Executive Summary for RDSO Website Redevelopment
Processes to inform recommendation:



Met with Dr Rob Head for vision and message of RDSO website redevelopment.
Met with Heads of Teams to inform the ‘what’ for website structure.
User Engagement Groups with academic members of staff to inform the ‘how’ for website
structure, comprising a group for Humanities and Social Science, Engineering and Design, and
Science. Users representative of differing key stages and needs.
Main findings from Heads of Team:









Site map to reflect RDSO organisational structure needed.
Higher visibility and accessibility of site links, e.g. REF and Pure which cut across.
Content revision and simplification. Large volumes of information. Lots out of date.
Consideration of method for accessing linked documents e.g. html or word.
Sufficient routes and prominence for relevant team contacts.
Reduction in duplication.
Outsourcing to external sites for content sustainability.
Reconsideration of research proposal lifecycle and terminology.
Reduction of confusion needed, notably use of acronyms and Bath Ventures branding.
Main findings from User Engagement Groups:












Site map to reflect RDSO organisational structure needed.
Similarities in notion of research proposal lifecycle, seen as representative for users.
High emphasis on funding opportunities. Not necessarily linear with funding ideas.
Key stage and dilemma of identifying multiparty collaborators, currently absent.
Higher visibility and prominence of impact as an individual stage.
Identification of Peer Review as an individual stage.
High emphasis on ethics, greater visibility and prominence as an individual stage.
REF and Pure seen as cutting across the research proposal lifecycle.
High emphasis on contacts and relationships. Higher accessibility of contact details.
Dense information within site, e.g. downloadable word/pdf documents. Web content preferable.
High emphasis on developing/building, running, and notably disseminating a research project.
Confusion of RDSO, notably structurally, team responsibilities, and the existence of Bath
Ventures and extensive use of acronyms e.g. RDSO, RD&C, RDG, RPMG, RSF, EKE.
Recommendations:





Top navigation to include a visible RDSO departmental structure to replace the ‘About Us’ web
page; the A-Z contact list to be broken down by teams, and also linking to team pages.
Research proposal lifecycle to be clearly defined into concise stages of:
Developing a proposal; Running a project; Dissemination. REF and Pure cutting across.
Identification of new individual stages within proposal development not currently represented:
Identifying collaborators; Impact; Peer Review; Ethics.
Wider incorporation of dissemination, notably publicity, public engagement, CPD, impact.
Higher visibility of contact information within research proposal lifecycle.