Research Funding Programme

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Research Outcomes Harmonisation Project 28 th April 2014, Polaris House, Swindon Attendees: Ian Lyne Bob Innes Ian Viney Isobel Climas Chris Moulsley Mari Williams Simon Kerridge Heather Sayers AHRC, Associate Director (Chair and Senior Responsible Owner) Research Funding Programme Manager MRC, Director of Strategic Evaluation and Impact STFC, Head of Performance Evaluation PSU, Joint Head of Information Services BBSRC, Deputy Director, Corporate Policy & Strategy Group University of Kent, Chair of ARMA Project Manager 1. Introductory Remarks 1.1 Ian L welcomed everyone to the third meeting of the project board. He confirmed that no changes had been requested to the minutes of the last meeting, and the actions listed have been completed, other than the request to publish board minutes, which will be discussed at the upcoming Programme Board. 2. Project Update Procurement and contract negotiations 2.1 Contract negotiations with ResearchFish as the preferred supplier are progressing, and all the initial queries have been resolved. However, the requirements for the provision of an SQL database by ResearchFish need to be finalised (see below). Once a revised contract has been received, Heather will circulate to Councils and UK SBS for final checking. 2.2 It is hoped that the contract will be agreed as soon as possible, working to the deadline requested by ResearchFish of 30th April, but the end of the week (2/5) may be a more realistic timeframe. Ian L sought and received authority to push the contract sign off along if any final issues raised are not substantive. 1

2 Common Data Model (CDM) 2.3 Heather advised that the CDM is nearing completion, there are 7 outstanding issues of which 5 are expected to be resolved at the ResearchFish Funders Group Meeting on Friday and the remaining 2 progressed subsequently. 2.4 Ian V confirmed that currently ResearchFish have an exclusive licence to use the question set developed by MRC, and he was in discussion with them regarding future licencing arrangements. A non-exclusive licence will be needed in future, to allow for wider commercial and non-commercial use of the CDM. 2.5 Councils would, as a one off exercise, be asked to formally assign their IP in the new CDM to MRCT to manage on behalf of the Councils. 2.6 It was agreed that advice should be sought from the chair of the cross-council Research Outputs Network (RON) (which oversees the RCUK Open Access policy) regarding the licensing arrangements for the CDM. Data Migration 2.7 The data migration strategy has been approved by all seven Councils. The access database built by EPSRC for the migration and checking of ROS data is ready and will enable progress statistics to be available. Heather advised that guidance will be issued to ensure consistency in the data cleaning process, and a sample validation process will be put in place by the project to check quality. 3. Review of Project impact on other systems Bulk Upload, interoperability and HEI Interface 3.1 It was agreed that a workshop should be arranged for Sept/Oct involving HEI reps, ResearchFish, and suppliers of university systems to discuss bulk upload functionality, interoperability and issues around wider data standards. 3.2 It was also agreed that Councils would provide Research Organisations with a single complete copy of data submitted by their grant holders each year, for them to use as they wish. It was noted that ResearchFish has a freely available institutional dashboard which allows oversight of information submitted by staff, but a fee of 2

3 1K fee p.a. is required to access a wider range of reporting tools covering all the funders using the system. Gateway to Research (GtR) 3.3 Ian L has flagged the impact on GtR of changes to the outcomes collection process to Louise Grant who is looking after the closure of the GtR project as it moves into business as usual. 3.4 GtR has its own management board, and while the project should maintain a link and keep the board informed, changes to the GtR system were the responsibility of its Management Board, and were not included in the project plan. 3.5 Chris reported that with the transition into his team of ongoing support of the GtR system alongside existing priorities over the next few months, there is a risk of a delay with the development work needed on the GtR database to align it to the new CDM. It was felt by the group that given the checking of submitted information undertaken by Councils prior to its release in GtR, a short delay in revising GtR was not a problem. SQL databases and VPN 3.6 Heather informed the group that Councils had agreed that ResearchFish should provide a single SQL database for all Council data, and therefore it was necessary to agree in which Council s contract this should be included (and costed). In addition, it had been agreed that a complete back-up copy of the data be held in a separate RChosted SQL database. Offers to host and manage this had been received from NERC and the AHRC/EPSRC/ESRC Professional Services Unit (PSU); Heather will liaise with both to finalise. 3.7 The charge for ResearchFish to provide the single SQL database will be added to the contract of the Council managing the additional SQL back-up copy, and a cross charge could then be made as necessary. 4. Project Plan 4.1 The project plan and timetable will be baselined once the supplier has been appointed. 3

