RKEO Proposal Documentintranetsp.bournemouth.ac.uk/documentsrep/RKEO proposal... · Web viewPROPOSAL FOR CONSULTATION 24 April 2014 Contents Introduction Context and rationale for

BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE OFFICE

REVIEW OF STRUCTURE

PROPOSAL FOR CONSULTATION

24 April 2014

Contents

1. Introduction2. Context and rationale for change 3. BU institutional development plan for RKE4. Other drivers for change5. Current structure of RKEO6. Staff engagement7. Proposed structure of RKEO8. Impact of proposal9. Proposed process for implementation and timescales

9.1 Voluntary severance

Appendix A – Key findings from other universitiesAppendix B – Examples of other HEI research and KE support structuresAppendix C – RKEO structure as at March 2014Appendix D – Notes from initial RKEO staff meeting and subsequent feedbackAppendix E – Slotting in and prior consideration processAppendix F – Proposed split of roles by schools/faculty

RKEO proposal for consultation April 2014 Page 1

1. Introduction

This consultation document sets out the current structure, rationale for change and proposal for the future structure of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) at Bournemouth University (BU). The document confirms the process and timescales for consultation with RKEO, with trade unions and ICE and with staff across BU. It states the potential impact on roles, proposed process and indicative timescales for implementation of the changes proposed. If the proposal is accepted and implemented then an assessment of the impacts of the revised structure will be undertaken in 12 months from the point when implementation is completed.


2. Context and rationale for change

RKEO was established in September 2011 by bringing together, in name at least, the Research and Knowledge Exchange (RKE) Operations team with the Research Development Unit.1 Work is split into tasks undertaken by the operations team (managed by the RKE Operations Manager) and the development team (managed by the RKE Development Manager), supported by an administrative team that provides flexible support across the department. The Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange holds responsibility with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) for the strategic direction of the department and has overarching line management of all posts. The relocation of all teams to a shared area in Melbury House in 2012-13 was beneficial and emphasised the potential benefits of further integration between what are currently deemed operations and development tasks and functions.

The institutional development plan for RKE is almost complete and will be presented to Senate for approval in June 2014. This proposal is aligned to the objectives in the plan.

In developing the proposal for change set out below, the following factors have been taken into account:

The needs of the University in achieving the aims and objectives set out in BU2018. The resource requirements of the institutional development plan for RKE 2014-2018. The needs of the schools/faculty and professional services. The existing and projected volumes of work, particularly in terms of the number and

value of proposals submitted and the number and value of grants awarded. Key factors from the external research and knowledge exchange (KE) environment,

for example open access, the post-2014 REF, public engagement, etc. Feedback and suggestions from RKEO team members. Existing skills and experience: there is a considerable pool of knowledge, skills and

experience in the current RKEO team which it is important to retain and develop. There is also considerable commitment amongst staff to BU and to the department itself.

Existing good practice in RKEO, for example:o Excellent external environment, funder and sector knowledge.o Excellent specialist and/or technical knowledge and expertise.o Established practices and initiatives, many of which are ahead of the sector.o Good relationships with the Office of the Vice-Chancellor, Schools/Faculty

and Professional Services.o Good reputation externally with a number of staff engaged in external

networks and delivering presentations at national and international conferences.

o RKEO team members are committed to BU and to RKEO and have a strong desire to change and improve.

Existing gaps in service and provision, known and acknowledged shortcomings in the current structure, for example:

1 The graduate school and the business engagement unit were also included however the former is no longer part of RKEO (from 2013 onwards) and the latter is yet to be set up.


o There is a need for increased collaboration across teams to avoid duplication of effort, clarify responsibilities and ensure consistency of message and service.

o The current structure does not follow the research and KE workflow.o The current structure does not facilitate career progression, particularly

between functional teams or between RKEO and other departments at BU.o Some of the roles are rigid and inflexible.o Post-award management is often neglected due to the demands of pre-award

management, leaving the University open to the risk of non-compliance.o The KE roles2 lack collective identity, cohesion and focus.

