Research Information Network FUNDERS GROUP AND ADVISORY BOARD NOTE FROM THE FIRST JOINT MEETING OF THE FUNDERS GROUP AND THE ADVISORY BOARD, 8 DECEMBER 2005 Action points in red italics Funders Group Advisory Board Chair: Sir Howard Newby (HEFCE) Present: Andrew Green (National Library of Wales) Judith Henderson (SFC) Will Naylor (HEFCE) Marion Magill (DELNI) Linda Tiller (HEFCW) Martyn Wade (National Library of Scotland) Jan Wilkinson (British Library) Michael Anderson (University of Edinburgh) Robert Burgess (University of Leicester) John Coggins (University of Glasgow) Pat Crocker (JISC) Mark Haggard (Medical Research Council) David Ingram (University College London) Roger Kain (University of Exeter) Astrid Wissenburg (ESRC) Ed Pentz (CrossRef UK) Lyn Pykett (University of Aberystwyth) Kevin Schürer (University of Essex) Jean Sykes (London School of Economics) Stéphane Goldstein (RIN) Michael Jubb (RIN) Jackie van Bueren (RIN) Apologies Philip Esler (AHRC) John Wood (CCLRC) Mike Cruise (University of Birmingham) Judith Elkin (University College Worcester) John Feather (University of Loughborough) Elaine Martin (University of Newcastle) Malcolm Read (JISC) Anne Trefethen (University of Oxford) David Walton (British Antarctic Survey) 1. Welcome As Chair of the Funders Group, Howard Newby welcomed members, and emphasised the opportunity provided by this joint meeting for enhanced communication between the Funders Group and Advisory Board. 2. Apologies for absence See above.
3. Director s report (paper RIN/FG/05/08) Members noted the report. Michael Jubb highlighted the following developments and activities: E-Content strategy: members agreed on the need for a more coordinated national approach for the provision of e-content, involving notably the key stakeholders mentioned in the report. Members were reminded that in this as in other domains, the RIN s remit is UK-wide. They also noted HM Treasury s recently announced review of intellectual property, which has relevance to e-content strategy and which stakeholders should consider feeding into. Resource discovery: members noted the recent RIN-led developments, notably the workshop organised on 21 October; the RIN s role in leading the OST s e-infrastructure working group on search and navigation; and the soon-to-be commissioned RIN study on users and resource discovery services/tools. Collaborative storage: the RIN is represented on the new Task Force established to oversee the implementation of the BL/CURL report, Optimising storage and access in UK research libraries. Following the major consultative meeting on 13 December, the Task Force will work towards the establishment of the proposed National Research Reserve (NRR) as recommended in option 4 of the report. Three requirements underpin the rationale for this service: long-term preservation of low-use material; proper and effective access arrangements; de-duplication, and the savings that would ensue from this (although it is acknowledged that such savings are difficult to quantify). The NRR is intended as a UK resource, so there are implications to consider in relation to devolved administrations. JISC: the relationship between the RIN and JISC is on a firmer footing than a few months ago; there are now regular meetings between officials, and mutual representation on respective committees. SR2007: discussions are under way between the RIN and some of its partners about how best to build the case for relevant activities to be addressed as part of the SR2007 bid. In building such a case, the RIN was reminded about the prospect for influencing the bid through the Scottish and Welsh Funding Councils and DELNI as well as HEFCE. It was agreed that the RIN generally needs to develop links with the devolved administrations and their agencies. Michael Jubb to make contact with the SFC, Universities Scotland and HEFCW. 4. Survey of the RSLP Access Funds and next steps (paper RIN/FG/05/09) Members heard a brief presentation on this recently-completed RIN study, which seeks to provide an overview of the activities and services initiated by almost 50 research libraries with the money allocated to them by the RSLP access funding scheme between 1999 and 2005. The study also provides some pointers about how the momentum generated by this investment might be Stéphane Goldstein to fine-tune the study report, notably to emphasise its limited and empirical nature, and to refine the description of how RIN
sustained in coming years. Howard Newby opened the discussion by expressing concern, from his standpoint as an accounting officer, about how recipient libraries had used their allocations. Had access funding been used to pay for new or additional services that should have been provided anyway? How could compensation for institutions serving the needs of researchers other than their own be quantified? There had been little attempt to demonstrate that the services initiated or developed through access funding had provided value for money. Other members noted that the survey did not attempt to demonstrate the impact of this investment; for instance, to what extent have users actually taken advantage of extended opening hours? Members were reminded that the 1999 guidelines issued to recipient libraries by the RSLP on behalf of the Funding Councils called for funding both to compensate institutions, and to allow them to extend their level of service there was an inherent tension between these two aspects. The quantification of the funding levels was based on very detailed analysis, namely the survey work commissioned from Coopers & Lybrand in 1996-97. Libraries had been expected to develop their own views about what was expected of them in