Additional thought, just as an example, something in the post that seemed off:
Instead, someone should be thinking about the bigger picture first.
Researchers and people working at the various organizations are clever, capable people. I would venture that they’re necessarily thinking about the big picture as part of their work and how it fits in. Given their connection and involvement (possibly over the course of years), their models are probably difficult to surpass if you’re starting from the outside. I also don’t think it’s as simple as talking to lots of people to get all their models and combining them (communicating and synthesizing models is really hard + you’d need to build a lot of credibility before others trusted you could, assuming anyone could really do this well).
The line quoted above, as written, almost makes seems like there’s this low hanging fruit because everyone currently working was heads-down on their problems and no one thought to work on the big picture. That strikes me as a very bad assumption and makes me worry about the kind of reasoning you would use to advise others. Possibly you meant something different from that and more defensible . . . but then unambiguous and clear communication is going to be very key in any coordination/advisory role.
Anyhow, I dislike being purely critical. Not many people are dedicating themselves to trying to solve important problems, so I want to say that I do approve of efforts trying. I think it’s good that you sought feedback on your first project and then formed a new plan. I’ve written these comments because I hope they help nudge you in the direction of really good plans. If they’re biased critical, it’s because I’m trying to explain more of factors I think might be leading to a negative reception of this plan. Because we need all the good plans and good people working on them we can get.
Additional thought, just as an example, something in the post that seemed off:
Researchers and people working at the various organizations are clever, capable people. I would venture that they’re necessarily thinking about the big picture as part of their work and how it fits in. Given their connection and involvement (possibly over the course of years), their models are probably difficult to surpass if you’re starting from the outside. I also don’t think it’s as simple as talking to lots of people to get all their models and combining them (communicating and synthesizing models is really hard + you’d need to build a lot of credibility before others trusted you could, assuming anyone could really do this well).
The line quoted above, as written, almost makes seems like there’s this low hanging fruit because everyone currently working was heads-down on their problems and no one thought to work on the big picture. That strikes me as a very bad assumption and makes me worry about the kind of reasoning you would use to advise others. Possibly you meant something different from that and more defensible . . . but then unambiguous and clear communication is going to be very key in any coordination/advisory role.
Anyhow, I dislike being purely critical. Not many people are dedicating themselves to trying to solve important problems, so I want to say that I do approve of efforts trying. I think it’s good that you sought feedback on your first project and then formed a new plan. I’ve written these comments because I hope they help nudge you in the direction of really good plans. If they’re biased critical, it’s because I’m trying to explain more of factors I think might be leading to a negative reception of this plan. Because we need all the good plans and good people working on them we can get.