The increasing impetus externally to professionalise research management and administration roles, for example the recently launched Association for Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA)’s professional development framework provides a sector-standard role and career structure for these roles.3

Other university structures: available information on other university research and knowledge exchange structures is readily available and good practice from other institutions was used to inform this proposal. Site visits to three universities took place in February/March 20144 and discussions were held with five other institutions.5 A desk-based review of the structures at several other universities was also undertaken.6 These institutions are not necessarily comparable to BU in terms of research and knowledge exchange volume, bidding/grant profile, staff numbers or strategic objectives. The remit of research and knowledge exchange support services varies and there is no model structure. Where relevant, however, other institutions’ good practice relating to research and KE support has informed this proposal. Examples of other university research and KE support structures are located in Appendix B.

The size of the department: research indicates that when an institution’s research income is in the range of £0m-£50m there is a threshold in the size of staff needed to support research activity which is roughly around 30fte.7 It is important to note that this study did not look at support for KE activities.

3. BU institutional development plan for RKE2 KE as a definition is nebulous. In the context of this proposal it refers to the following broad areas: business engagement, business development, impact, public engagement, knowledge transfer and research communications.

3 See link at: https://www.arma.ac.uk/professional-development/PDF

4 Site visits took place at University College London, University of Southampton and University of the West of England.

5 Discussions took place with Northumbria University, University of Kent, Nottingham University, University of Bath and Arts University Bournemouth.

6 Desk-based structure reviews were undertaken for University of Cambridge, Imperial College London, University of Leeds, London School of Economics, University of Oxford, Swansea University, University of Plymouth, University of Surrey, Brighton University, Queens University Belfast and University of Chichester.

7 Professionalising Research Management, 2009, John Green and David Langley, HEFCE/MRC report.


BU’s institutional development plan for RKE supports the organisational strategic plan, BU2018, and sets out the role of RKEO in the context of a changing and challenging external and internal environment. The plan identifies three core areas that RKEO needs to support:

Research environment – i.e. increasing the quality, volume, vitality and sustainability of BU’s research (PI 2: RKE income of £18k per academic fte per year and PI 4: a ratio of 1.5fte research staff per professorial fte).

Research outputs – i.e. increasing the quality, volume and impact of BU’s outputs and dissemination (PI 1: 70% of academic staff with four 2* ‘internationally excellent’ outputs, as measured using REF definitions and PI 5: at least one international conference per academic fte per year).

Research impact – i.e. increasing the reach and significance of the impact of BU’s research both within and beyond academia. There is no direct measure of this in BU2018, however knowledge exchange, public engagement and impact are embedded throughout the strategy and impact is an assessment element of the Research Excellence Framework assessment and external funder requirements (including the UK research councils and European Commission).

Successful implementation of the RKE plan will depend on staff across BU, with RKEO playing a leading role. Achievement of the objectives, and therefore BU2018 performance indicators, demands a high-performing and fit-for-purpose research and knowledge exchange support team, where structure, roles and responsibilities are closely aligned with BU’s objectives. Expertise and skills in the three areas highlighted are critical, and the structure and roles must directly support, enable and add value to the research lifecycle. A more agile, responsive and connected approach to leading research and knowledge exchange support is essential. The institutional development plan for RKE has been developed by the University Executive Team in close collaboration with RKEO and with input from academic and professional service colleagues from across the University over a twelve month period.


4. Other drivers for change

As well as the strategic objectives mentioned in Section 3, there are other drivers for change within RKEO.

4.1 Increasing volume and complexity of pre-award management

Research and knowledge exchange are rapidly becoming more international, interdisciplinary and collaborative, and the competition to obtain funding is becoming more challenging each year. This, in addition to external changes to proposal preparation (for example the introduction of full economic costing, the focus on impact and the Research Council’s demand management requirements8), has made the process increasingly complex and onerous. Internal BU processes have been amended in line with external requirements, resulting in additional procedures such as internal peer review and quality approval. These aim to increase BU’s chances of success in an increasingly competitive environment but internally they have resulted in processes that are fragmented, lengthy and confusing. Supporting proposal preparation has become a specialism in the sector and BU needs to move to a position whereby this is recognised in the RKEO structure, rather than it being part of a larger role, to ensure the opportunity for competitive advantage is optimised.