relation to this funding stream, and many took advantage of what was perceived as a unique opportunity to invest in areas such as retroconversion, where in some instances access funding had levered significant additional investment from other sources. The distinction between ongoing expenditure (e.g. paying for out-of-hours staffing in the context of extended opening) and one-off investments (e.g. retroconversion of a specific collection) was underlined. Furthermore, members were told that there is some evidence that, even though access funding has now been integrated into QR allocations, most libraries were continuing to receive commensurate funding from their universities testimony to the value of what had been achieved with access funding. Members noted that the RIN survey was explicitly a limited one based on the information that HEFCE could provide (i.e. the libraries annual returns for two of the six years of the scheme). The returns provided factual evidence, but no analysis none was requested from the libraries when the scheme was initiated. The RIN report was thus more descriptive than might otherwise have been the case. Members consequently agreed that an additional project was called for, including an impact analysis, to provide evidence of the value added by RSLP access funding and to help determine priorities for the future. Michael Jubb indicated that, given appropriate resourcing, the RIN would be very willing to undertake such a study, set in the wider context of relevant developments in libraries provision of service to researchers and evolution in researchers behaviour. Some members expressed concern about the broad scope of the issues highlighted at the end of the report, and Michael Jubb acknowledged that any further RIN work would need to focus on key issues such as the impact and the use made by researchers of extended opening hours and new digital catalogues. might take the agenda forward after which the report can be published. Michael Jubb / Stéphane Goldstein to develop proposals on possible follow-up work to analyse the impact of the access funding scheme in the context of other recent developments.
5. Collaborative Collection Management (paper RIN/FG/05/10) Members were updated about relevant developments, notably the forthcoming joint RIN-CURL evaluation of the CoFoR project covering Russian and East European studies (REES), and the RIN s proposed role in the development / extension of collaborative collection management methodology (CCM) in areas other than REES including those where CCM is less well developed. Members highlighted: the importance of criteria such as those set out in paragraph 12 of the paper to identify such areas; the importance of considering web-based research resources as well as library content, implying an awareness of researchers needs and preferences. Members agreed about the usefulness of linking RIN work on CCM development with HEFCE s programme of support for strategically important and vulnerable subjects. Michael Jubb to ensure that the RIN s CCM agenda is made to relate to HEFCE s support for strategically important and vulnerable subjects. 6. Operating Plan (paper RIN/FG/05/12) Members welcomed this latest update to the Operating Plan. There were no comments. 7. Establishment of RIN consultative groups (paper RIN/FG/05/13) The responses received so far to the call for nominations were noted. There are still thematic gaps in the proposed membership of all the groups, but it was agreed that these should be set up now, albeit with an incomplete membership, with a view to holding a first round of meetings in January/February. The gaps in coverage could be filled at a later dates. Members were content to let the RIN Executive Team, working with the four group chairs, agree and finalise the composition of the groups. Stéphane Goldstein to liaise with the group chairs and invite appropriate nominees to join the groups, with a view to holding a first round of meetings in January/February. 8. Other business for Advisory Board There was none. FOR FUNDERS GROUP MEMBERS ONLY 9. Financial report (paper RIN/AB/05/11) The RIN s financial report was noted. However, HEFCE raised a couple of short-term concerns: the figures continued to suggest a slippage in the RIN s expenditure to date during 2005-06; HEFCE feels that there is need for further integration between the Operating Plan and the headline budget, to provide clear Michael Jubb / Paul Hubbard to arrange a meeting in January to discuss financial planning issues, to be attended also by representatives from HEFCE s finance
linkage between planned expenditure and RIN programme activities. HEFCE reported that it could not approve the RIN budget from 1 April 2006 until the above points have been clarified. Michael Jubb advised that the financial planning figures indicate that the expenditure slippage will be virtually eliminated by 31 March, as a number of current or forthcoming projects come fully on-stream. In relation to the second point, the RIN remains unsure about what is expected in relation to matching the budget to the Operating Plan, and pointed out the difficulty of predicting on a monthly basis the nature and hence the expenditure required to support individual programme activities over a 12 to 18 month timeframe. These issues would be explored with HEFCE and resolved early in the New Year. department. 10. Other business for Funders Group Members noted that Howard Newby s retirement from HEFCE from 1 February implied the need to appoint a new chair of the Funding Group in time for its next meeting in June. Next meetings: Funders Group: Tuesday 20 June 2006, at 10:00 Advisory Board: Tuesday 4 April 2006, at 11:00