welcome and introduction david leech director, programme operations
TRANSCRIPT
Welcome and Introduction
David LeechDirector, Programme Operations
CTA BRIEFING MEETING: 12 NOVEMBER
University Attendees
Bangor ……………………………….. David Joyner
Bath ……………………………….. Kevin Edge, Richard Griffith
Birmingham ……………………….. Paul Bowen
Brighton ………………………………Andrew Lloyd
Brunel …………………………………. Teresa Waller, Lynne Greenstreet
City …………………………………. Jo Bradford, Neil Maiden
Coventry …………………………….. Malcolm Gould, Keith Burnham
Cranfield ……………………………. Clifford Friend
Glamorgan ………………………….. Sheala Edwards, Louise Bright
Glasgow ………………………………Hazel Ruxton, Martin Hendry, Amanda Tannahill
ICSTM ……………………………….. Richard Jardine, Kenny Weir, Martin Richards
Leeds ……………………………….. Alan Coppock, Nigel Smith
Liverpool …..……………………….. Jane Cloke, Sue Barlow
Liverpool John Moores ……… Paulo Lisboa
Luton …………………………………. David Rawson, Phil Ladley
CTA BRIEFING MEETING: 12 NOVEMBER
University Attendees
Middlesex ………………………….. Mehmet Karamanoglu, Richard Bunce
Plymouth ..…………………………. Clive Williams
Portsmouth .……………………….. Nick Bennett, Vince Hughes
Sheffield ……………………… Peter Fearnley
South Bank …………………………. Razmik Boodaghians, Anjum (Jim) Pervez
Southampton ………………… Hilary Smith, Sally Brailsford
Staffordshire ………………………. Stephen John Rees
Surrey …………………………………. Chris France
UWE, Bristol ……………………….. Richard Bond, Tony Solomonides
Wolverhampton ………………….. Richard Hall, Sylvia Haycox
CTA : Implementation Timetable
Steve MilsomUniversity Interface Manager
CTA Project Team
CTA Timetable : 2003 - 2005
Call: Call Issued Expression of Interest
Confirmation of Bidders
Full Business Plans
Preliminary Decisions
Grant Starts
Student Starts
Pilot March 2003 Not relevant Not relevant 15 September 2003
1 November 2003
1 April 2004
October 2004
First General
1 September 2003
30 September 2003
15 October 2003
1 February 2004
31 March 2004 1 July 2004
October 2004
Second General
1 May 2004 31 May 2004 15 June 2004 1 October 2004 30 November 2004
1 April 2005
October 2005
Feb
July
Sept
Nov
Jan
March
April
May
Oct
‘Call’ released (01/09)
Business Plans (01/02)
Assessment (~ 01/03)
Decisions (~ 31/03)
‘Call’ released
Business Plans (deadline 15/09)Assessment (24/10)
Decisions (~ 01/11)
Close current activities
Announce CTAs
Course development
Major student starts
03
04
First General Call Pilot Phase
Dec
Expressions of interest (30/09)
Confirmation of bidders (15/10)
Indicative Limits and Other Financial Information
Alan ThomasHead, Technology Operations
CTA Project Manager
Research Grants76.7%
Training17.5%
Operations3.6%
£498 million
Expenditure 2002/03
Fellowships1.7% Public Awareness
0.4%
Why Use Indicative Limits?
Allows EPSRC to exercise control over its financial planning (i.e. by mapping demand to available resources).
Gives potential bidders a definitive and realistic financial framework.
Fairness and consistency (all bidders treated equitably and equally as possible).
A realistic reflection of an HEIs current EPSRC portfolio / track record.
Allows growth to planned and managed.
Method of Calculation : Basic Tenets
Simple
Understandable
Justifiable
Explainable
Generically Applicable
Calculation should also generate “realistic” figures.
The “Calculation”
EngDoc, KTP (aka TCS), MTP and RAIS schemes - all included.
Industrial Case – specifically excluded.
Current “portfolio” assumed to be continuing as is.
The “Calculation” (continued)
Entire MTP “portfolio” included.
Allowance made for MTPs of different duration
Contribution of RAIS and KTP at best an approximation – true level of support per annum very
difficult to determine accurately.
Contribution of EngDoc Centres based on unit cost (i.e. £3.5M and £4.0M).
