1. RAMS Overview: An update on the research workflow tool James Dalziel Professor of Learning Technology, and Director, Macquarie E-Learning Centre Of Excellence (MELCOE) Macquarie University james@melcoe.mq.edu.au www.melcoe.mq.edu.au Presentation for 2007 European LAMS Conference, July 5 th, 2007

2. Overview Introducing RAMS Sample eResearch Activityflow Use Cases Rationale for RAMS Progress to date –New features –Sakai integration Areas for future consideration –Challenges of RQF assessment

3. Introducing RAMS The “Research Activity Management System” (RAMS) builds on the LAMS V2 workflow core (+ new eResearch features) A suite of activity tools appropriate for group-based eResearch human workflows –Including multi-purpose tools that apply across eLearning and eResearch The result is two different domain-specific applications (LAMS for eLearning; RAMS for eResearch) that draw on a common workflow core Everything is open source

4. Introducing RAMS LAMS ApplicationRAMS Application “Education Workflow Engine” (LAMS core + new RAMS development) AdminAuthorMonitorParticipant eLearning specific toolsMulti-purpose toolseResearch specific tools TeachersResearchers

5. As RAMS evolves… LAMS ApplicationRAMS Application “Education Workflow Engine” (LAMS core + new RAMS development) AdminAuthorMonitorParticipant eLearning specific toolsMulti-purpose toolseResearch specific tools TeachersResearchers New tool features for eResearch

6. High level use cases from RAMP proposal: 1.Managing the research enterprise lifecycle (from grant planning to grant submission, to project initiation, to project lifecycle management, to research outcome dissemination), 2.Implementing auditable evaluation processes for assessing research quality (RQF assessor workflows, journal/conference peer review management, etc), 3.Designing and tracking article submission processes for Institutional Repositories, 4.Flexibly configuring and running online research collaboration processes (such as staged collaborative analysis and discussion for PhD/Postdocs around raw data, leading to interpretation, visualisation, and ultimately publications), and 5.Process-oriented research data collection from human subjects (such as in the humanities, and social and cognitive sciences). Sample eResearch Activityflow Use Cases

7. Use case 3: Institutional Repository submission workflow

8. Use case 2: RQF assessor evaluation process

9. Use case 4: Example of weekly research group meeting

10. Use case 4a: Alternative example of weekly research group meeting

11. Rationale for RAMS Greater standardisation of common or repeatable research processes, leading to higher quality outcomes and improved efficiency; The ability to share descriptions of common research processes both within institutions, and between institutions – including the ability to adapt and localise shared research processes; Greatly improved accountability and audit for processes involving multiple actors across multiple steps – such as for research assessment (eg, RQF assessor workflows), as well as for research itself (eg, as a deterrent to academic fraud); and Providing a process-oriented checklist to ensure the ordered completion of relevant research tasks.

12. Progress to date Development of RAMS: activity tools + core additions –Done: Basic RAMS release, RAMS skin, “Live Edit”, Participants as Monitors –Coming in second half of 2007 (V2.1): Initial branching, conditionality, grouping, tool data in/out Contributed to JISC Human Workflow meeting in UK on July 3 rd Ramscommunity.org website ready to launch as basis for sharing RAMS designs and discussion of issues Sakai 2.3/2.4 integration available (same as LAMS) Mid-way through workflow theory review –Looks like LAMS/RAMS breaks significant new group, no really comparable system/specification found to date –Key difference is that in LAMS/RAMS *groups of people* travel through the workflow, not data/processes

13. New RAMS Features: Default assumption is all Participants are also Monitors

14. New RAMS Features: Live Edit (starting with running sequence in Monitor)

15. New RAMS Features: Open live sequence in special author mode (some locked)

16. New RAMS Features: Can change sequence structure/tools for those not locked

17. New RAMS Features: Live sequence is immediately updated for current users

18. Areas for future consideration Areas considered (but not yet under development) –New “Welcome” page based on researcher workspace for all eResearch workflows –Include “current status” information for all workflows –Allow system-launched sequences (eg, repository submission workflow) –Investigating sequence aggregation, hierarchies and linking –Investigating (actionable) roles for RAMS tools, including multiple roles across multiple actors with differential impact on different tools –Investigating challenging “what constitutes task completion” issues (easy for single user, hard for groups)

19. Challenges of RQF assessment Consider the following version of the RAE/RQF assessment workflow: –Step 1: Academic submits articles for assessment; assessors (including assessor manager) can then view articles –Step 2: Assessors (including assessor manager) discuss quality of articles (eg, chat, forum or “offline”) –Step 3: Assessors (including assessor manager) provide overall rating of academic’s quality and impact; assessor manager then finalises an overall score for quality and impact based on prior discussion and review of ratings from all assessors; at a later stage, the scores can be made viewable by the academic

20. Challenges of RQF assessment Step 1 Step 2Step 3 SubmitDiscussRate Simple?

21. View Challenges of RQF assessment Step 1 Step 2Step 3 Academic Role Assessor Role Assessor Manager Submit View No task Discuss View Rate & Finalise View Discuss View Rate ??? ?? (System)

22. Challenges of RQF assessment Some problems to solve –How to design tools to allow for actionable roles without the system becoming unworkably complex for non-technical users? –How does the system handle multiple actors within and across different roles? –What constitutes task completion in group workflows? How does the system know to notify assessors that articles have been submitted? How does the system know that the discussion is finished and the rating has begun? How does the system know to notify the academic that their rating is now viewable?