1. Overview and Key Findings

2. UKRISS Project 2 Duration 22 months: March 2012 – December 2013 Funding JISC – Research Information Management Programme Structure Phase 1: Requirements and Recommendations Feasibility Study – public release January 2013 Phase 2: Modelling, Proof-of-Concept, Business case, Sustainability Final report - due 31 st December 2013, public release January 2014. Partners King’s College London (lead), British Library, Brunel University, Cottage Labs, Exeter University, euroCRIS, University of Edinburgh (unfunded) Subcontractors: Viewforth Consulting, Certis

3. Initial objectives Explore feasibility and proof-of-concept delivery of a national shared service for reporting of research information – Scope RCUK and charities (not EC) Increase the flow of research information around the sector whilst reducing the burden of research reporting on individual researchers and institutions

4. Background CERIF Standard for representation of research information JISC EXRI-UK report (2009) Recommended adoption of CERIF across UK HE sector JISC report (2010) – Business case for CERIF Reduction in complexity and administrative effort JISC report (2012) – Adoption of CERIF in UK HEIs 51 UK institutions have a CERIF-compliant CRIS (30%) Outputs systems ROS - Research Outputs System (RCUK), Research Fish, Gateway to Research (BIS) JISC projects (IRIOS 1&2, RMAS, CERIF in Action, Readiness for REF, MICE, DESCRIBE, BRUCE)

5. Wider perspective Regulatory practice group Origin and foundation – government white paper Information Landscape Study 2012 – findings HEDIIP – subject codes, lexicon for HE Creating and managing a data model report, July 2013 http://www.hediip.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/HEDIIP_Data_Language_Report_2013-09.pdf http://www.hediip.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/HEDIIP_Data_Language_Report_2013-09.pdf International perspective ORCID CrossRef, FundRef CASRAI – UK chapter Existing national systems (Norway, Czech Republic) Germany

6. Research information landscape

7. Requirements Study Based on 41 Interviews across the sector Final list of 231 requirements UKRISS BIS (Gateway to Research) Institutions Vendors RCUK (ROS, Research Fish) HESAHEFCE BIS (GtR) Other funders (e.g. charities) Umbrella organisations

8. Key issues Fragmented reporting landscape – Lack of alignment of information requests to institutions and PIs – Similar information collected in different ways Burden on institutions (PIs and administrators) – Duplication and lack of automation Data quality and reporting compliance issues Limited reuse of research information – Limits strategic planning and business intelligence

9. Key drivers

10. Feasibility study recommendations Reporting profile 1.Specification, standardisation and adoption of a core CERIF profile for reporting of research information in UK HEIs. National reporting infrastructure 2.Implementation of a national reporting infrastructure and associated shared services to facilitate the exchange of research information between IT systems within institutions, funders and statutory bodies. Benchmarking 3.Provision of benchmarking tools that enable comparison and analysis of research information generated by multiple organisations for management information purposes.

11. National reporting infrastructure Stakeholders did not want a national reporting system Existing investments in infrastructure by funders, institutions and government RCUK funding only a subset of all reporting What about charity funders? Interoperability at a semantic level is a prerequisite to developing national infrastructure Core profile development was deemed to have the highest immediate value There are many research funders outside RCUK

12. Phase 2 specific objectives Focus on development of core reporting profile Phase 2 goals: Investigate harmonisation of research outcomes reporting (ROS, Research Fish) and HE-BCI Reporting fields and vocabularies CERIF mappings Understand relationship to institutional data Practical demonstrators and tools Validation, visualisation and aggregation tools Crosswalk connector Business case for harmonisation Sustainability

13. Data Flows between Universities and RCUK

15. Data flows

16. Core profile Business requirements of funders are different Questions relating to discipline-specific research outputs Different business objectives of funders Alignment not in scope Institutional reporting requirements Aggregated profile (union of reporting fields) Aggregate information fields reported Understanding of the information requested Map to CERIF entities Core profile (intersection of reporting fields) Identify areas of overlap and potential harmonisation Make proposals for harmonisation

17. Sustainability CASRAI participation UK chapter supported by Jisc Submission of core profile and vocabularies at end Nov HEDIIP engagement Contributed to euroCRIS is a project partner Presentations at international events Engagement with funders Demonstrations at partner institutions Exeter, Brunel, KCL Engagement with vendors Communications Workshops in London and Glasgow (20 th November)

18. Governance CandidateForAgainst RCUKOwn ROS and RFExcludes other funders (e.g. charities), HE-BCI, institutions CASRAICross-sector bodyNot in current remit (focus is on vocabularies) HEDIIPHas remit to simplify information exchanges Current focus is on teaching euroCRISExpert forum with international reach Outside current remit JiscRemit can be clearly definedFunding? Umbrella body (e.g. ARMA, UCISA) Wide cross-sector representation Funding? Determine ownership of a core reporting profile Forum and processes for agreeing changes to core information fields

19. Next steps Harmonisation of reporting requirements is a first step Alignment of similar fields and vocabularies - UKRISS Further steps Closer alignment of reporting fields and prioritisation (taking into account funder and institutional requirements) Governance Implementation: who should gather research information? Institutions Compliance, limited PI-funder interaction Support for smaller institutions? Less flexible Segmented approach Potential for duplication and confusion – needs coordination Potential role for national shared service Need improved information sharing and quality controls Both approaches require dialogue and agreement between funders and institutions on reporting requirements

20. Further information