4.2 Increasing complexity of post-award management and the risk of non-compliance

Universities are experiencing increasing regulation and scrutiny by the government, funders and the public who seek transparency, integrity and measurable value for their investment. Research compliance is a major concern for universities, primarily caused by a lack of capacity and/or a lack of capability to manage it, exacerbated by the rapid growth of compliance requirements and levels of complexity.

At BU an increased number of complex bids with strict external deadlines has resulted in post-award management often being neglected. The lack of time and resource dedicated to this is a recurring concern that has been raised by colleagues across the University since 2010. The function undertaken by RKEO is largely the financial administration of projects and this needs to evolve to encompass the broader remit of post-award management, i.e. to include monitoring progress against project milestones, overseeing compliance with contractual and ethical requirements and supporting research translation. Compliance with funder requirements is becoming increasingly complex and onerous, and by not prioritising support for post-award management the University is increasing the risk of non-compliance and the possible sanctions that result from this.9

4.3 Sustainability, efficiency and value for money8 Research Councils receive more applications for funding than they are able to support and institutions submit more applications than are likely to be funded. Research Councils have asked institutions to actively encourage self-management of demand and quality control. Some Research Councils, such as EPSRC, have introduced sanctions for applicants who repeatedly submit unsuccessful proposals. Further information is available from: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/efficiency/demand/

9 Many funders are increasing the severity of non-compliance sanctions. For example the European Commission can ban future applications for funding for a number of years or can request partial or full repayment of the grant.


Value for money, sustainability and efficiency have also been considered. Measurement is a recurrent theme in RKEO’s delivery planning, with an emphasis on return on investment, measuring effectiveness of RKE initiatives and support in order to drive continuous improvement, with success measured in financial and non-financial ways. RKEO partially restructured in 2011-12 and delivered a saving at this point (3.26% of fte and 12.8% of pay costs). Cost saving has not been an over-riding driver in this proposal however a further saving has been identified that will bring the total saving since 2011-12 to 7.46% of fte and 15.04% of pay costs. If accepted, the changes as proposed could deliver a reduction in non-pay cost from 2015-16 onwards as RKEO will be in a position to reduce some of our reliance on external bid writing consultants and trainers (c. £100k per year) by embedding these skills in the team.


5. Current structure of RKEO

RKEO comprises 31.97fte posts,10 with pay costs of c. £1.13m for 2013-14.11 Of this, the costs of 3fte (c. £106k per year) are funded from the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF-5) until July 2015.

BU has operated a wholly centralised research and knowledge exchange (RKE) support team since January 2010, previously named the Centre for Research and Enterprise (CRE). In 2011-12 CRE comprised 32.85fte, with pay costs of c. £1.3m. A review of part of the structure took place in autumn 2011, driven by the end of the HEIF-4 funding stream. The department was realigned which enabled the reduction of 4fte senior posts Grade 8 and above. The result of this review was a pay budget saving of c. £166k (12.8%) per year and an overall reduction in fte of 1.07fte (3.26%). The name of the department was changed from CRE to the Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO).

RKEO’s current structure has grown organically since 2011 as the institution has responded to changes in the external research environment, (such as the public engagement and open access agendas) and changes to the internal RKE agenda, (such as the introduction of the Festival of Learning and the Fusion Investment Fund). It has also had to keep up with the increasing internal demand for research and knowledge exchange support as the number of academics bidding, the number of bids submitted and number of grants awarded increased.12

Such organic growth has resulted in some posts and processes being added to the structure via circumstance rather than being fully embedded within it. This has led to increasingly complex and disjointed processes, unnecessary bureaucracy and an increasing divide between what are rudimentarily labelled as operations and development tasks. The result has been frustrated, and in some cases over-stretched, staff. RKEO’s service delivery has remained at a high standard, however anecdotal feedback from academic colleagues indicates that procedures have become increasingly complex and fragmented, and they are unclear as to the roles and responsibilities within the department.

The feedback gathered during and after staff meetings held with RKEO during February 2014 provides further detail of where it is felt improvements need to be made and is summarised in Appendix D.