4 4.2 The project will aim to finish in September, following the launch of the new system and the transition to BAU. The group agreed that progressing the issues around interoperability were included in the project (e.g. the plans for a workshop), even if future activity falls outside of the project period. In addition, it was agreed that the Project scope should be extended to include the implementation of the SQL database. 4.3 The project is responsible for facilitating and defining the BAU processes, but review and monitoring of benefits realisation is the responsibility of the Programme Board. 5. Target Operating Model Governance 5.1 The target operating model will be a product of the project and ensure clear governance of the area of outputs collection. It was agreed that a future Outputs Collection Management Board would oversee the operation of outputs collection across the Councils and the contract with the supplier. 5.2 While in due course there may be value in moving to a joint board with GtR, at this stage a separate Management Board was likely to be preferable, with a clear link to the GtR Board, and reporting to the cross-council Performance Evaluation Network (PEN), which in turn would report to the RCUK Impact Group as having overarching responsibility for this area of activity. 5.3 Heather advised the group that the project is documenting the end to end business process at a high level and proposes that each step will have detailed guidance notes on the expectations and ownership of different parts of the process. The workshops to produce the next level of detail are being held weekly and may take between 1 and 2 months to complete. 5.4 The Outcomes Collection Management Board would have responsibility for oversight of service delivery under the contract with the supplier. It was recognised by the project board that satisfaction with the new harmonised system on the part of users will depend heavily on how well they are supported by the supplier when raising problems or queries, and this would be an area for the Management Board to monitor. 4

5 First Submission Period 5.5 When the system goes live in September, Research Organisations and PIs will be able to submit information straightaway, but ResearchFish also has a submission period when users have to confirm what outputs they are formally submitting to their funders. Heather suggested that for the first data collection period all Councils align with the MRC submission dates which are 16th Oct - 13th Nov. No issues were raised with the proposal and Heather will now ask the PEN to formally approve these dates. Sanctions Policy 5.6 The group noted that only MRC currently applies a sanctions policy for non-return of outputs information. It was agreed that while this was an area in which the Councils should harmonise, no new sanctions policies would be introduced by Councils at this stage, and any future changes will need to be communicated clearly, and with adequate warning, to Research Organisations. 6. Communications 6.1 Communications will be issued to announce the Supplier as soon as contract negotiations are completed. It was agreed that members of the Board would be asked to provide input into the wording of the announcement. 6.2 Heather and Ian L will be attending the ARMA conference in Blackpool on behalf of the board, to provide information on the project. 6.3 A user focus group will help to inform guidance and FAQs for previous ROS users. 7. Risks and Issues 7.1 All ROS councils have indicated the resource they have available to support the data migration phase of the project. AHRC, BBSRC and ESRC have currently flagged the data cleaning activity as red partly because of the unknown levels of work to be completed. Chris will see if the ROS help-desk is able to provide assistance once the timetable for the work is known. 5

6 8. AOB 8.1 Subject to finalising the contracts, a representative of ResearchFish will be asked to attend the next Board meeting. Actions Who Ref Description /01 Research Funding Programme Board to be asked BI to confirm that Project Board minutes can be published externally /02 Facilitate approval of ResearchFish contract HS /03 Seek advise from RON regarding licensing IL arrangements for the CDM /04 Facilitate decision on whether NERC or the PSU HS should host the SQL database /05 Seek PEN approval for the first data submission HS period to be 16 th October 13 th November /06 Organise workshops for bulk upload discussion HS/AK /07 Re arrange June board meeting HS/AK /08 Confirm availability of ROS helpdesk staff to support data migration activities HS/CM 6