Project Plan post 7: Budget

The project budget will be managed by the Project Director, not the Project Manager, as the Project Manager resides in a commercial organisation, and the project funds have been paid to the lead institution (Leeds University).

The budget has been reworked since the proposal to allocate £3000 for dissemination events.

The detailed budget contains sensitive salary information and therefore is not published in full here, but the outline totals are as follows:

	Apr10 – Mar11	Apr11 – Mar 12	TOTAL £
Directly Incurred Staff
Total Directly Incurred Staff (A)	£72,094	£0	£72,094
Directly Incurred Non-Staff
Travel and expenses	£7,000		£7,000
Hardware/software	£5,000		£5,000
Other (Advocacy Materials)	£4,000		£4,000
Consultancy (Project Management)	£21,600		£21,600
Consultancy (Data Analysis + Final Report)	£9,600		£9,600
Consultancy (Development of Training Materials)	£6,000		£6,000
Consultancy (Workshop Support)	£4,000		£4,000
Dissemination events	£3,000		£3,000
Total Directly Incurred Non-Staff (B)	£60,200	£0	£60,200
Directly Incurred Total (C) (A+B=C)	£132,294	£0	£132,294
Directly Allocated
Project Director	£4,459		£4,459
Estates	£10,682		£10,682
Directly Allocated Total (D)	£15,141	£0	£15,141
Indirect Costs (E)	£54,659	£0	£54,659
Total Project Cost (C+D+E)	£201,094	£0	£201,094
Amount Requested from JISC	£111,553	£0	£111,553
Institutional Contributions	£66,341	£0	£66,341
Symplectic Contributions	£24,200	£0	£24,200
Percentage Contributions over the life of the project	JISC, X %	Partners, X %	Total
	54.47%	44.53%	100%

Posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Project Plan post 6: Projected Timeline, Workplan & Overall Project Methodology

Project start date: 20-07-10
Project completion date: 20-07-11
Duration: 12 months

WORKPACKAGES

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1: Project Management

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

2: Advocacy

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

3: Workshops/Training

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

4: User Survey

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

5: Community Engagement

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

6: Evaluation and Quality Assurance

x

x

x

x

x

x

7: Dissemination

x

x

x

Methodology:
Project management will be based on JISC guidelines, and will therefore follow a lightweight PRINCE2-style methodology. Project management techniques will be of a modest level of complexity, in keeping with the size and scale of the project and the work involved.


Posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Project Plan post 5: Project Team Relationships and End User Engagement

Project Management Team:

Project Director: Bo Middleton, Head of e-Strategy and Development for Leeds University Library

Symplectic Lead: Richard Jones, Head of Repository Systems at Symplectic Ltd

Project Manager:Lizzie Dipple, Communications & Project Coordination Manager at Symplectic Ltd
(time allocated: 0.2 FTE)


Project Team:

University of Exeter:
Ian Tilsed, Head of Academic Systems
Jill Evans, Digital Library Officer

Keele University:
Ellie James, Research Planning and Project Manager

University of Leeds:
Jodie Double, Digital Repositories Manager for Leeds University Library
Rachel Proudfoot, Repository Officer for Leeds University Library

University of Plymouth:
Nicola Cockarill, Senior Subject Librarian with the added remit of research support

Queen Mary University of London:
Sarah Molloy, Research Support Librarian


The RePosit project will support researchers at the project partner institutions through advocacy activities and training workshops. It will also engage with them via the survey questionnaire which will solicit feedback on the usefulness of the deposit tool, and other places where it should be made available to them. The project will engage with research organisers and managers in a similar way, offering the project workshops and user community space as forums for determining the appropriate strategy for increasing uptake, enhancements to the software, and methods of driving policy change. The user community space is intended for all members of the deposit community, not just those at the partner institutions.

Posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Project Plan post 4: IPR (Creative Commons Use & Open Source Software License)

The partners will each own the IPR to any contributions made to the project. JISC are granted a licence to exploit the outputs of the project as specified in the JISC Grant Terms and Conditions. All project outputs will be Creative Commons licensed with an Attribution 3.0 licence.

Posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Project Plan post 3: Risk Analysis and Success Plan

Risk	Probability (1-5)	Severity (1-5)	Score (P x S)	Action to Prevent/Manage Risk
Staffing (loss of)	2	3	6	Staff time is relatively small, and organisational drive for success should be sufficient to ensure coverage of any staff shortages.
Staff not able to commit sufficiently to project	2	4	8	Effectively this equates to losing HEI partners (as below). One could be tolerated, but not more. Need project manager to keep close check on progress.
Organisational (loss of)	1	4	4	Project is important to the partner institutions. Additionally, with 5 partner HEIs the loss of one partner could be tolerated. Prevention would be for the project to be successful, to ensure continued engagement.
External suppliers (loss of service)	1	4	4	Supplier bills in advance, to ensure resource availability.
Self-archiving barriers still too high	3	4	12	This is one of the central themes of the project. Evaluation processes should allow the project to determine how best to deal with this eventuality.
Success overwhelms staffing	2	2	4	Additional staffing budget will be sought, while the robustness of the repository workflows will be used to hold incoming material.
Storage capacity plans exceeded	1	1	1	Ensure that there is a large amount of storage available early in the project. Make allowances for growing the storage later.
Software performance compromised due to load	1	1	1	Ensure the software runs on adequate production-grade hardware. Monitor system performance.
Lack of academic buy-in	4	4	16	This is one of the central themes of the project. The advocacy strategy needs to be tailored to deal with this issue. Reviewing previous projects’ success and failures should help ameliorate this.
Delayed REF reduces drive for success	3	2	6	Some partners engage in periodic performance reviews which are a driver in addition to the REF. This approach will be considered by all the partners.
Low deposit quality	3	2	6	Availability of RoMEO data during deposit will hopefully help reduce this. Otherwise, the partners will rely on the robustness of the repository workflows to aid in cleaning data, and soliciting appropriate content.

Posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Project Plan post 2: Wider Benefits to Sector & Achievements for Host Institution

The outcomes from this project are centred around an improvement of the state of repositories at the partner institutions, and the generation of new knowledge for the wider deposit community around the paradigm of integrating repositories with research management systems. These are:

1. Increased proportions of academics engaging with the repository: the project partners aim to increase the number of academics institution-wide who engage with the repository.
2. Increased repository holdings with stable URIs: the project partners aim to increase the number of items publicly available in the repository.
3. Increased knowledge in the community of the CRIS to Repository deposit use case: the project partners will aim to disseminate their findings at a number events over the coming year.
4. Engagement with the community: we will attempt to grow this sub-section of the JISC community into an effective peer-to-peer deposit community (supported by online social technology), such that depositors can obtain advice from each other, while repository and research managers can also liaise.
   

The RePosit Project addresses all of the points highlighted in the JISC Deposit call:

1. Assemble tools, processes and support to create an effective deposit solution. Project work will include application of a web-based deposit tool embedded in a research and publication management system and the provision of support to researchers using the tool.
2. Develop and test the solution in at least two authentic settings. The software is in use at all the institutions partnering in this proposal, with variations in the stage of implementation – giving us a number of different authentic settings in which to explore process and support issues/solutions:




1. In Production: University of Leeds, Queen Mary University of London
2. In Pilot Phase: Keele University
3. In Implementation Phase: University of Exeter, University of Plymouth



3. Ensure that each deposited research output has a stable URI. This is currently handled by each of the repositories.
4. Establish and maintain a publicly accessible analytics engine. Each repository has statistics available indicating number of deposits, as per their standard behaviour. Using reporting tools within Symplectic Elements, institutions will also be able to identify what percentage of deposits they are missing out on based on a comparison of total number of publications, number of publications which could go into the repository (based on SHERPA RoMEO status), and number of publications which are in the repository with full-text. These statistics will be published towards the end of the project.
5. Practical action that would lead to wide and sustained adoption of the solution. We will vary the practical action that needs to be taken at each of the partner institutions to fit local needs for the current stage of roll-out of the product; there will be variations on the theme of advocacy for the use of the tool, and advocacy to senior management for potential pursuit of an institutional mandate.
6. Engage as appropriate with researchers, research organisers and managers. The RePosit Project will support researchers through advocacy and training, and develop open access training materials. It will also engage with them via the survey questionnaire which will solicit feedback on the usefulness of the deposit tool, and other places where it should be made available to them. The Project will engage with research organisers and managers in a similar way, offering the project workshops and user community space as forums for determining the appropriate strategy for increasing uptake, enhancements to the software, and methods of driving policy change.

The project will co-operate with the JISC programme manager and collaborate with any relevant JISC projects and services as appropriate – particularly in relation to events taking place in the deposit community, which we can use for dissemination, and other means of reaching the appropriate wider audience. The project would particularly like input from the programme manager on these dissemination events, and community engagement.


Posted by: Lizzie Dipple