Comments for Knowledge Management and Communication in the Life Sciences http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog The McCulley/Cuppan Blog on Tools and Strategies for Improving Quality of Knowledge Management and Communication in the Life Sciences Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:54:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on More thoughts on the limited sophistication of documentation practices in the life sciences by Kenneth Robinson http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=898&cpage=1#comment-6019 Kenneth Robinson Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:54:26 +0000 http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=898#comment-6019 Hello G. McC. Good points made on all levels. I am encountering greater acceptance of the principles articulated in the optimized set above. It representes a big shift in total orientation to how teams and writers approach all of this. Given that the ultimate product of research is documents, it seems amazing that all of this has not been addressed more thoroughly in the past. Even more puzzling is the fact that so few people have actually investigated the possibility of redesigning how they do all of this. I hve jsut completed 2 Clinical Overviews for which I got high marks from the teams, and in one case from upper management. I applied a good bit of what I learned from McCulley Cuppan, and one team leader who was sceptical about deductive writng at the beginning was actually quite pleased with the document. Another important contributor spoke highly of how well written the CO was and wanted to learn about why it had been done as it had. - Ken Hello G. McC.

Good points made on all levels. I am encountering greater acceptance of the principles articulated in the optimized set above. It representes a big shift in total orientation to how teams and writers approach all of this. Given that the ultimate product of research is documents, it seems amazing that all of this has not been addressed more thoroughly in the past. Even more puzzling is the fact that so few people have actually investigated the possibility of redesigning how they do all of this. I hve jsut completed 2 Clinical Overviews for which I got high marks from the teams, and in one case from upper management. I applied a good bit of what I learned from McCulley Cuppan, and one team leader who was sceptical about deductive writng at the beginning was actually quite pleased with the document. Another important contributor spoke highly of how well written the CO was and wanted to learn about why it had been done as it had. – Ken

]]> Comment on Effective argumentation often missing from clinical research reports by kirkistan http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=884&cpage=1#comment-5514 kirkistan Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:59:24 +0000 http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=884#comment-5514 There's a lot of work involved with producing solid, well-reasoned conclusions. Can it even be accomplished as an "authoring team" or is it the work of an individual? Recent research about medical device companies in Minnesota suggests communication teams are chronically understaffed. So--who has time to come to the right conclusions? Thanks for the thoughtful post. There’s a lot of work involved with producing solid, well-reasoned conclusions. Can it even be accomplished as an “authoring team” or is it the work of an individual? Recent research about medical device companies in Minnesota suggests communication teams are chronically understaffed. So–who has time to come to the right conclusions? Thanks for the thoughtful post.

]]> Comment on The importance of reviewers understanding their readers and the need to be informed by reading theory by kirkistan http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=851&cpage=1#comment-5126 kirkistan Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:57:14 +0000 http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=851#comment-5126 Maybe you answered your own perplexity: because of the preconscious baggage each reader brings to the text, the best any of us can do is make sure the facts are right. Facts meaning the numbers, the charts, the etc. Then again, even the facts aren't exactly facts are they, because what have we left out to make our point? What was the solution you proposed? Maybe you answered your own perplexity: because of the preconscious baggage each reader brings to the text, the best any of us can do is make sure the facts are right. Facts meaning the numbers, the charts, the etc. Then again, even the facts aren’t exactly facts are they, because what have we left out to make our point? What was the solution you proposed?

]]> Comment on Proving Your Document Quality by gcuppan http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=832&cpage=1#comment-4854 gcuppan Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:18:19 +0000 http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=832#comment-4854 Lili I want to build on your speculation as to why document quality standards largely receives little attention in the pharmaceutical and medical device research communities. I think part of the problem has its roots in the old natural positivists view that if you design the right study then everything else will be self-evident. So in essence, "we just need good data." I think another factor as to why quality standards receives little attention is that documentation is seen as something "that we can always fix later." The notion here is the penalty for documents that communicate poorly is not nearly as severe as the penalty for producing documents that miss announced timelines. Time is largely the only metric of concern when it comes to documents in the pharmaceutical and med device industries. Lili I want to build on your speculation as to why document quality standards largely receives little attention in the pharmaceutical and medical device research communities. I think part of the problem has its roots in the old natural positivists view that if you design the right study then everything else will be self-evident. So in essence, “we just need good data.”
I think another factor as to why quality standards receives little attention is that documentation is seen as something “that we can always fix later.” The notion here is the penalty for documents that communicate poorly is not nearly as severe as the penalty for producing documents that miss announced timelines. Time is largely the only metric of concern when it comes to documents in the pharmaceutical and med device industries.

]]> Comment on Proving Your Document Quality by Lili Velez http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=832&cpage=1#comment-4849 Lili Velez Sat, 18 Sep 2010 02:14:55 +0000 http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=832#comment-4849 Speaking from the academic side, yes, it's important to develop rigorous, repeatable forms of assessment.... ...but I suspect where we part ways with the business world is our desire to see those tools made widely available, so everyone could make those comparisons. Maybe some companies do have a way to assess their document products [beyond the companies you have as clients].....but sharing those testing instruments might be seen as giving away a competitive advantage? I'm also wondering if a reason that document quality standards have gotten less attention in the past is because the feeling in the industry was "as long as the data is in the right tables, our drug/medical device/etc will shine through". Now that there are apparently fewer candidates in the pipeline, and more questions are being raised about each, companies may be more interested in new metrics for process improvement. Speaking from the academic side, yes, it’s important to develop rigorous, repeatable forms of assessment….

…but I suspect where we part ways with the business world is our desire to see those tools made widely available, so everyone could make those comparisons. Maybe some companies do have a way to assess their document products [beyond the companies you have as clients]…..but sharing those testing instruments might be seen as giving away a competitive advantage?

I’m also wondering if a reason that document quality standards have gotten less attention in the past is because the feeling in the industry was “as long as the data is in the right tables, our drug/medical device/etc will shine through”. Now that there are apparently fewer candidates in the pipeline, and more questions are being raised about each, companies may be more interested in new metrics for process improvement.

]]>