness and efficiency:**

-   The amount of time required for mentoring can vary widely, based on
    the complexity of the project, the experience of the developers and
    mentor, and the developers' background.  In a survey of mentors,
    estimates of the time spent \-- including both active mentoring and
    preparation \-- varied from 6-8 hours to 30-60 hours per project.

-   Mentoring becomes more efficient over time and is affected both by
    the availability of standard information that can be used to support
    mentoring and by the learning curve of the mentor.  

-   Mentoring is most effective when it begins early in the work
    process, but this approach is also more time consuming, particularly
    when deliverables reviews are involved.  

-   Mentors need train-the-trainer education in the specific topic being
    mentored; tacit knowledge is not enough.  

-   Mentoring should be rigorously supplemented with documentation and
    training; training requires resources to develop, but for many
    topics it is ultimately more cost-effective than mentoring.  

**Leadership.**  Three options for the organizational entity to receive
the funding, responsibility and authority to implement the mentoring
program are assessed:  (1) NCICB; (2) a Community Participant chosen by
RFP; (3) a Vendor / External Partner chosen by RFP. The paper ultimately
recommends option (2), although it is assumed that an entity within NCI
would be responsible for program oversight and monitoring.  

**Structure.**  The key business processes that will need to be defined
to make this effort successful include:

-   Defining sources from which mentors might be drawn (organizations
    with candidate mentors and existing expertise)

-   Recruiting and defining incentives for being a mentor

-   Training prospective mentors

-   Marketing the availability of the program

-   Maintaining a tracking system to ensure that all clients receive
    needed services

-   Coordinating mentoring activities and interfacing with workspace
    leads

-   Evaluating mentors to ensure high quality services are being
    provided

-   Monitoring current and emerging mentoring needs to ensure that the
    program adapts to changing needs

-   Matching mentoring supply with mentoring demand (capacity planning)

-   Managing and completing contracting for the program

The paper recommends that the business processes be aligned to the
leadership model using a three-tiered model: 

-   Leadership for the mentoring program should come from the caBIG™
    community, based on responses to an RFP. 

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The RFP should cover the effort to stand up, coordinate and monitor
    the program.  

-   Activities related to marketing the program, contracting, training,
    and compensating mentors should be centralized with the lead
    organization. 

-   The annual review of the program adapting it to changing mentoring
    needs should be centralized with the mentoring leadership
    organization, but with input from an advisory group representing
    NCICB and the caBIG™ community.

-   The intent -- if allowable -- is that the leadership organization
    negotiate SOWs to other organizations providing mentors to the
    effort. This contrast with the current model of having the General
    Contractor responsible for all SOWs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Mentoring coordinators situated at the workspace level and working
    closely with workspace leads should perform activities related to
    recruiting, training, matching, monitoring, and evaluating mentors. 
    These coordinating mentors would be contracted through the
    organization with leadership over the program.

-   The mentors themselves must be distributed across organizations,
    since no organization has adequate numbers of experts in all of the
    relevant topics.

**Critical Success Factors:**

-   The mentoring program must be coordinated with other outreach
    programs such as the Enterprise Adopter program so that the
    responsibilities of each program are clear.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Use scenarios to be handled by each program should be defined

-   A system to track contacts with specific projects across both the
    outreach / marketing and mentoring programs should be implemented.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The program must build adequate mentoring capacity. This will
    require:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   permitting multi-year contracts for mentors

-   implementing boot camps or other mechanisms to quickly build
    capacity in critical areas where few experts are available

-   defining and implementing incentives that will motivate community
    participants, many of whom are academicians, to mentor to others; a
    mechanism must be developed to recognize mentoring activities so
    that they count toward promotion.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The transition to new leadership should take place over several
    months in order to take advantage of existing mentoring expertise.

**Proposed Next Steps:**

-   Identify how mentoring will interface with the caBIG marketing
    program and other outreach efforts.

-   Select a group from the caBIG™ community to lead the mentoring
    effort, based on responses to an RFI/RFP.

-   Develop appropriate metrics for evaluating the mentoring program as
    a whole.

-   Assess the mentoring capacity needed for at least the next two
    years, based on forecasted caBIG™ project development and adoption. 
    Use this forecast to develop budget estimates.

-   Recruit and train workspace mentoring coordinators for the relevant
    workspaces.

-   Identify effective incentives for recruiting mentors.

-   Build mentoring capacity in topics where it is anticipated to be
    inadequate.

**[1. Introduction]{.underline}**

The pilot phase of caBIG™ clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of
mentors in spreading specialized technical knowledge within the caBIG™
community. The Vocabulary and Common Data Elements (VCDE) workspace has
provided substantial mentoring to funded projects to help them achieve
silver-level compatibility. Mentoring has also been provided by members
of the Documentation and Training (D&T) and Architecture (ARCH)
workspaces.

In March 2006, participants at the caBIG™ Strategic Planning
Face-to-Face meeting identified the need to develop a program-wide
mentoring strategy, to more clearly articulate how caBIG™ should
approach the development and deployment of mentors as caBIG™ moves out
of its pilot phase. This paper presents a standard approach and set of
business rules for a caBIG™-wide mentoring program. It identifies areas
that might specifically benefit from a mentoring and a methodology to
ensure that the mentoring program is scaleable across the program. It
also discusses issues related to mentor selection, training, matching,
and evaluation and suggests possible models for the leadership and
structure of the program.

**[2. Goals / Scope of the Mentoring Program]{.underline}**

Defining the role and scope of both the mentoring program and individual
mentors is critical to determining the resources required to make the
program and its mentors successful, and to managing expectations both
internally and externally -- both at a program level and for individual
mentors. In this section of the paper, we discuss the scope of the
mentoring program.

Mentoring is one of an array of approaches which may be used to convey
information. Other approaches include speakers, videos, websites, wikis,
listservs, printed media, documentation, training, and help desks. These
other approaches are all appropriately being used to meet the needs of
various segments of the existing and prospective caBIG™ community.
Mentoring differs from all of the other alternatives in that it involves
an ongoing interaction between individuals, as demonstrated in the
definition below, developed by the Documentation and Training Workspace:

> "Within the caBIG community, a Mentor functions as an advisor and
> expert resource for a colleague engaged in a variety of activities. A
> Mentor is instrumental in focusing resources and direction in order to
> produce a successful or progressive outcome."

These two characteristics -- the length of the relationship and the high
ratio of advisors to learners -- make mentoring a high-resource
solution, which should be deployed in a targeted fashion, to meet needs
not adequately addressed by other approaches. This view contrasts with
possible other models. For example, caBIG™ mentoring activities might be
structured as a clearinghouse, where the goal is to match those having
expertise with those needing help, without limiting the topics being
mentored. The clearinghouse model would utilize limited resources less
effectively than would targeting the mentoring effort at specific topics
which require long-term interaction with an expert.

In June 2006, a short survey was sent to the caBIG™ community to gather
ideas about what topics mentoring should address and how mentoring
should be structured (See Appendix A). Approximately ten participants
responded to the survey, and there was little consensus on any question.

