1. Impact Activities LOG View over some option for the capture of Impact activities

2. What is intended A very simple and user-friendly survey-type website; Academics should be able to log-in and insert: – Name (ideally already there); – Date of event, start to finish; – Stakeholder group; – Nature of activity; – Supporting documents (in way of attachments or links); All the entries need to be stored and compiled yearly; Entries should be flagged as confidential, if necessary;

3. Several possibilities 1.Google-type survey; 2.RedCap; 3.Twiki; 4.Pub Lists; 5.Bespoke website; 6.ERIC – Coventry University;

4. 1. Google-type survey GoogleDocs does not allow attachments in the surveys, however there are third party applications connected to google that do – Form+, requires a Google account (Gmail) Test form can be found here: http://goo.gl/rNJOe4;http://goo.gl/rNJOe4 Advantages Flexible, allows the manager to input any field necessary; Can be very simple and straightforward; Provides a spreadsheet with all the entries – only if the form is not changed in the meantime; Sends notifications whenever an entry is added; Disadvantages No user login; Does NOT guarantee confidentiality; User cannot go back and edit their entry, so it will be necessary to create a new form every time; It shows ads (can be bypassed by buying the non-trial version, £60/year);

5. 2. RedCap Based on RedCap Software, this application is maintained by the ITS at QM. Contact person: Stephen Welburn s.welburn@qmul.ac.uk Test form can be found here: https://redcap- 01.dev.research.its.qmul.ac.uk/surveys/?s=dUsy22RWbmhttps://redcap- 01.dev.research.its.qmul.ac.uk/surveys/?s=dUsy22RWbm Advantages Immediate setup; Flexible, allows the manager to input any field necessary; Managers can edit entries; Can be simple and straightforward; Does not have ads; Maintained within ITS - QMUL; Disadvantages User cannot go back and edit their entry, so it will be necessary to create a new form every time; Interface on the manager’s side not straightforward; Strong possibility

6. 3. Twiki Simple Web application that allows to have a web page and edit it very easily. Contact person: Stephen Welburn s.welburn@qmul.ac.uk Advantages Requires user log in; Flexible, allows the user to input any field necessary; Each entry is confidential; User would be able to edit their entry and add as much info necessary; A summary table can be viewed by manager; IT services would help maintain it; Disadvantages Not as simple to enter data; Requires time and resources setting up; The summary table is not download- able, however it’s easy to copy and paste into a spreadsheet; Strong possibility

7. 4. Pub Lists Based on the Symplectic Elements software, maintained by the QMUL Library, academics use it to log their articles; Contact person: Sarah Molloy s.h.molloy@qmul.ac.uk Advantages Requires user log in; Within a global QM system, would have support; User would be able to edit their entry; Disadvantages Does not allow uploads; The required module for creating a form is on the process of being implemented; Documents would not be confidential;

8. 5. Bespoke Website A Website could be created and annexed to the SPIR main webpage; Either by hiring a Web designer or engaging the IT services Advantages Would have all the wanted features to the SPIR’s demands; Disadvantages Requires high level programming and maintenance by IT services or a Web designer; Could be costly; Not immediate: would require one month minimum to setup;

9. 6. ERIC – Coventry University Coventry University have created a pilot impact capture system, article can be found here: : http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/02/07/e ric-impact-management-tool-for-academics/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/02/07/e ric-impact-management-tool-for-academics/ Advantages The description seems to meet all QM purposes; Disadvantages May not be available for implementation within QM; Seems too specific for CU’s needs;

10. Conclusions We have looked into six possibilities: 1.Google-type survey – Immediate and universal, serious issues with confidentiality and annoying ads; 2.RedCap – All advantages of item 1. on a system within QM with ITS support; 3.Twiki – Simple and with all features needed, however requires time and resources throughout; 4.Pub Lists – Not applicable for what is needed; 5.Bespoke website – Not manageable in a limited time frame and costly; 6.ERIC – Coventry University – Requires interaction and willingness within CU; Still to be defined: Should it be accessible from outside QM staff? At what level? Cooperation between other departments ?