The department currently comprises three teams described in Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, plus 1fte Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange and 1fte Research Communications Manager.13 The majority of current job descriptions are broadly similar in style and content however, the main responsibilities and accountability of some are unclear, while others are overly detailed and/or out of date. As part of the review of the structure new job descriptions

10 Plus 2.61 fte fixed-term appointments to cover periods of maternity leave and secondments.

11 Calculated on the basis on a mid-point scale salary for each post.

12 BU submitted 455 bids (totalling £25.9m) in 2011, increasing to 531 (totalling £41.6m) in 2013. BU was awarded 257 grants (totalling £5.3m) in 2011, increasing to 273 grants (totalling £9.6m) in 2013.

13 The Research Communications Manager post was moved to RKEO from Marketing & Communications in June 2013 and has sat outside of the three functional teams pending the structure review


have been written in line with the ARMA professional development framework,14 the standard framework for the research support profession, as well as in line with the draft BU role and career framework.

Some of the staff in the Centre for Entrepreneurship (CfE) are classified as RKEO staff as the CfE was historically part of the wider RKEO department. Staff in the CfE are exempt from this review as it is no longer part of the RKEO team (see Section 5.4).

5.1 Operations: Led by the Research and Knowledge Exchange Operations Manager this area currently covers all operational aspects of the pre- and post-award processes associated with proposal coordination and submission and the management of awarded projects, including:

Identifying funding opportunities Costing / pricing Application forms Eligibility checks Updating RED15

Internal approvals and proposal submission Accepting and setting up awarded projects (including contracts) Financial administration and management of awards Budgeting and forecasting Project reporting Project closure EU and KTP specialist support Provision and analysis of management information

This covers the operational functions of pre- and post-award activity, however the current structure and roles do not permit for significant value to be added to proposals by the team, primarily due to the conflicting demands and time pressures of pre- and post-award support, and also because of the current grading of the roles. The same is true of post-award administration; this tends to be neglected in the current structure due to the pressures and deadlines of pre-award and is disconnected from the KE and impact activities, currently based in the development team. Four members of the team are currently on fixed-term contracts due to staff turnover, secondments, maternity leave, etc. Specialist support is provided for EU (2fte, 0.4fte of which is vacant) and KTPs (0.6fte), putting a significant strain on these post-holders during busy times and increasing risk should these individuals leave or be away from work. Reducing RKEO’s reliance on specialist roles and spreading this expertise amongst the team would increase RKEO’s sustainability, resilience and service delivery.

5.2 Development: Led by the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Manager this area currently covers all strategic, policy and quality aspects of RKE activity, including:

Implementation of the main initiatives in the RKEO delivery plan Internal peer review Research assessment (including REF and HE-BCI)

14 See link at: https://www.arma.ac.uk/professional-development/PDF

15 BU’s Research and Enterprise Database


EU expertise and horizon scanning Research ethics and compliance Publishing and research outputs Public engagement Impact KTP/KE development Staff RKE training and development (including the Grants Academy)

The development team is comprised of specialists in key areas but these are not necessarily linked to one another in terms of role or responsibility. The job descriptions are overly detailed and outline specific roles, sometimes resulting in posts that are inflexible to changing business needs. These specialist roles are vital to developing BU’s research and knowledge exchange culture and capacity but in the current structure they are divorced from the bidding and award management processes. All of these functions have a much broader remit than the development team and all need to, (and often do) work across the whole of RKEO. The embedding of these areas within one team has arisen due to the organic growth mentioned above and has led to over-stretched management with sometimes conflicting priorities. There are currently a number of posts that have been filled on a temporary basis and there are two posts vacant (1.5fte).