Three questions about the scope of the program going forward were
considered:

-   Should the current model of mentoring for specialized, technical
    topics such as VCDE and Architecture be expanded to cover other
    topics not currently being mentored? Topics that were considered
    were Grid architecture, deploying Grid services, caBIG™ business
    processes, the science behind the tools, and ensuring data quality.
    These topics are discussed individually in Section 2.1, below.

-   Should the current model be changed to include mentors for other,
    less specialized topics? Topics considered here included general,
    high-level information about caBIG™ and intermediate-level
    information, helping people to connect with the right resources once
    they have been introduced to the program. These topics are discussed
    in Section 2.2, below.

-   Should aspects of the current model of mentoring be changed to
    off-load some responsibilities to other information-exchange
    approaches, such as documentation and training? Many of these
    suggestions came from interviews with current mentors and are
    discussed in the next section.

In considering these three questions, two principles for identifying
when mentoring was appropriate were followed:

-   mentoring should target topics that cannot be completely addressed
    by other information-exchange approaches

-   mentoring should target topics where there is a clear, well-defined
    goal to be achieved (e.g., silver-level compatibility, documentation
    and training that passes review)

***[2.1 Expanding the current model to include additional specialized
technical topics]{.underline}***

Five additional topics were explored: Grid architecture, deploying Grid
services, caBIG™ business processes, the science behind the tools, and
ensuring data quality.

-   [Grid architecture.]{.underline} Grid architecture mentoring refers
    to mentoring funded projects about how to meet gold-level
    compatibility requirements in the areas of programming and messaging
    interfaces. Although this has been part of the caBIG™ mentoring plan
    from the beginning, Grid architecture mentoring has been
    substantially less active than has VCDE mentoring because
    grid-enablement was until recently restricted to a very small number
    of "reference implementations" and the gold-level compatibility
    guidelines have not been firmly established. We find that this topic
    addresses a clear, well-defined goal and requires on-going advice
    from experts familiar with both the funded project and the
    gold-level compatibility requirements. Therefore, **mentoring on
    Grid architecture should remain a part of the mentoring plan.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Grid services.]{.underline} As caBIG™ matures, groups desiring
    either to consume of caBIG™ Grid-enabled tools and data or to share
    locally-generated data will need to learn how to deploy Grid
    services. Step-by-step technical information about how to implement
    a grid node is summarized already in the caCORE SDK documentation,
    and reference material on the high level capabilities of the Grid
    will be included in a User Guide, planned for release in
    December 2006. This topic addresses a clear, well-defined goal,
    which currently requires some education beyond what is available in
    existing documents. However, the need for mentoring on this topic
    may be short-lived, both because additional documentation and
    training will be available shortly and because once a center has
    experience deploying one Grid service, deploying the second will be
    substantially easier. For institutions which have limited technical
    infrastructure, documentation and training may not provide enough
    information, and mentoring needs may persist longer than at other
    institutions. **Mentoring on deploying Grid services should be
    included in the mentoring plan, but the continuing need should be
    monitored.**

-   [Specific caBIG™ tools]{.underline}. In order to support the
    widespread adoption of caBIG™ tools, short-term mentoring of
    adopters on installation and operation of specific tools may be
    advisable. Adopters should first be referred to documentation and
    training, which is being developed for every caBIG™ product, but if
    that information is not sufficient to solve the adopters' problems,
    mentoring should be available as a back-up. This mentoring will be
    most important for early adopters; after a community of users has
    been established, listservs or users' groups may be expected to take
    over this activity. This topic fits the criterion of having a
    well-defined goal that is not well-addressed by other
    information-exchange approaches. **Mentoring on the deployment and
    operation of specific caBIG™ tools should be included in the
    mentoring plan, but the continuing need should be monitored as user
    communities are built.**

-   [caBIG™ business processes]{.underline}. For funded participants,
    navigating caBIG™ business processes can be complex and daunting,
    owing to the multiple systems (caMP, GForge, CVS) with which they
    must interact and the many deliverables which must be tracked.
    Complying with caBIG™ business processes has been especially
    difficult during caBIG™'s pilot phase owing to changes in the
    processes and systems, changes that have not always been reflected
    in the documentation in a timely manner. This topic fits the
    criterion of having a well-defined goal, and in the past, it was a
    topic that could not be addressed well by other information-exchange
    approaches because it was in flux. As the business processes become
    more stable with time, however, it is becoming possible to create
    training materials and documentation on this topic. GForge
    documentation and training already exists, and basic PowerPoint
    presentations that describe the use of CVS, caMP, and Invoice Online
    are also available. Moreover, there is already a natural "mentor"
    for this topic: the liaison at the master contractor already has an
    ongoing relationship with the funded participant and should
    theoretically be intimately familiar with both the business
    processes and the state of a particular participant's compliance
    with those processes. In fact, this has not always been the case,
    owing to frequent turn-over in personnel at the Master Contractor.
    Nevertheless, injecting an additional set of actors into an already
    complex process may be counterproductive. Consequently, **no
    additional mentoring on caBIG™ business processes is proposed, but
    the Master Contractor is encouraged to assure that new personnel are
    thoroughly briefed on the status of each project for which they are
    responsible, so that they can provide sound guidance regarding
    business processes .** **In addition, documentation and training on
    business processes and systems should be developed where that does
    not already exist. The documentation should be regularly updated to
    reflect any changes or extensions to standard practice.**

-   [The science behind the tools.]{.underline} Participants come to
    caBIG™ from a wide variety of backgrounds, which enriches the
    program but also makes it difficult for participants to understand
    each other and to understand how the range of caBIG™ tools informs
    cancer research. Addressing this difficulty is an appropriate
    ambition for caBIG™ that could be accomplished in part by offering
    education in the science underlying the caBIG™ tools. Nevertheless,
    this topic has no clear goal to be achieved at the individual level
    (i.e., there is no certification); it can be addressed with other
    information-exchange approaches such as documentation, training, and
    listservs; and, although they may not be tied tightly to caBIG™
    tools, resources discussing this topic already exist outside of
    caBIG™. Thus, **the caBIG™** **mentoring program should not be
    expanded to include the science behind the tools, but existing
    educational resources (e.g., web pages, documents) should be
    identified and publicized to the caBIG™ community**. If a scientific
    topic is identified as important and no outside educational
    resources are found, it might be a candidate for development of
    documentation and/or training.

-   [Insuring data quality.]{.underline} Insuring data quality will be
    increasingly important as more data services come on the Grid;
    investigators will need to know that the data they are including in
    their studies are valid and accurate. While this is an important
    issue, there are currently no standards which data must meet in
    order to be shared. The current proposal is to handle this issue by
    adding metadata tags indicating the quality of available data and
    making users responsible for ensuring that they use only data that
    are of the quality they need. **Mentoring on insuring data quality
    has no clear, well-defined goal, and is therefore the caBIG™
    mentoring program should not include this topic, at least in the
    near term.**

#### As this discussion indicates, the topics appropriate for mentoring will change over time; some topics will no longer require mentoring as additional documentation and training become available, and others will emerge as caBIG™ expands into new areas. The mentoring program must institute methods to identify emerging needs and to retire outdated topics. Topics with ongoing mentoring should be reviewed annually to determine whether they are is still needed and whether that need can now be covered adequately with documentation and training materials. Emerging topics can likewise be identified annually by a solicitation to the caBIG™ community, but, urgent needs may also arise at any time. The mentoring program should solicit additional topics annually from the caBIG™ community and should publicize a mechanism for proposing topics at any time during the year. This review should be applied comprehensively, so even to the topics discussed above can be revisited if appropriate.

