Survey Results and extended use cases (CIA and ROS)
description
Transcript of Survey Results and extended use cases (CIA and ROS)
James ToonUniversity of Edinburgh
@jamestoon
SURVEY RESULTS AND EXTENDED USE CASES
(CIA AND ROS)
1. Researcher moving to another research organisation
2. Researcher uploading data to research council at end of project
CIA SCENARIOS
HEI => HEI
HEI => ROS
To collect data that would allow a before/after comparison for data exchange
Two surveys, one for each use caseTo use the findings to try and test
scenarios to see if previously held efficiency claims are realistic
To try and identify any clear gaps and possible extensions to CIA use cases.
SURVEY SCOPE
20 institutional responses. PoorSurvey open 28th Aug – 5th OctDistributed across number of lists, but
particularly interested in ARMA respondents.
Why the poor response? Don’t really know, but maybe lack of understanding of the area??
Produced using Bristol Online Surveys
ABOUT THE CIA SURVEY
Q1. RESPONDENT ROLE TYPES
37%
26%
11%
5%5%
11% 5%
Research AdministratorRepository or CRIS managerResearcher/Academic staff memberResearch OfficerResearch Council evaluation teamHead of Research SupportResearch Support Co-ordinator - research administration and CRIS role
Don
't k
now
Gra
nts
Adm
inis
trat
or
No
iden
tifie
d re
spon
sibi
lity
Rep
osit
ory
or C
RIS
man
ager
Res
earc
h A
dmin
istr
ator
Res
earc
her/
Aca
dem
ic s
taff
m
embe
r
Tech
nica
l/Sys
tem
s A
dmin
istr
ator
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
5%
37%
11%21%
32% 32%26%
Q2 Distribution of responses
Distribution
Q2. WITHIN YOUR INSTITUTION, WHO HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSFERRING
RESEARCH INFORMATION TO OR FROM CORE SYSTEMS?
HR
Data (ow
n and resea...
Grants/Contracts in Prog...
Past project informatio...
Publications Record
Esteem indicators (suc...
Evidence of Impact
Don't know
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
37%
84%
47% 53%37% 37%
11%21%
Q3. Distribution of responses
Distribution
Q3. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF RESEARCH INFORMATION DATA ARE TYPICALLY
REQUESTED BY STAFF MEMBERS FOR TRANSFER BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS?
No
acce
ss t
o re
sear
ch in
form
atio
n (i
.e. r
esea
rche
r ha
s ne
ver
reco
rded
it
as
a fo
rmal
rec
ord
Form
at c
ompa
tibi
lity
Hav
ing
the
tim
e to
gat
her
the
data
Don
't k
now
Oth
er 0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
53%63%
37%21% 21%
Q4. Distribution of responses
Distribution
Q4. WHAT ARE THE TYPICAL CHALLENGES FACED WHEN WORKING ON THE TRANSFER OF RESEARCH INFORMATION DATA IN OR OUT OF
AN INSTITUTION?
Yes No Don't know0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1
15
3
Count
Q5 DO YOU HAVE FORMAL INFORMATION TRANSFER SERVICE
Q6/7 asked for indication of process, time and effort for effecting transfer of data
In general results indicate no clear approach, and low frequency ad-hoc activity
Different role responses suggest not too much ‘joined up thinking’
For example;
Q6/7PROCESS AND FREQUENCY
CRIS/Repository Manager
Q6/7 SIGNIFICANT VARIATION
Research Support Officer
“Research Support office does this. I expect it takes around 5 minutes in
total to find, extract, format and send data.”
“Download from Research Information System plus additional
download of grants information from research grants database and/or
finance system. Estimate of effort: 0.5 day”
Q8(Final Question) asked for any additional comments on the transfer of data.
Respondents painted a picture of a developing requirement
A need to understand local contextThat the desire to standardise is very
welcome, but that it’s also very early days..
Q8 ADDITIONAL COMMENT
It's primarily about the moneyThere is a demand for non-publication
output data - such as esteem indicators, impacts etc.
Requests to transfer data in or out of an institution for HE-HE transfer are ad hoc at best
For the HEI-HEI We seem to be asking about a problem that's not seen as a problem.
SURVEY SYNOPSIS
Lack of any clear HEI to HEI demand identified. Want to investigate this more. (discussion on demand/lack of demand invited)
Obvious demand in bulk importing identified from the ROS survey work - HEI-RCUK (50% submissions by bulk approach)
Also obvious lack of structured data management for non-publication impact/esteem data from CIA survey.
IMMEDIATE THOUGHTS FOR EXTENDED USE CASES
Practical adoption of CERIF now a reality
Leadership needs identified as critical 1. Now coming from RCUK members/HEFCE
The barriers to adoption are now diminishing - mainly practical i.e. REF more important at the moment, capital outlay.
Some barriers still substantial – for example standardisation of data types/classifications needs to be agreed and cascaded down to HEI installations
ROADMAP
The Business Case for the Adoption of a UK Standard for Research Information Interchange. Stuart Bolton Report to JISC July 2010
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/Businesscasefinalreport.pdf
Complete mapping of RCUK ROS/Researchfish entities to CERIF and implementation in local systems.
Define taxonomy of common RIM data types and establish as data sources
Benchmarking – data re-ingest in local systems from RCUK/HEFCE to institutions
Information sharing for public/researcher use Subject or Geographic Aggregations (engagement with
Gateway to Research) Dynamic Linking of data at the institutional level (to
support collaboration opportunities)
WHAT NEXT FOR CIA – EXTENDED USE CASES
236 replies
79.2% Principal Investigator11.9% Research Office Manager / Administrator5.9% Delegate (Co-investigator , associate
researcher)3.0% Institute Manager / Administrator
RCUK ROS SURVEY
ROS Ease of use 64.2% satisfactory or better
Look up services (useful or very useful) DOI - 51.9% ISBN/ISSN - 44.7% ROMEO guidance - 28.2% Pubmed - 27.3%
67.8% said that they use an Institutional Repository or CRIS No Research Office Managers answered this question!
HEADLINES
Even split between single submission through the website vs bulk upload
Submit by lookup reference ie DOI = average 1 minute
to submitSubmit through web = 4 and 8 minutesBulk submit = 1 and 3 minutes per outcome to prepare Total Community effort per month
If 5 minutes per single outcome then 214 "working" days If 2 minutes per bulk outcome then 90 "working” days A 57% reduction in effort through using a bulk submit feature
ANALYSIS OF UPLOADING METHOD
The “reporting” cost per grant per year
£15.40 using single method £6.50 using bulk submit
CERIF business case was based on application
submission savings but… £0.50p for CERIF?
REPORTING COSTS..…
Note: Have temporarily re-opened survey until 26th October to encourage further responses.
https://www.survey.ed.ac.uk/cia_r2/
QUESTIONS?