5.3 Administration: Led by the Finance and Resources Officer this team provides administrative support to the whole RKEO, including:

Financial administration for the RKEO budget and expenditure Financial administration for all RKE project income and expenditure (for all

schools/faculty)16

Support for non-accredited short courses/CPD (for all schools/faculty)14

EU bid/project administration Enquiries for the BRIAN system Fusion Investment Fund administration (three competitive strands) Support for large initiatives and events, such as the Festival of Learning and the BU

research themes General admin support for RKE

RKEO has trialled a centralised administration team since early 2013, however there is widespread acceptance that this does not provide RKEO with the admin support required. Anecdotal evidence from the administration team members suggests they do not have a high level of job satisfaction from the current arrangement. There is also a lack of career progression for administration staff within the existing structure as the administration roles are divorced from the specialist RKE support roles. This was a recurrent theme in all of the team meetings (see Appendix D).

5.4 Centre for Entrepreneurship (CfE): Led by the Director of the Centre for Entrepreneurship and reporting into the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation). The CfE was historically located within the wider RKEO structure but did not report via the Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange, as per the other areas. RKEO does provide the CfE with some administrative support as part of the centralised administration team. This support is currently provided by two Resource Administrator posts (1.6fte) that are part of RKEO’s

16 With the exception of HSC where these responsibilities are currently shared between RKEO and HSC.


administration team. One of these posts is now obsolete due to the recent VSS round and the other has been vacant for approximately twelve months. These two posts are included in this review and all other posts in the CfE17 are excluded.

See Appendix C for a structure chart of RKEO as at March 2014.

17 This includes: Director of the CfE (0.5fte), CfE Manager (0.5fte), CfE Administrator (1fte), Student Enterprise Manager (0.5fte).


6. Staff Engagement

The operations team in RKEO have been reviewing processes and considering structural changes since January 2013 when the current RKE Operations Manager came into post. In spring 2013 views of what works well and what could be improved were sought from all operations team members via one-to-one meetings followed up with an anonymous survey. The consensus within the operations team was to split their work into separate pre- and post-award teams18.

The RKE Operations Manager produced a process improvement plan identifying initiatives to streamline processes and increase job satisfaction and morale within the operations team. This work is ongoing and is led by the RKE Senior Support Officers. Involvement was widened out to the whole of RKEO in summer 2013.

An exercise took place in summer/autumn 2013 with all RKEO members to map out the key pre- and post-award processes from the perspectives of both the operations and development teams and to identify areas of overlap, potential duplication and points where multiple team members became involved in one proposal / project. This was undertaken in conjunction with the whole RKEO team and the process maps were circulated in January 2014.

The whole RKEO team was communicated to by email on 31 January 2014 to inform them of the proposed review of the structure and to invite them to a workshop on 5 February 2014 to discuss ideas for the future role and shape of RKEO. Functional team managers briefed their teams in person about the aim and planned content of the session. The two staff on maternity leave and one on secondment were invited to the session.

The majority of the team attended the session on 5 February 2014. The purpose of these meetings was to gain staff input to a proposal for change at an early stage. Information was provided about the external research and knowledge exchange landscape, basic organisational design theory as well as example RKE support structures in place at other universities. Staff worked in groups to: 1) review current pre- or post-award processes; 2) review the existing structure; and, 3) design a new structure. The session was led by the Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange with support from a HR Adviser (Amanda Pipe). The outputs from the session were made available to staff on 7 February 2014 (see Appendix D). The team were asked to consider the outputs and to feedback any further ideas.

A dedicated mailbox was set up ([email protected]) and an email from the Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange invited all staff to contribute their thoughts and ideas, in confidence. In this email the team were informed that some site visits to other university research offices would take place to find out about good practice that could inform the structure review, and staff were invited to express an interest in attending.

During the week of 10 February 2014 each functional team met to discuss possible structures from their team perspective and notes from each meeting were sent to the mailbox by the relevant manager.18 In essence a pre-award team would be responsible for facilitating the proposal preparation and submission part of the process and a post-award team would be responsible for the project and financial management of awarded grants/contracts.


Site visits to three university research support offices took place,19 all attended by the Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange and the Research and Knowledge Exchange Operations Manager and/or Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Manager. Two of the visits included members from the wider team (RKE Support Officer and Research Development Officer). All team members who expressed an interest to attend a site visit were invited. Feedback from all site visits was shared with the team at the regular team meetings and a summary is provided in Appendix D.