***[2.2 Changing the current model to include less-specialized
topics]{.underline}***

There is general agreement that the highest, most general level of
outreach is appropriately handled by marketing and outreach efforts
being led by the internal caBIG™ Communications Team and the Strategic
Planning Workspace Embedding caBIG™ in the Larger Community Working
Group, rather than by mentoring. Some aspects of general outreach are
better-addressed by information-exchange approaches other than
mentoring. Given caBIG™'s complexity and range, prospective participants
may not be able to self-identify as being interested in a particular
caBIG™ activity or workspace. To be successful, outreach therefore needs
to be relationship-based, fostering a continuing dialog with prospective
participants. In this respect, the marketing activity should be similar
to mentoring. However, general outreach may require: 1) peer-level
interaction with decision-makers, e.g., Cancer Center Directors speaking
to other Cancer Center Directors; 2) broad, integrated knowledge of
caBIG™, rather than narrow, highly-technical skills; and/or 3) technical
skills in the development of marketing campaigns. Because these
requirements do not match the skills mentors are likely to bring to the
table, **the highest level of outreach should remain with the existing
teams.**

#### On the other hand, a role for mentors does exist at an intermediate level, helping people to connect with the right resources once they have been introduced to the program by a marketing effort. For example, this mentoring might include aid in adopting specialized caBIG™ tools such as the Tissue Banking and Pathology Tools suite. The complexity, changing status, and range of both caBIG™ activities and researchers' needs make this role one that cannot be well-addressed by static, canned information-exchange approaches. Further, there is a well-defined goal: putting potential participants in touch with the support they need to increase adoption of tools, data sharing, and compatibility standards. The marketing and outreach effort should be coordinated with these mentors so that clients experience a clean hand-off as they move from one form of support to the other.

***[2.3 Summary of recommendations regarding program
goals]{.underline}***

-   Mentoring should target topics that cannot be completely addressed
    by other information-exchange approaches and for which there is a
    clear, well-defined goal to be achieved.

-   In the near term, mentoring should be provided on VCDE, Grid
    architecture, Grid services, documentation and training, and
    adopting specific caBIG™ tools.

-   Annually, ongoing mentoring topics should be reviewed and additional
    topics solicited from the caBIG™ community. A mechanism for
    proposing topics at any time during the year should be publicized.

-   The most general level of outreach is not appropriate for mentoring,
    but those responsible for such outreach should foster a continuing
    dialog with prospective participants.

-   Mentors should play a role in connecting participants with the right
    resources once they have been engaged by the marketing effort.

-   The marketing and outreach effort should be coordinated with the
    mentoring program such that clients experience a clean hand-off as
    they move from one form of support to the other.

**[3. Background]{.underline}**

***[3.1 Survey of experienced mentors]{.underline}***

To date, most mentoring activities have occurred in the D&T and VCDE
work spaces. The D&T WS Mentoring SIG has concentrated on developing
documentation and training templates, review guidelines, mentor
evaluation forms, and metrics. Perhaps owing to the thoroughness of
these templates, most caBIG™ participants charged with creating
documentation and training have not needed the help of a mentor.

Most mentoring to date has been provided by the VCDE workspace. In order
to learn from that experience, interviews were conducted with some
experienced mentors, including those who received mentoring awards at
the 2006 caBIG™ Annual Meeting. Interviews tended to be wide-ranging,
and, because VCDE mentors for a project become the lead compatibility
reviewer for that project, the interviews sometimes developed into
discussions of compatibility review. Thus, some of the comments below
pertain to compatibility review itself, but these comments are included
because they have implications for other areas. This section does not
describe how mentoring has been structured so far but does discuss
issues and solutions elicited in the interviews.

Interviewees were in all cases asked the following questions:

1.  What mentoring activities were you engaged in?

2.  What areas need further mentoring support?

3.  What was the time and duration of your mentoring engagements?

4.  What key best practices and lessons learned could improve the
    mentoring process?

In all, nine mentors were contacted for interviews. Interviews were
conducted with six mentors: Brian Davis (3^rd^ Millennium), Bob Freimuth
(Mayo), Lewis Frey (University of Utah), Sal Mungal (Duke), Patrick
McConnell (Duke), and Claire Wolfe (NCICB). Together, these mentors
advised primarily on how to construct UML information models, how to
pass silver-compatibility reviews, and the logistics of getting the data
model through the Semantic Integrator Workbench. In general, the mentors
agreed on a number of points, noted below.

***[3.1 Findings from survey of experienced mentors]{.underline}***

**Mentoring and performing compatibility reviews require substantial
time.** Needs vary widely, based on the complexity of project, the
experience of the developers and mentor, and the developers' readiness
to embrace semantic interoperability. Estimates of the time spent \--
including both active mentoring and preparation \-- varied from six to
eight hours to 30 to 60 hours per project. These estimates are within
the figure used in creating SOWs for the VCDE workspace: 50 to 100 hours
per project for mentoring and a similar amount of time for compatibility
review.

**Mentoring has become more efficient over time, owing to several
developments.** Early in the pilot, everyone \-- mentors and developers
alike \-- was learning on the job. Vocabulary tools were not yet stable,
and the VCDE workspace had not yet developed standard processes and
procedures for performing compatibility reviews. Clearly defining these
standard processes and procedures was cited by several mentors as
critical to helping them perform their role efficiently. Until it was
decided what items would be reviewed, how each item would be
interpreted, and how important each item was, it was difficult for
mentors to provide sound advice. Another factor contributing to greater
efficiency in the VCDE arena is the fact that some models now have been
developed to the point that they can simply be re-used. In this case,
the mentor's role is to make the developers aware of the existing model
and to help them understand it.

**Mentors need to be involved early in the development process.**
Project managers need to make sure mentors are introduced to the right
people and know the project timeline. In the early phases of caBIG™,
mentors were involved at the point of compatibility review, which
sometimes led to inefficiencies because projects were required to rework
their code. This issue is being addressed or could be addressed by:
assigning mentors as soon as possible once a project gets underway,
requiring mentors to sign off on many of the deliverables along the way,
and having mentors attend face to face meetings between developers and
adopters as well as project teleconferences. While most mentors
interviewed felt that early involvement would improve the process, some
noted that it would require more time from mentors. Requiring mentors to
sign off on deliverables was cited as particularly time-consuming.

**Mentors/reviewers would benefit from more training.** Some mentors
felt that they were hampered in their mentoring by a lack of training in
how to conduct a compatibility review. Such training is now becoming
available. The processes and procedures of compatibility review have
been summarized in a training module that was delivered at the July VCDE
/ Architecture face-to-face meeting. This training was found to be very
helpful and may be repeated at future Architecture face-to-face meetings
The information in this training may also comprise one or two future
modules in the caCORE or caBIG™ curricula On the documentation side, a
"recipe" document is planned, which will lay out the step-by-step
process for performing a review. The mentors felt that comparable
training and documentation should be developed for reviews in other
areas in which mentoring is to occur, e.g. architecture. Although D&T
mentors were not interviewed, it should be noted that this workspace has
developed criteria for reviewing documentation and training materials
and has conducted two successful boot camps on how to review and mentor
these topics.

