Review of Research Support findings & recommendations

Transcription

1 Review of Research Support findings & recommendations SDG Project team - March 2017

2 1) Background & Scope of the Review The Review of Research Support was commissioned by the Strategy Delivery Group ( SDG ). SDG is sponsored by the President and Vice-Chancellor and led by the Provost and Deputy Vice- Chancellor. The Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor is the formal sponsor of the review. The review was undertaken by the Review and Change Group ( RCG ) chaired by Rob Sykes, Faculty Director of Operations for Social Sciences. External context and independent input was provided by Dr Ceri Williams (Director of Innovation and Enterprise Partnerships, University of Leeds) and Dr Ian Carter (Director of Research and Enterprise, University of Sussex). As outlined in the Terms of Reference approved by University Executive Board (UEB), the objectives of the review were to critically explore the structures, services, ways of working and processes to ensure that research support: Meets the current and future needs of the University in the delivery of its core academic and research ambitions in an efficient and financially sustainable manner; Is structured and operates in a way that delivers value in terms of staffing, resourcing, operational and infrastructure costs relative to the quality and quantity of services provided and outcomes required; Fosters collaborative and effective working relationships and activities between faculties and Professional Services reflected by clear lines of accountability and responsibility; and Is supported by easy to use, efficient, and cost effective policies, systems and processes. The primary Professional Service ( PS ) reviewed was Research and Innovation Services (R&IS), although research support activities within Library Services, CiCS, Estates and Finance were considered. The RCG was also tasked with exploring how research support is delivered within faculties, and in consequence a deep dive was taken into the Faculty of Engineering. 2) Environmental Context The external research funding environment continues to change, providing challenges and opportunities for the University of Sheffield ( the University ) which has implications for how research support is delivered. Of particular significance is an increasing move by key funders to larger awards and thematic priorities and a need to address issues of impact, collaboration and interdisciplinary working. Key research funding opportunities for the future include the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCFR) and the Industrial Strategy Challenge Funding (ISCF). 3) Approach A variety of methods were used to obtain feedback and collect information and data including: the collection of benchmarking and performance data; employee workshops; surveys of stakeholders (both service users and service providers); small group interviews, and process mapping. The RCG, between them, met with over 200 stakeholders (105 in meetings, 96 in workshops) during the course of the review. All staff in R&IS and all research support staff in the

3 Faculty of Engineering had the opportunity to engage in review process through employee workshops. Drop-in sessions for these employees were also held; providing a further opportunity to input into the review and to raise questions. The professionalism and active engagement from research support staff was commended by RCG. 4) Structure of Research Support 4.1 R&IS R&IS current structure is split into 5 functional areas: Operations, Research Development; Intellectual Property & Commercialisation: Partnerships & Engagement; and Business Support. Over 17 different activities regarding research support are delivered by R&IS. As at 1 November 2016, R&IS had a complement of 100 staff (FTE). Of these staff, approximately 22 FTE were externally funded. Total R&IS costs represent circa 4% of the overall PS budget. In total, approximately 134 FTE employees provide research support activities at a faculty level. The make-up and investment of designated faculty based research support is mixed. This ranges from c. 50 FTE in the Faculty of Engineering, to c. 4 FTE in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities. 4.2 Faculty of Engineering The Faculty of Engineering has a cohort of over 20 business development managers and operates a Hub providing specialist support and coordination for large scale, cross-disciplinary awards. 5) Findings 5.1 R&IS R&IS has the largest portfolio of professional functions related to research support compared with 17 other Russell Group and research intensive institutions considered. Given the diversity of scope of research support functions between comparable R&IS functions in different universities, the RCG found that while R&IS at the University had a relatively high absolute staff headcount and cost, it also had the widest scope. Stakeholder meetings highlighted a misperception across the University regarding the size of R&IS, with the impression being that R&IS was too large and over resourced. Factors which felt to contribute to this misunderstanding included a relatively small number of genuine and active PS / faculty-facing roles, the complex and diverse portfolio of activities undertaken and the varied array of communication approaches used. The lack of understanding regarding roles, remits and responsibilities of R&IS was both acknowledged and highlighted as an operational barrier by R&IS staff themselves in employee

4 workshops. Whilst there were pockets of true service excellence identified, and surveys of stakeholders presented satisfaction with services, evidence collected from other sources (e.g. interviews and employee workshops) demonstrated a number of clear opportunities for improvement in terms of service delivery. Issues uncovered included problems accessing, and contacting, what were felt to be key elements of research support services. Overall there was felt to be an opportunity to further improve customer service and partnership orientation. These were particularly prevalent in areas where there was not a clear designated faculty contact. 5.2 Faculty based research support Across the University, investment in, and the size or research support, at a faculty level was not found to be directly linked to grant capture income. Despite this, there remains a strong case for suitably resourced local departmental or faculty research support. The current approach and focus of local faculty research support needs further attention. This is particularly the case in relation to inconsistencies in grade profile and responsibilities of research support staff within faculties. There was also concern regarding the potential for duplication of activities locally and within R&IS and/or the mis-alignment of lines of responsibility and a lack of a joined up approach. In the Faculty of Engineering, while the rationale for the establishment of the Hub and Faculty/departmental level support was clear, feedback collected on the overall efficacy of the Hub was varied amongst the academics, academic leaders and research support staff consulted. The consideration of the interface between R&IS, faculties and other professional services uncovered a number of issues. It was clear that a number of processes, particularly in relation of the transition from pre to post award, had the potential to fall down at points of hand-off between different service areas (e.g. HR / Finance / EFM). The Process mapping in particular highlighted a high number of touch points and time critical dependencies in our current approaches and systems which require further consideration. 6) Recommendations In response to the findings a total of 24 core recommendations were made. These are attached in appendix 1. These recommendations have been endorsed by SDG, UEB and the President and Vice-Chancellor. 7) Next steps and timescales