Variation in the Value of Organisations
Collaborative Training Portfolio
£10,000
£100,000
£1,000,000
£10,000,000
£100,000,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Organisation Ranking
Vla
uen
of
Co
llab
ora
tive
Tra
inin
g P
ort
foli
o (
ES
PR
C
Fu
nd
ed) £300,000 - benchmark
Variation in the Value of Collaborative Training
Portfolio - Organisations in the First Call
£1
£10
£100
£1,000
£10,000
£100,000
£1,000,000
£10,000,000
£100,000,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Organisation
Vla
uen
of
Co
llab
ora
tive T
rain
ing
Po
rtfo
lio
(E
SP
RC
F
un
ded
)
£300,000 - benchmark
Collaborative Training Portfolio – All Research Organisations
EngDoc Centres31%
Industrial Case5%
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
5%
Research Assistant Industrial Secondments
1%
Masters Training Packages58%
Total Portfolio = ~ £170M
Collaborative Training Portfolio – Pilot Organisations Only
Masters Training Packages43%
Industrial Case3%
Research Assistant Industrial Secondments
1%
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
3%
EngDoc Centres50%
Total Portfolio = ~ £63M
Collaborative Training Portfolio – Organisations in the First Call Only
EngDoc Centres32%
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
5%Research Assistant
Industrial Secondments1%
Industrial Case6%
Masters Training Packages56%
Total Portfolio = ~ £66M
Portfolio Comparison (by value) – Pilot Organisations with Rest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Masters TrainingPackages
Research AssistantIndustrial Secondments
Know ledge TransferPartnerships
EngDoc Centres Industrial Case Total Portfolio
Pilots HEIs Remaining HEIs
Portfolio Comparison (by value) – Organisations in the First Call with Rest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Masters TrainingPackages
Research AssistantIndustrial Secondments
Know ledge TransferPartnerships
EngDoc Centres Industrial Case Total Portfolio
Organisations in the First Call Remaining Organisations
Pilots – Breakdown of EPSRC Funding Sought
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Org. 1 Org. 2 Org. 3 Org. 4 Org. 5 Org. 6 Org. 7 Org. 8 Org. 9 Org. 10
Other Costs
Equipment
SkillsDevelopment
Coordination
Delivery
Stipends
Pilots – Contributions to Total Value of CTA
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perc
en
tag
e C
on
trib
uti
on
to
"T
ota
l V
alu
e o
f C
TA
"
Org. 1 Org. 2 Org. 3 Org. 4 Org. 5 Org. 6 Org. 7 Org. 8 Org. 9 Org. 10
Other
Industry
EPSRC
Issues and Questions
The CTA philosophy (the ability to use the funds flexibly, strategically and tactically).
Procedures and processes to implement any CTA award
What difference will a CTA make?
What are the main risk and challenges in implementing a CTA?
Why is your Organisation best placed to provide the type and range of training outlined in your Business Plan
How will difficult decisions be taken.
Identification of milestones and key performance indicators.
Business Plan Format and Structure
Iain CameronHead, Postgraduate Training
CTA Project Team
Funding Headings
Student stipends/RA salaries
Delivery (including course development costs)
Coordination (including management costs)
Skills development
Equipment
Other costs
Industrial contribution (cash/kind)
University/government contribution (cash/kind)
Business Plan : Format
BUSINESS PLAN (details)
Named Account Co-ordinator
Total value of funds sought from EPSRC
Total number of people trained
Total expected industrial contributions
Total expected contributions from other sources
Activity list of mechanisms and subject coverage
Business Plan : Format
BUSINESS PLAN (qualities)
Management structure proposed for the account
Fit to strategic vision and priorities
Explanation of user involvement in CTA
Estimate of number of people to be trained
Explanation of the use of EPSRC finance e.g. individual student fees, course development costs,
Pump-priming funding, co-ordination, etc
Pilot Panel Process
Panel of 6 with an independent chair
Early meeting of panel to confirm process and practice
Each member linked to 2 pilot universities
Bidders had comments from EPSRC Programme Managers and Panel members prior to final panel meeting
Bidders “interviewed” by panel
General Call Panel Process
Panel of around 10 with an independent chair.
Panel will have met to confirm process and practice.
• informed by pilot process
• continuity of membership from pilot
A Panel member will identified to lead the discussion on each bid.
Panel members queries (including from EPSRC Programme Managers) will be passed to bidders prior to panel meeting
EPSRC may invite bidders to make a presentation
A New Process Requires Risk Management
Developing a peer review process that would both be effective and acceptable to all stakeholders for a novel ‘product’ like the CTA was identified as one of the riskier elements. The risks derive from :
• the unfamiliar nature of the CTA both to bidders and peer-reviewers might give rise to unrealistic expectations,
• the need to develop new assessment criteria to support the EPSRC business objectives,
• the potential for imperfect understanding of the business plan requirements in the minds of bidders.
The unfamiliarity and communication uncertainties can only be addressed by working with the bidders throughout the process.
Reporting Issues
People (individual details)
• Doctoral student details c.f. DTAs - via eforms
• Outreach staff (RAIS and KTP) - via eforms
Masters level: (aggregate - annual)
• Annual throughput of Vocational MSc, Modular CPD and MRes: (Graduated/failed/dropped out)
• New courses developed / courses discontinued
Outreach activities: (annual)
• People and type/level of involvement in TT
• People flows: university to Industry
• Collaborative partners - turnover and total
Commentary on strategy/achievements (annual)
CTAs - A personal view
Kevin Neailey
Agenda What is a CTA? What a CTA means Four essentials The bidding process Problems to avoid
What is a CTA?
The Starting Point
MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD
Individual programmes
Individual objectives
A CTA?
MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD
A CTA ?
MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD
Flexibility to move funds between the programmes
A CTA
MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD
The CTA is greater than the sum of its parts
The CTA has its own objectives and measures
What the CTA Means Opportunity
Flexibility Novelty
Threat To the status quo Responsibility We are our own assessors
What a CTA Needs Novelty Management Measures
Four Essentials
1. Collaboration With Industry
Meet UK needs Meet industrial demand Industrial input
2. Collaboration With University Management
Flexibility Fairness
3. Collaboration With other departments
To realise the flexibility Synergy
4. Collaboration With funding bodies
The Bidding Process
The Bidding Process Full bid Questions from the review panel Interview with the review panel The result
Problems to face This money is mine Me too!
Conclusions The CTA
is different is greater than its constituent
programmes We are our own assessors Collaboration