**Mentoring / reviewing could be streamlined by off-loading some topics
to other information-transfer approaches.** For instance, developers
should be required to take the caCORE curriculum and to read the SDK
manual so mentors do not need to teach that material. The caCORE
curriculum should be available asynchronously so that people can take it
when they are engaged in the work. Additional caCORE curricula should be
designed to address questions that mentors are now commonly answering.
The content for such curricula could be identified by querying the
mentors for frequently asked questions. White papers on best practices
should be published. Reviews could be streamlined by automating as much
as possible of the process. For instance, an RFP for a tool to
automatically check UML models is being considered.

Other efforts that might improve the efficiency of mentoring include
clarifying the scope of mentors' responsibilities where they interface
with those of NCI staff and making communication between mentors and
mentees easier to set up. In the VCDE workspace, some topics, such as
annotation, should be addressed by NCI. This division of responsibility
was not always clear to the developers, but has more recently been
facilitated by NCI liaisons assigned to the development projects.
Finally, on a more tactical level, mentors and developers should be
encouraged to set up their own teleconferences without having to wait on
the workspace lead to set them up.

In conclusion, mentoring in any technical topic area will benefit from
first developing standard processes for the topic being mentored. Once
these are established, creating documentation and training around those
processes will allow some aspects of knowledge transfer to be off-loaded
and will likewise enable the mentors to provide targeted guidance. As
new topics are encountered, it is reasonable to expect mentoring to
undergo a bootstrapping phase, such as was experienced by the VCDE
workspace. But understanding the importance of standard processes,
documentation, and training should limit the length of that phase.

***[3.3 Summary of recommendations regarding streamlining
mentoring]{.underline}***

-   Mentoring in any technical topic area benefits from first developing
    standard processes for the topic being mentored.

-   Documentation and training should be developed based on those
    standard processes as soon as possible.

-   Mentors should refer learners to these other modalities whenever
    feasible.

**[4. Leadership and Structure]{.underline}**

There are a number of alternative models for the leadership and
structure of the caBIG™ mentoring program. "Leadership" concerns who is
given the resources and decision-making power to implement the program
and who has final accountability for its success. Structure refers to
the way the program is executed and how roles and responsibilities are
assigned.

***[4.1 Leadership]{.underline}***

The survey of the caBIG™ community, mentioned above, solicited input
regarding who should lead the mentoring effort. Four possibilities were
proposed: the NCI, an external partner, an organization selected on the
basis of a competitive RFP or the caBIG™ community. Like the question
about goals of mentoring, no consensus was evident in the responses,
although the community and a competitive RFP were cited most often. The
four options are not necessarily distinct. For example, a RFP might be
used to recruit a member organization from the community. Interestingly,
no responses favored an external partner.

Three key questions regarding leadership are:

-   Does the proposed organization have or could it acquire adequate
    numbers of staff with the appropriate skills to manage the program?

-   Does the proposed organization have enough familiarity with the
    organization and goals of caBIG™ to be able to ramp up quickly?

-   Does the proposed organization have or could it expeditiously
    acquire an understanding of the mentoring needs of the current and
    prospective caBIG™ community?

The table below lays out the pros and cons of three possible leadership
models. Whichever model is chosen, the effort will need long-term
financial support to be successful.

Table 1. Mentoring Leadership Models

+--------+-------------------+---------------------------+-------------+
| **Lead | **Centralized at  | **RFP to Community        | **RFP to    |
| ership | NCICB**           | Participant**             | Vendor /    |
| m      |                   |                           | External    |
| odel** |                   |                           | Partner**   |
+--------+-------------------+---------------------------+-------------+
| Str    | -   Is very       | -   Should be able to     | -   Should  |
| engths |     familiar with |     acquire adequate      |     be able |
|        |     caBIG™ goals  |     staffing, given       |     to      |
|        |     and           |     adequate funding      |     acquire |
|        |     organization  |                           |             |
|        |                   | -   Is very familiar with |    adequate |
|        | -   Has a good    |     caBIG™ goals and      |             |
|        |     understanding |     organization          |   staffing, |
|        |     of mentoring  |                           |     given   |
|        |     needs of the  | -   Should have a good    |             |
|        |     caBIG™        |     understanding of      |    adequate |
|        |     community     |     mentoring needs of    |     funding |
|        |                   |     the caBIG™ community  |             |
|        | -   Will be       |                           |             |
|        |     responsive to | -   invested in the       |             |
|        |     long-term NCI |     success of the        |             |
|        |     perspective   |     program               |             |
|        |                   |                           |             |
|        | -   invested in   |                           |             |
|        |     the success   |                           |             |
|        |     of the        |                           |             |
|        |     program       |                           |             |
+--------+-------------------+---------------------------+-------------+
| Weak   | -   May not be    | -   Less responsive to    | -   Less    |
| nesses |     able to       |     long-term NCI         |             |
| /      |     acquire       |     perspective           |    familiar |
| risks  |     adequate      |                           |     with    |
|        |     staffing      | -   Less chance of        |     caBIG™  |
|        |                   |     long-term stability   |     goals   |
|        | -   Because many  |     of the program?       |     and     |
|        |     NCICB         |                           |     o       |
|        |     projects are  |                           | rganization |
|        |     staffed with  |                           |             |
|        |     contractors,  |                           | -   Less    |
|        |     there may be  |                           |     un      |
|        |     considerable  |                           | derstanding |
|        |     staff         |                           |     of      |
|        |     turnover      |                           |             |
|        |                   |                           |   mentoring |
|        |                   |                           |     needs   |
|        |                   |                           |     of the  |
|        |                   |                           |     caBIG™  |
|        |                   |                           |             |
|        |                   |                           |   community |
|        |                   |                           |             |
|        |                   |                           | -   may not |
|        |                   |                           |     be able |
|        |                   |                           |     to      |
|        |                   |                           |     provide |
|        |                   |                           |             |
|        |                   |                           |   long-term |
|        |                   |                           |             |
|        |                   |                           |   stability |
|        |                   |                           |     to the  |
|        |                   |                           |     program |
|        |                   |                           |             |
|        |                   |                           | may not be  |
|        |                   |                           | as invested |
|        |                   |                           | in the      |
|        |                   |                           | success of  |
|        |                   |                           | the program |
|        |                   |                           | as is NCI   |
|        |                   |                           | or the      |
|        |                   |                           | community   |
+--------+-------------------+---------------------------+-------------+
| Key    | -   identify      | -   develop RFP           | -   develop |
| steps  |     responsible   |                           |     RFP     |
| in     |     party within  | -   publish RFP           |             |
| im     |     NCI           |                           | -   publish |
| plemen |                   | -   choose organization   |     RFP     |
| tation |                   |                           |             |
|        |                   |                           | choose      |
|        |                   |                           | o           |
|        |                   |                           | rganization |
+--------+-------------------+---------------------------+-------------+

***[4.2 Structure]{.underline}***

In addition to leadership, the several key activities were identified
which might influence the structure of the mentoring program:

-   [Recruiting]{.underline}. Effective mentors will have both expertise
    in a designated subject area (either broad or deep) and a
    personality suited to supportive and effective teaching. Identifying
    people with the expertise, talent, and motivation to be good mentors
    will be a major task for the mentoring program. The program must
    assure sufficient numbers of mentors to meet the changing demands
    that emerge over time. This will require defining and providing
    incentives which would motivate someone to be a mentor. In addition
    to remuneration, incentives will need to include mechanisms for
    recognizing this activity in ways that count significantly toward
    career advancement.

