INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION
Research Management Applications
RIISG Working Group #3
26 January 2012
Draft MINUTES
PRESENT:
Gavin McLachlan, Director of Information Systems (ISD) (GMc)
Nikki Clayton, Information Manager (HR) (NC).
Mike Griffiths, Director of Research Services (Finance) (MG),
Martin Moyle, Digital Curation Manager (Library Services) (MM),
Graham Hunt, Head of Research Applications and Services ISD, (GH)
Jonathan Hackney, Research Services (Finance) (JH)
Anne Mortimer, Office Vice-Provost Enterprise (AM)
Geoff Dunk, Faculty of Life Sciences (GD)
Jonathan Tennyson, Department of Physics and Astronomy (JD)
Henriette Bruun, Office of the Vice-Provost Research (HB)
APOLOGIES:
Andrew Cooper, Assistant Director (Policy and Communications / REF Manager) (Registry) (ACo),
Mary Phillips, Director of Research Planning (Office of the Vice Provost for Research) (MP)
Sarah Chaytor, Office of the Vice-Provost Research (SC)
Andrew Clark, Office of the Vice-Provost Research (ACk)
Jacob Sweiry, Office of the Vice-Provost Research (JS)
1. Matters Discussed
1.1.
Welcome and introduction
1.1.1. Gavin introduced the remit of the working group and it’s alignment with the RIISG.
1.1.2. Graham introduced the agenda for the meeting
1.2.
Terms of Reference
1.2.1. The Terms of Reference were discussed. Graham outlined that there is considerable
overlap between this working group and Working Group #4 Researcher Applications. It
was noted that drawing clear boundaries over what is in and out of scope for this
working group is difficult due to the need to pull information from many operational
Research Management Applications Working Group – Minutes 26 Jan 2012
2
systems both directly in Researcher Applications (IRIS, RPS etc.) and those under the
governance of other domain groups (finance, HR, student records etc.)
1.3. Current Strawman Programme Proposal
1.3.1. GH and GMc explained the current budget position and showed the current capital
spend and active projects in this year.
1.3.2. GD asked about whether there are panel leaders for the REF System – Answer: Yes.
Andrew Cooper has these.
1.4 Current/Future Research Management Data Sources and Access Points
1.4.1 GH presented two diagrams showing the current Research Management Data Sources
and Access Points and a potential Future view. Much of the meeting discussion was
directed by these two diagrams. (See Meeting PowerPoint presentation).
1.4.2 GD pointed out that Deans and Heads of Depts need research information to make
decision for items such as Pay and performance. They might want grant success rates comparing different success rate with different funding bodies. There is a need to get
input from the deans and HoDs and that different levels of management require
different granularities of data to support their decision making.
1.4.3 It was agreed that today there are many bespoke requests for data views leading to
substantial maintenance of spreadsheets within various groups or needing to recreate
the same report from scratch many times.
1.4.4 AM pointed out that not all data required is covered in the diagram. This was
acknowledged that it only outlined a subset.
1.4.5 The varying quality of data sources was acknowledged and GMc indicated that he and
GH were attempting to rank the different quality of the sources.
1.4.6 NC stated that the big issue is access points. We need to have all the access from one
point. New researchers do not even know about this data. They need to search around
just to find it. NC Suggested: We might want to have a formal Datamart to provide the
data as a service to all the researchers that they could trust as the one "official" source
of the data.
1.4.7 JT pointed out another big issue in preparing the REF is where we use data for things
the data source was never intended to be used. E.g.: The HR data is good on the
employment contract information but less so for details regarding academic status, for
example determining “early researchers”. This has caused a lot of issues in REF
returns previously.
1.4.8 AM indicated other areas where this happens such as using income data as a proxy for
the level of industry engagement.
1.4.9 JT outlined another gap is around the winning of an award. Only the Principal
Investigator is aware of an application progressing to an award directly – it is very
difficult to determine various success rates on particular calls, schemes, RCs etc. and
by Faculty, Dept and Individually.
Research Management Applications Working Group – Minutes 26 Jan 2012
3
1.4.10 HB supported this issue saying that it is very difficult to determine what the researchers
have applied for in terms of scheme or grants. What are the successful departments?
This leads to issues with determining and working on demand management. There is
no easy way to drill down to determine problem areas.
1.4.11 GD pointed out that at times UCL have to currently go to the Research Council to get
more data on UCL so we can understand our success rates.
1.4.12 It was noted however, particularly for SLASH, that not all Research council funders are
like the MRC and Wellcome Trust and are not as willing to provide detailed data on
applications. Some are not willing to provide this information. Also there was a concern
about UCL’s reputation potentially being damaged if we rely on having to acquire this
information from the RCs.
1.4.13 JT pointed out that for grants from Europe and industry a researcher does not even
need to tell the University or even his department that he has applied. Sometimes we
only find out about these retrospectively.
1.4.14 GH presented a future vision based on using atria Pure 4.10.0 as a strawman for a new
model of Research Management Applications. This would be a consolidated system of
many of the current systems and data sources. The suggestion is that we may want a
working group look at this as an idea of what a Research Management System could
look like.