5 An action plan has been developed to deliver the recommendations within the next 12 months (March 2017 February 2018). These will be delivered on a phased basis. Where appropriate, the University s Change Management procedures will be used which will include consultation with appropriate staffing teams and groups. The continued involvement and engagement of University staff will be crucial to the successful delivery of the recommendations. SDG PROJECT TEAM MARCH 2017

6 APPENDIX 1 - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Area Recommendation Summary 1 Whole R&IS The introduction of a refocused, simplified and flexible new operating approach with 2 clear areas of functional activity (captured by the proposed functional structure in Appendix 2. In recognition of this new service design a new name for research and innovation services should be considered. 2 Whole R&IS The adoption of a design principle that all substantive and business critical roles within the new model are funded on CORE funds with HEIF used to support strategic initiatives. 3 Leadership The University needs to continue to invest and develop leadership capability across R&IS 4 Whole R&IS Work with R&IS staff to further embed a customer-focussed way-of-working 5 All Faculties In response to the new operating approach, Faculties review and change their research support structures, mechanisms, skills, capability and provision more generally. For example, some specialised roles may be more effectively delivered via the new R&IS structure. 6 Review of Business Development Manager roles It is recommended a Task and Finish Group is formed to explore the role, function, responsibilities and grades of BDM roles across the University and make appropriate recommendations for change. 7 Engineering Hub In response to the introduction of the new operating approach and feedback received from the review, it is recommended that the Faculty of Engineering reconsider the role and responsibilities of their research hub. 8 Case-study of service excellence 9 Research contract negotiation and management 10 R&IS Designated Faculty Research Support The pricing and costings team provide a case-study of an effective, shared-service. Lessons learnt from their approach should be captured and shared across R&IS, Professional Services and the wider University as appropriate. Establish and / or review and refresh expectations around service standards (which could include indicative turnaround times for particular activities such as contracts, but might also take the form of periodic light touch reviews of particular aspects of services by service users). The establishment of a genuine business partnership approach between R&IS and Faculties underpinned by the creation of Business Partner roles based in R&IS but aligned to each Faculty, mirroring and building upon the approach used in other professional service areas (e.g. Finance, HR). Acting as conduits between Faculties and R&IS these positions will align their day-today work to drive and enable all aspects of the research agenda of Faculties and support the University s interdisciplinary agenda more broadly.

7 11 Research Grant Management 12 Partnerships & Engagement 13 Research governance, ethics and integrity 14 Research Excellence Framework Build upon and consolidate end-to-end implementation accountability and responsibility for highly complex research projects connecting professional service interfaces; building on the model that already exists in one R&IS post. Support for separate recommendations considered by UEB to transition members of the Partnerships and Engagement team to a new portfolio managed under the Chief Operating Officer which would consolidate and strengthen links aligning this activity with the wider Engagement and Public Responsibility agenda. Establish high level (Director) discussions with the STH Trust on issues relating to academic perception of differential approaches to definition of research (and therefore governance and ethics arrangements) and possibly systematised support for costings (STHT). No specific recommendations to be made, given that REF operational management was seen as fit for purpose, though thought may be given to how the behaviours demonstrated by this team might be embedded more broadly within R&IS. 15 Doctoral Academy In light of feedback received from this review a consideration is made in respect of the remit and future direction of the Doctoral Academy. 16 Research Degree Support 17 IP Development & Commercialisation 18 Professional Development Operational PGR support (student progression, examination etc.) was broadly seen as fit for purpose though work is needed around some aspects of systems and processes. Recognising that the leadership, operating structure and approach for IP Development & Commercialisation is still relatively new, no specific changes to its core approach are recommended, but this team should be incorporated into the proposed Research Quality and Delivery (RQD) section. Further embedding within the Research Growth and Development (RGD) team in order to deliver across PGR through to senior staff. 19 Business Support Review, rationalise and distribute the activities undertaken by this function across teams in the new R&IS operating model. 20 Professional Service Interfaces 21 Scoping of IT solutions 22 University Leadership The new operating model needs to be underpinned by strengthened, clearer and stronger collaborative relationships amongst and across professional services. This is to be explored further by the Vice-President Research & Innovation (VPR&I) and Director of Academic Services (DAS). It is recommended that a Task and Finish Group is formed to scope the opportunities for IT solutions to enhance service delivery and that this should seek out best practice both internally (down to the level of research groups) and externally. Some thought should also be given to ensuring that any arising implementation is adequately resourced such that it can be delivered and supported in a timely and robust manner. Further opportunities to strengthen leadership alignment across R&IS, Faculties and professional services are to be explored by a group to be established under the leadership of the VP R&I. 23 AMRC Recognising the changes to governance and leadership structures at the University involving the ARMC, it is recommended that current R&IS interfaces and approaches to supporting the AMRC are reviewed (for example, the value of a business partner relationship).

8 24 Evaluation of performance The DAS in collaboration with the VP R&I to develop appropriate evaluation processes for R&IS services.

9 Appendix 2: R&IS Proposed functional structure / Operating Approach / R&IS Interface The diagrams below outline some of the key principles of the proposed operating model. These are indicative and do not reflect a final structure which will be developed further based on the recommendations made in the review. The R&IS Proposed functional model outlines the potential split of indicative activities between Research Quality & Delivery and Research Growth & Development. These activities do not reflect current team roles within R&IS. This will be subject to further scrutiny, consideration and consultation during the design stage of the new structure.

10