-   [Training]{.underline}. Once a mentor candidate has been selected,
    it will be vital to provide that mentor with the training, skills,
    and resources required to be effective in the role. Training and
    mentoring skills development, and resources/tools to support the
    mentoring process, must be part of any mentoring program. Training
    may be especially important in the development of workspace
    mentoring coordinators; people with the breadth of knowledge
    required to succeed in that role may not yet exist and may need to
    be cultivated. Likewise, training will be critical to developing
    mentors for technical topics where the pool of experts is not yet
    adequate to meet demand.

-   [Marketing / adapting to changing mentoring needs]{.underline}. As
    noted in the previous section, mentoring needs will change over
    time. To succeed, the program must remove outdated mentoring topics
    and add new ones. Some new topics may be obvious to the leadership,
    but the mentoring program should also be marketed to provide an
    avenue for topics to bubble up from the community. Whoever leads the
    program, this particular activity would benefit from broad input, so
    an advisory group, with membership from NCICB and a spectrum of the
    caBIG™ community, should be constituted to help with an annual
    review of mentoring topics. As part of the annual review, this group
    should address capacity planning, i.e. how projected mentoring needs
    will be met.

-   [Coordinating / filtering / matching]{.underline}. In addition to
    insuring an adequate supply of mentors, the program must manage the
    demand side of the program, by making sure that those who need
    mentors are aware of the program. Potential mentoring clients will
    be referred by the caBIG™ marketing effort, domain workspace leads,
    domain workspace mentoring coordinators, and by the clients
    themselves. Documentation, training, and other resources will
    suffice to address the needs of some clients. Those whose needs can
    be addressed by resources other than mentoring will need to be
    identified and directed to the relevant resources. Assessment
    instruments to quickly screen for content gaps and needs should be
    developed to identify which clients need mentors. Mentors must then
    be matched to clients, and the mentoring relationship must be
    negotiated so that the expectations of both parties are clear.

-   [Monitoring / evaluating.]{.underline} The mentoring relationship
    must be monitored and evaluated, based on the expectations set forth
    earlier. Metrics for successful mentoring should be developed. These
    metrics must reflect the fact that the mentoring relationship
    depends on both the mentor and the learner; thus, successful
    mentoring will not necessarily result in the mentored project
    passing review. Mentor and mentee evaluation forms developed by the
    D&T Mentoring SIG may be appropriate for this function (See Appendix
    B). Both the mentors and the learners should be debriefed, to
    evaluate whether the relationship has satisfied the requirements for
    payment and to accumulate best practices for future mentoring. The
    debriefing should include a discussion of time spent in mentoring so
    that compensation can be adjusted to reflect the average resources
    required. This information should also be fed into the annual
    capacity planning.

-   [Contracting / compensating]{.underline}. As mentors are recruited,
    statements of work must be written. As work is completed and upon
    evaluation that expectations have been met, payment must be made.

Some of these activities must be distributed, others must be centralized
with the leadership organization, and still others will require a mix of
both centralized and decentralized components. Specifically,

-   The mentors themselves must be distributed across organizations,
    since no organization has adequate numbers of experts in all of the
    relevant topics. Although in theory an organization or individual
    might choose to make caBIG™ mentoring the focus of their work, in
    practice the individuals providing mentoring are likely to be
    involved in other activities and to devote only a relatively small
    portion of their time to mentoring.

-   Activities related to marketing the program, contracting, training,
    and compensating mentors are best centralized.

-   The annual review of the program adapting it to changing mentoring
    needs should be centralized, but with input from an advisory group
    representing NCICB and the caBIG™ community.

-   Activities related to recruiting, filtering, matching, monitoring,
    and evaluating mentors would benefit from the thorough knowledge of
    workspace participants and activities which workspace leads possess.

    -   The WS lead knows who participates in the workspace and could
        gauge the personality and level of domain knowledge of the
        potential recruit.

    -   The WS lead is aware of the projects under development and the
        background of their staffs. S(he) is thus well-positioned to
        identify funded groups needing mentoring.

    -   The WS lead is appraised of the mentoring sessions and sometimes
        attends them.

    -   The WS lead is aware of the development stage of each project in
        the workspace, as well as the resources (documentation,
        training, and mentoring) available to help groups with adoption
        of caBIG™ tools. S(he) is thus well-positioned to take on the
        role of mentoring coordinator.

> Nevertheless, WS leads do not have time to take on the additional
> mentoring coordination role. One possible solution to this issue is to
> assign a co-lead to each relevant WS whose responsibility is to
> coordinate mentoring. These people would work closely with the
> existing workspace leads, but would report to the organization chosen
> to lead the mentoring program. If this approach is implemented,
> approximately seven workspace mentoring coordinators would be needed
> to cover VCDE, Architecture, D&T and the four domain workspaces
> (Integrated Cancer Research (ICR), Clinical Trials Management Systems
> (CTMS), Tissue Banking and Pathology Tools (TBPT), and Imaging). These
> mentoring coordinator positions would not necessarily be full-time.

***[4.3 Recommendations regarding mentoring leadership and
structure]{.underline}***

-   Leadership for the mentoring program should come from the caBIG™
    community, based on responses to an RFP, because:

    -   The caBIG™ Community has a greater vested interest in the
        success of the program than would a third party.

    -   The community (or at least some members of it) knows the program
        and the mentoring needs better than would a third party, and
        therefore could ramp up more quickly and would be more
        responsive.

    -   NCI would also be a good choice, but for the fact that there are
        constraints on increasing staffing inside the government itself.

-   The mentors themselves must be distributed across organizations,
    since no organization has adequate numbers of experts in all of the
    relevant topics.

-   Activities related to marketing the program, contracting, training,
    and compensating mentors should be centralized with the lead
    organization.

-   The annual review of the program adapting it to changing mentoring
    needs should be centralized, but with input from an advisory group
    representing NCICB and the caBIG™ community.

-   Activities related to recruiting, matching, monitoring, and
    evaluating mentors should be performed by mentoring coordinators
    situated at the workspace level and working closely with workspace
    leads.

**[5. Use Scenarios]{.underline}**

This section presents scenarios of how the proposed program would
address example mentoring needs.

***[5.1 Funded developer]{.underline}***

Mentoring funded developers in technical subjects such as vocabulary and
architecture will follow the current implementation, except that some
functions currently assigned to the lead of the workspace providing
mentoring will now be assigned to the workspace mentoring coordinator.
Each developer team will be matched with a vocabulary mentor and an
architecture mentor at the start of the project. The mentoring
coordinators in these spaces will be responsible for matching teams to
mentors, setting expectations, monitoring the relationship, and
evaluating the mentors. The mentoring coordinator will communicate
expectations to the mentoring leadership organization so that it can
write the SOW and will communicate when expectations have been met, so
that payment can be made.