1.4.15 GMc pointed out that one issue with introduction of a large system like this is that it may
cause existing local department/faculty solutions to break. Therefore understanding
how and where all the data is used for management decisions is a critical challenge.
1.4.16 NC asked whether Pure in particular provided only specific reports or allow self-service
reporting. GH replied that from his initial review it should provide some of this kind of
reporting.
1.4.17 JD asked whether the aspiration should be that we need to have the data joined up and
get departments out of the habit of keeping their own databases, because they can't get
the information out of the central information. JD believed that Physics has at least two
independent databases one on HR and one on Grants to allow it to answer questions
not readily answerable from the central systems.
1.4.18 MM stated we should look at whether this type of PURE systems is viable and that
there will need to be wide consultation on this.
1.4.19 NC raised the issue of measuring outcomes and that these measurements often need
to be qualitative and any system will need to deal with reporting of that nature
1.4.20 GD asked about availability of HESA data within UCL – JH indicated that some is
available via the Heidi.ac.uk web site. ACTION JH to demonstrate Heidi capabilities
to GD
1.4.21 NC – indicated that currently within UCL there are 262 separate departments and that
moving a centralised system approach would move all closer to a single “truth”.
1.5 Review Proposed bids and New Application Ideas
1.5.1 GH showed the group the current list of assembled bids and ideas.
Research Management Applications Working Group – Minutes 26 Jan 2012
4
1.5.2 GH indicated that the new Web of Science Lite licensing arrangement (a change of
licence was dictated by Thompson Reuters and Sympectic (underlying software in RPS)
1.5.3
1.5.4
1.5.5
1.5.6
1.5.7
required us to move to new feed in either premium or lite type. One of the big impacts
is that all articles come in as journals article and you would need to change them back if
for example the article was actual a conference proceedings. Also we no longer get
abstracts (however this would now not be available under any license).
Timesheeting needs were discussed with JT pointing out that this is a big need for any
serious European grant. Physics for example currently have to track this all in spread
sheets, but ensuring it is correct is a real issue. NC pointed out that the current HR
system does have a timesheeting module available but UCL have not implemented it.
JT indicated that whilst that may be of value to investigate often there is very specific
and specialist information needed within the timesheets.
AM asked if information entered into MyView – i.e. sickness/holidays etc. could be
automatically populated into peoples Outlook calendars. GMc indicated this is under
consideration for future implementation the initial implementation of a feature like this
would be for common timetabling so all teaching time automatically is propagated into
Outlook.
Linkage with systems like MRC / STFC eVal and RCs ROS was discussed. JT pointed
out that there was a lot of complaint / issues with the STFC version last year and that
we should await the outcome of any changes on that before embarking on building
linkages to them.
GH discussed retrieving the entries UCL make into J-eS. This is not easy at the
moment and UCL loses considerable information at this point in the process as we only
capture it in the EDRM system within a document – i.e. the individual fields are not
captured and databases separately to allow easy search/aggregation etc.
MG pointed out that in some areas within Research Services Finance some evaluation
work is underway already on some of the ideas presented – notably Research
Contracts Management. ACTION GH to liaise with MG over status of these
evaluations.
1.5.8 It was discussed the areas in the Research Lifecycle where we have investment and
ideas and where we do not. JT pointed out in the area of exploit we need to better
capture media engagement for better quantification of impact for REF. Broadcast
media for example is very poorly captured. It was noted the UCL Business capture IP
agreements but industry engagement is another area in exploit that we have poor
information capture and reporting of.
1.5.9 JT pointed out that the nature of needing to report impact within the REF requires
capturing impact over a long period of time and currently too much relies on individual
memory and records in this arena.
1.6 What do you want from Research Management Applications?
Research Management Applications Working Group – Minutes 26 Jan 2012
5
1.6.1 GMc pointed out that ISD is aware that in the area of Research Management systems
we are along way off from where we need to be. We know we need to create the REF
support system, however beyond that we are unclear on the priorities
1.6.2 GD indicated that he felt a comprehensive survey of users of Research Management
data to understand their needs would be the best approach to determining a forward
strategy. ACTION – GH to investigate options to completing such a survey
1.6.3 MG stated we may need to create a roadmap and a strategy. However we may want to
look at some more point solutions that are easy to deliver on (that have a great chance
to succeed), as opposed to a much more aspirational larger system like PURE. We
need to decide what approach to take. DO we be aspirational? Or more practical?
ACTION MG to produce a draft strategy for future review by this working group.
1.7 Election of Chair
1.7.1 It was agreed that GH would be chair of the working group initially.
1.8 Date of Next Meeting
1.8.1 Next meeting to be arranged. ACTION GH.
2. Action points
Date first
No.
1
raised
26/01/12
Minute
1.4.20
Owner
JH
Action
To demonstrate Heidi
Status
New
functionality to GD
2
26/01/12
1.5.7
GH
To determine status of
evalutation of Contracts
New
Management solutions
3
26/01/12
1.6.2
GH
To investigate options for a
New
Research Management Data
usage survey
4
26/01/12
1.6.3
MG
Produce an outline strategy as
New
a discussion paper for next
meeting of the working group
5
26/01/12
1.8
GH
Arrange next meeting of
working group
3. Next Meetings

To be arranged ACTION GH
New
Notes