***[5.2 Unfunded developer seeking to make applications or databases
meet compatibility standards]{.underline}***

Organizations with existing applications which they wish to make caBIG™
compatible will, like funded developers, need access to vocabulary and
architecture mentors. The assignment, monitoring, and evaluation of
mentors will be performed by the mentor coordinator, as above, but the
process will be different in two ways. First, these organizations will
likely not self-refer to the VCDE and Architecture workspaces (WS).
Instead, they will present to the caBIG™ marketing group or perhaps to
the domain workspace. In either case, they will need to be referred to
the VCDE and Architecture WS. Second, the mentoring program may face
capacity issues in trying to serve both funded and unfunded clients. A
process for allocating mentors which keeps funded projects on time while
still encouraging those with in-house applications and databases to meet
compatibility standards will be needed.

***[5.3 Unfunded adopter]{.underline}***

Some organizations interested in adopting a particular caBIG™ tool will
require technical help in the details of how to install it and get it
working or in understanding the subtleties of how it works. Much of this
need should be addressed by the documentation and training materials
developed for the tool, but in some cases, contact with developers or
adopters may get the new organization "over the hump." These
organizations, like those in the second use case, may present to the
marketing group, rather than to the domain workspace. The marketing
group should refer these organizations to the relevant domain workspace
mentoring coordinator, who should put them in contact with adopters or
developers, as appropriate. Because these mentoring relationships are
likely to be intense but short-lived, it may be appropriate to include
the expectation of such support in the adopters' and developers' SOWs,
rather than negotiating a separate SOW. If this approach is pursued,
there should be a limit to the period over which funded participants are
expected to provide mentoring. This concern is discussed further in
Section 7 below. As communities of users for specific tools grow,
responsibility for this form of mentoring should be assumed by
listservs, GForge forums, users groups, or the NCICB application support
team.

***[5.4 Interested Party]{.underline}***

Some organizations will be interested in caBIG™ but will not yet have
identified which caBIG™ tools are appropriate for their environment.
Such organizations will likely first encounter caBIG™ through the
marketing effort. The process of engaging them might be: 1) marketing
gets a center or investigator interested in caBIG™; 2) a workspace
mentoring coordinator helps that person identify relevant tools and
connects them with documentation, training, and, where necessary,
experts (i.e., technical mentors) on those tools; 3) technical mentors
provide detailed support, as currently structured.

The table below summarizes these scenarios.

Table 2. Mentoring Use Scenarios

+----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------------+
| **M      | **caBIG™  | **         | **         | **Interested**   |
| entoring | De        | Unfunded** | Unfunded** |                  |
| Client** | veloper** |            |            | **Party**        |
|          |           | **D        | *          |                  |
|          |           | eveloper** | *Adopter** |                  |
+----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------------+
| O        | > Create  | Make       | Adopt      | Learn about      |
| bjective | > caBIG™  | existing   | specific   | caBIG™ tools in  |
|          | > c       | a          | caBIG™     | a specific       |
|          | ompatible | pplication | tool       | workspace.       |
|          | > ap      | or         |            | (NOTE:           |
|          | plication | database   |            | interested       |
|          | > or      | caBIG™     |            | parties may      |
|          | >         | compatible |            | become unfunded  |
|          |  database |            |            | developers or    |
|          |           |            |            | adopters)        |
+----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------------+
| Referred | -         | -          | -          | -   Marketing    |
| to       |    Domain |  Marketing |  Marketing |                  |
| m        |     WS    |            |            | -   Domain WS    |
| entoring |     lead  | -   Domain | -   Domain |     lead         |
| by       |           |     WS     |     WS     |                  |
|          |           |     lead   |            | -   Domain WS    |
|          |           |            |  Mentoring |     Mentoring    |
|          |           | -   Domain |     C      |     coordinator  |
|          |           |     WS     | oordinator |     for a        |
|          |           |            |            |     different WS |
|          |           |  Mentoring | -   Self   |                  |
|          |           |     c      |            | -   Self         |
|          |           | oordinator |            |                  |
+----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------------+
| M        | 1.  VCDE  | 1.  VCDE   | -          | -   caBIG™ tool  |
| entoring |           |            |   Specific |     set          |
| Topic(s) | 2.  ARCH  | 2.  ARCH   |     caBIG™ |                  |
|          |           |            |     tool   |                  |
+----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------------+
| Mentors  | 1.  VCDE  | -   VCDE   | -          | -   WS mentoring |
|          |     WS    |     WS     |    Adopter |     coordinator  |
|          |           |            |     (or    |                  |
|          |   members |    members |     d      |                  |
|          |           |            | eveloper?) |                  |
|          | 2.  ARCH  | -   ARCH   |     of     |                  |
|          |     WS    |     WS     |            |                  |
|          |           |            |   specific |                  |
|          |   members |    members |     caBIG™ |                  |
|          |           |            |     tool   |                  |
+----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------------+
| Res      | -   VCDE  | -   VCDE   | -   Any    | -   Any domain   |
| ponsible |           |            |     domain |     WS (CTMS,    |
| M        | -   ARCH  | -   ARCH   |     WS     |     ICR, TBPT,   |
| entoring |           |            |     (CTMS, |     or imaging)  |
| Coordi   |           |            |     ICR,   |                  |
| nator(s) |           |            |     TBPT,  |                  |
|          |           |            |     or     |                  |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          |           |            |   imaging) |                  |
+----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------------+
| Role of  | -   Match | -   Match  | -   Match  | -   Describe     |
| the WS   |           |            |            |     caBIG™ tool  |
| m        | -   Set   | -   Set    | -   Set    |     set          |
| entoring |     exp   |     ex     |     ex     |                  |
| coo      | ectations | pectations | pectations | ```{=html}       |
| rdinator |           |            |            | <!-- -->         |
|          | -         | -          | -          | ```              |
|          |   Monitor |    Monitor |    Monitor | -   Help client  |
|          |           |            |            |     identify     |
|          | -         | -          | -          |     relevant     |
|          |  Evaluate |   Evaluate |   Evaluate |     tools        |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          | -   Co    | -   C      |            | ```{=html}       |
|          | mmunicate | ommunicate |            | <!-- -->         |
|          |     with  |     with   |            | ```              |
|          |     l     |            |            | -   Connect      |
|          | eadership | leadership |            |     client with  |
|          |           |            |            |     resources    |
+----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------------+
| Role of  | -         |            |            |                  |
| the      |  Contract |            |            |                  |
| m        |           |            |            |                  |
| entoring | -   C     |            |            |                  |
| le       | ompensate |            |            |                  |
| adership |           |            |            |                  |
|          | -   Train |            |            |                  |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          | -   Set   |            |            |                  |
|          |     scope |            |            |                  |
|          |     of    |            |            |                  |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          | mentoring |            |            |                  |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          |    topics |            |            |                  |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          | -   Set   |            |            |                  |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          |  policies |            |            |                  |
|          |     for   |            |            |                  |
|          |     pri   |            |            |                  |
|          | oritizing |            |            |                  |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          |  projects |            |            |                  |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          | -   Set   |            |            |                  |
|          |     i     |            |            |                  |
|          | ncentives |            |            |                  |
|          |     and   |            |            |                  |
|          |     pe    |            |            |                  |
|          | rformance |            |            |                  |
|          |           |            |            |                  |
|          |  measures |            |            |                  |
+----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------------+

**[6. Implementation of the Mentoring Program]{.underline}**

1.  ***[Recommendations]{.underline}***

-   Mentoring should target topics that cannot be completely addressed
    by other information-exchange approaches and for which there is a
    clear, well-defined goal to be achieved.

-   The topics appropriate for mentoring will change over time and
    should be reviewed at least annually for continued need.

-   In addition to covering technical topics, mentors should play a role
    in connecting participants with the right resources once they have
    been engaged by the marketing effort.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Leadership for the mentoring program should come from the caBIG™
    community, based on responses to an RFP.

-   Activities related to recruiting, matching, monitoring, and
    evaluating mentors should be performed by mentoring coordinators
    situated at the workspace level, working closely with workspace
    leads, and reporting to the mentoring leadership organization.

-   The mentoring leadership organization should use targeted training
    (e.g. boot camps) to foster recruitment of workspace mentoring
    coordinators and mentors in high-demand content areas (e.g., VCDE).

    1.  ***[Tactical Next steps]{.underline}***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Tactical steps for caBIG™ leadership:

    -   Constitute a group to review the findings of this white paper.

    -   Identify how mentoring will interface with the marketing program
        and other outreach efforts.

    -   Select a group from the caBIG™ community to lead the mentoring
        effort, based on responses to an RFP.

    -   Develop appropriate metrics for evaluating the mentoring program
        as a whole.

-   Tactical steps for the mentoring leadership organization

    -   Assess the mentoring capacity needed for at least the next two
        years, based on forecasted caBIG™ project development and
        adoption.

    -   Recruit and train workspace mentoring coordinators for the
        relevant workspaces.

    -   Identify effective incentives for recruiting mentors.

    -   Build mentoring capacity in topics where it is anticipated to be
        inadequate.

**[7. Remaining Issues]{.underline}**

[Leadership structure]{.underline}. The leadership structure suggested
in this white paper represents a departure from current caBIG™ practice.
In order to provide optimum continuity, it is proposed that leadership
for the mentoring program be assigned to a member of the caBIG™
community rather than to the General Contractor. The proposed workspace
mentoring coordinators would report to this mentoring leadership
organization. Workspace mentoring coordinators would negotiate what is
expected of mentors, but the SOWs, for both mentors and mentoring
coordinators, would be written by the mentoring leadership organization.
Until now, the General Contractor has negotiated all SOWs, and
regulations may legally forbid cancer centers from writing SOWs, unless
the center does not want to be considered for funding. If this
interpretation is correct, negotiating SOWs could become more cumbersome
than is now the case, because three or four entities (the mentor, the
mentoring coordinator, the mentoring leadership, and the General
Contractor) would be involved.

[Mentoring unfunded adopters]{.underline}. Because mentoring unfunded
adopters is likely to require an intense but brief time commitment,
setting up an SOW for each instance of this work would create
substantial overhead. Under current SOWs, adopters and developers are
expected to provide such help, even after their contracts have ended. As
a long-term strategy, this approach is neither reasonable nor effective
-- developers should not be held to an open-ended commitment, and it is
unrealistic to think that they will continue to provide services
indefinitely after their funding has stopped. As communities of users
for specific tools grow, responsibility for this form of mentoring
should be assumed by listservs, GForge forums, users groups, or the
NCICB application support team. In the near term, a different solution
is needed. One possibility would be to contract with the adopters and
/or developers specifically to cover mentoring of unfunded adopters for
a period of time. The Enterprise Adopter program that the program has
proposed may also support to otherwise unfunded adopters. The mentoring
leadership organization and/or caBIG™ leadership should explore how the
Enterprise Adoption program should interface with the mentoring program
and how best to support unfunded adopters.

[Transition to the new leadership]{.underline}. The transition to new
leadership should take place over several months in order to take
advantage of existing mentoring expertise. New mentoring leadership and
workspace mentoring coordinators should accumulate as much knowledge as
possible about workspace products, participants and processes. Each new
workspace mentoring coordinator should attend all of the telephone
conferences within the workspace and underlying SIGs to learn how these
groups function. In doing this and by monitoring the listservs and
soliciting input from the current workspace leads, they will be able to
identify the contributions of each participant and identify those who
would make good mentors. People selected for the role of workspace
mentoring coordinator would ideally be familiar with both caBIG™ and
their assigned workspace, but for someone brand new to caBIG™ this "ramp
up" process could take six to twelve months. More experienced personnel
should still expect to spend at least few months becoming familiar with
the whole workspace. Only when this ramp-up phase is complete should the
new mentor management team start to phase out the original leads and
co-leads.

[Recruiting and training]{.underline}. There are multiple models for
recruiting mentors. Under one model, all members of a workspace agree to
act as mentors. This is the model currently used by the D&T workspace.
While it is relatively easy to administer, this model has the
disadvantage that some members of a workspace may not be suited or
motivated to be mentors. In addition, given that mentoring needs vary
widely among clients, uniform compensation does not reflect the actual
work. This issue can be mitigated by rotating challenging assignments
among mentors to balance the workload over time. Another model,
recruiting people specifically to be mentors, will be difficult owing to
the risks that mentoring poses to career advancement, described in the
"structuring incentives" section below. Finally, unless multi-year
contracts are permitted for mentors, many organizations will not be
allowed to hire people to fill those roles. Multi-year contracts will be
especially relevant for mentoring coordinators, given the ramp-up time
described above.

In general, the workspace mentoring coordinators will be responsible for
training mentors on technical content and the mentoring leadership
organization will be responsible for training mentors on cross-cutting
issues (mentoring best practices, for example). Nevertheless, for some
kinds of mentoring -- workspace mentoring coordinators and mentors in
topics with limited numbers of experts (e.g., UML modeling) -- the
mentoring leadership organization will need to take steps to cultivate a
supply of mentors, implementing boot camps or other mechanisms to
quickly build capacity in critical areas.

[Structuring incentives.]{.underline} Structuring incentives to attract
adequate numbers of mentors may be challenging. Remuneration must
reflect the time dedicated to the task, which, on the basis of
interviews with experienced mentors, can vary widely. A flat rate of
payment will not compensate the efforts of the mentors working with the
most difficult clients, although if mentors have multiple clients, the
workload may be balanced over a longer period.

At least as important will be finding a way to recognize mentoring
activities so that they count toward promotion. Many of the people one
would wish to recruit as mentors have academic careers. When they elect
to spend time mentoring rather than publishing papers, they put their
careers at risk unless the mentoring activity is valued by those who
will be reviewing them. While this requires a local culture change in
each institution, NCI can foster the value placed on this activity,
perhaps with some kind of official recognition. Absent that, no
academician can afford to spend much time mentoring.

[Allocating mentors]{.underline}. If the mentoring leadership
organization is not able to develop an adequate supply of mentors, some
projects may experience delays in being allocated a mentor. The VCDE
mentoring effort suggests that when mentors become involved later in a
project, projects are less likely to pass compatibility review. Mentors
involved in those reviews estimate that half of the projects reviewed so
far have failed review and, of those, another half have not been
re-funded and have abandoned, at least temporarily, the attempt to
become caBIG™ compatible. Although one can only speculate how many of
these projects would have succeeded with earlier mentoring, a
twenty-five percent attrition rate is disappointing and underscores the
importance of developing an adequate pool of mentors.

Until now most mentoring clients have been funded caBIG™ participants,
however given caBIG™'s commitment to federation, mentoring should also
be available to unfunded developers striving to bring locally-developed
tools into compliance. A process for allocating mentors which keeps
funded projects on time while still encouraging those with in-house
applications and databases to meet compatibility standards will be
needed. Should mentoring resources prove inadequate, there may be
pressure to delay addressing the mentoring needs of unfunded
participants in favor of funded projects. Such policies might undercut
the credibility of caBIG™'s claims to endorse federation. It should be
noted that within the VCDE workspace, despite limited numbers of
mentors, at least one unfunded project has received mentoring.

[Tracking clients]{.underline}. Potential mentoring clients will be
referred from the marketing effort, domain workspace leads, domain
workspace mentoring coordinators, and the clients themselves.
Coordinating responsibility among these entities so that clients
experience a clean hand-off will be challenging. When people have
contact with caBIG™, whether through marketing or direct contact to
workspaces, they should be entered into a tracking database and regular
follow-up should be performed. Without this, mentoring clients,
particularly those described in the "interested party" scenario, may
fall through the cracks.

[Updating mentors on available resources]{.underline}. A key to
successful mentoring will be focusing the program on situations that
cannot be handled by other information resources. Because those
resources will continue to evolve, staff of the mentoring leadership
organization should be assigned the task of monitoring what other
resources are available and making sure that mentors and mentoring
coordinators know about the resources relevant to their clientele. New
resources should be "pushed" to the mentors, rather than expecting that
mentors to monitor or ask about what is available

[Evaluating the overall program]{.underline}. In addition to evaluations
of individual mentor -- learner interactions, metrics should be
developed to assess the overall impact of the mentoring program. These
measures should include both quantitative (metrics) and qualitative
(satisfaction and outcomes) measurements. Suggested measurements include
results from the debriefing of mentors and clients, time waiting for a
mentor, indications of whether mentors were used appropriately (i.e.,
not used when documentation exists, unless the documentation has not
been able to address the need), and evidence-based outcomes such as
number of projects passing review and number of tools adopted. As
mentioned above, Appendix B includes evalation forms developed by the
D&T Mentoring SIG. Although these forms pertain to individual mentoring
interactions, they may be helpful in developing a method to evaluate the
overall program.

#### Appendix A: Text of Mentoring Survey, Sent to caBIG™ Community in June 2006

At its March Face-To-Face meeting, the Strategic Planning WorkSpace
determined that mentoring was of strategic importance to the ultimate
success of the caBIG™ project. As a result, a group, led by Jessica
Bondy, is being constituted to develop a Mentoring Capability White
Paper.

We are seeking community-wide input on how mentoring activities can best
contribute to caBIG™ and would appreciate your taking the time to answer
the questions below. Please email your responses to
<Jessica.Bondy@uchsc.edu> by July 5th.

In composing your answer, use the following definition of mentoring:

> "Within the caBIG community, a Mentor functions as an advisor and
> expert resource for a colleague engaged in a variety of activities. A
> Mentor is instrumental in focusing resources and direction in order to
> produce a successful or progressive outcome."

1.  Mentoring can be directed at a variety of goals. Please rank the
    following possible goals for mentoring by typing a number after each
    goal, with "1" being most important.

    a.  Providing general information about the spectrum of caBIG^TM^
        endeavors to help cancer centers decide how to become involved.

    b.  Increasing organizational adoption of caBIG^TM^ products.

    c.  Helping investigators learn about the caBIG^TM^ development
        process, for instance, NCI vocabulary and architecture tools,
        caBIG™ compatibility, documentation templates, etc.

    d.  Teaching cancer centers how to deploy analytic web services and
        databases on the Grid.

    e.  Another goal (please specify).

2.  Who do you think should lead the mentoring effort: the NCI, an
    external partner, an organization selected on the basis of a
    competitive RFP, the caBIG community, or another group (please
    specify)?

3.  Would you be willing and able to serve on the white paper committee?
    We expect this task to involve several teleconferences, reading and
    contributing to drafts of the paper, and possibly conducting some
    phone interviews with existing mentors and mentees. The total effort
    is expected to be approximately eight to ten hours over the next
    three months.

Thanks for your participation.

#### Appendix B: Mentoring Evaluation Forms Developed by the Mentoring SIG of the Documentation and Training Workspace

**Training Workspace Mentor Evaluation Form**

This form is to be completed within two weeks of completion of a
mentoring assignment.

All items are to be completed using a Likert scale of 1 (strongly agree)
to 3 (disagree). If an item is not applicable, respond 'NA'.

1.  My assignment was clearly defined from the point of initiation.

2.  It was easy to get involved in the project and the work to be done.

3.  My Mentee was accessible for our interactions.

4.  My Mentee was able to learn about processes and expectations that
    should facilitate the next assignment of this nature.

5.  I feel that my interaction with this Mentee facilitated the timely
    completion of the work.

6.  I feel that my interaction with the Mentee facilitated quality
    completion of the work.

7.  I feel that this mentoring assignment was a positive experience.

8.  If/when I needed guidance and input from the Training
    Workspace/caBIG, then I received it.

Please describe what made this assignment positive or not positive.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

Please quantify the amount of time (total) you spent on this project.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Do you have any suggestions to improve Training Workspace Mentoring
assignments in the future?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Note: What demographics (if any) or identifying information should we
capture (name of the mentor and Mentee, dates, name of the project,
others?)

**Training Workspace Mentee Evaluation Form**

This form is to be completed within two weeks of completion of a
mentoring assignment.

All items are to be completed using a Likert scale of 1 (strongly agree)
to 3 (disagree). If an item is not applicable, respond 'NA'.

1.  The time from my request for a mentor to the time of assignment
    occurred in a timely fashion.

2.  The process of requesting a mentor went smoothly.

3.  It was easy for me to get my mentor involved in the project, and the
    work to be done.

4.  My Mentor was accessible to me for our interactions.

5.  My Mentee was able to explain and help me in a way that will
    facilitate the next time I have an assignment of this nature.

6.  I feel that my Mentor's interactions with the project facilitated
    the timely completion of the work.

7.  I feel that my Mentor's interactions with the project facilitated
    quality completion of the work.

8.  I accessed the resource materials and used them effecting in
    development documents/training materials.

9.  I feel that this Mentoring relationship was positive and helpful in
    the completion of my goals.

Please describe what made this assignment positive or not positive.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

Do you have any suggestions to improve Training Workspace Mentoring
assignments in the future?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Note: What demographics (if any) or identifying information should we
capture (name of the mentor and Mentee, dates, name of the project,
others?)