A cross-team focus group met on 12 March 2014 to discuss some key questions that had emerged from feedback and from site visits. This was facilitated by a HR Adviser (Amanda Pipe) and was not attended by members of the RKEO executive. It included an equal mix of people from each functional team. Feedback was sent to the dedicated mailbox and is a summary is provided in Appendix D.

The ethos underpinning the work to date has focused on engaging all RKEO staff and involving them in discussions about process and structure and researching structures at other universities. This proposal has been heavily informed by these discussions, the site visits and the responses sent to the dedicated mailbox. A summary of the feedback sent into the mailbox is provided in Appendix D.

19 University College London (20 February 2014), University of Southampton (27 February 2014) and University of the West of England (3 March 2014).


7. Proposed structure

The Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange has considered all feedback received to formulate this proposal. There was a significant amount of feedback provided and the RKEO team have been keen to engage throughout the process, reflecting the strength of feeling about the proposed changes.

Core principles in drawing up this proposal have been:

Alignment of the functions with the RKEO delivery plan and institutional development plan for RKE, to reflect institutional priorities and support the achievement of the relevant KPIs

Alignment of the functions with recent and anticipated developments in the external research and knowledge exchange environment, for example open access, the post-2014 REF, impact, etc.

Simplification of structure to provide clear accountability and areas of responsibility and to embed roles and responsibilities into the research and knowledge exchange workflow

Clarification of roles and responsibilities through clearer and more concise job descriptions

Empowerment of roles to provide greater job satisfaction and to facilitate movement and career progression between roles both within and beyond RKEO

The structure proposed will provide roles and a framework which are aligned with the University’s strategic objectives. It provides a clear starting point from which, once new and vacant posts are filled, priority can be given to determining and agreeing responsibilities and priorities for workload, developing a positive culture, developing leadership and management, developing technical and specialist skills and establishing effective collaborative working between functional teams. The proposed job descriptions are in line with the draft BU role and career framework and this should increase opportunities for career progression within RKEO and between RKEO and the rest of the University.

7.1 Headlines of proposed changes

Headlines of the changes proposed are described in brief below (7.1.1 to 7.1.3), followed by a diagram for clarity. Further explanation in support of the proposed changes then follows.

7.1.1 To disband the split of roles and responsibilities into operations and development tasks. Instead it is proposed to create a pre-award team and a post-award team, with operations and development tasks embedded within them. This recognises the specialist knowledge and skills required for these tasks and enables dedicated time to be provided for undertaking the full remit of post-award management, often overlooked in the current structure.

7.1.2 To establish a team dedicated to supporting the expansion and deepening of BU’s knowledge exchange and impact activities, including engagement of the BU student body with research.20 This team will be led by a Knowledge Exchange and Impact Manager, recognising the importance of KE and impact in BU2018 and the

20 Taking a wide definition of knowledge exchange (i.e. including business engagement, knowledge transfer, public and student engagement with research, research communications, research impact, etc).


rapid expansion of this activity externally (especially with regard to public accountability and the REF). Team members will need to work collaboratively with the pre-award and post-award teams.

7.1.3 To disband the centralised administration team structure (with the exception of the Finance and Resources Officer and the Finance and Resources Administrator who will continue to report into the Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange) and to embed administrative support into the three core teams.

The diagram below shows the main areas of responsibility for each of the three core teams proposed.

7.2 Further detail of the proposed changes

7.2.1 Split between pre- and post-award

The proposal to create specialist pre- and post-award teams means that a point in the process has to be agreed at which the pre-award team’s role ends and the post-award team’s role begins. This could be any point between the application being submitted


Head of RKE & F&R

support

Pre-award teamFunding opportunities

Proposal development / content

Internal peer reviewCosting / pricing

Application formsInternal approval

Logging results

Post-award teamContractsFinances

Project managementAudit

Ethics and governanceResearch outputs

Research translation

KE and impact teamResearch comms

ImpactKTPs

Public engagementBusiness/industry

engagementStudent engagement

externally and the contract being signed by all parties. This was one of the key questions discussed with other universities and with the RKEO team as part of the research for this proposal, but there was no model solution identified or consensus reached. Reviewing other university structures indicated that the larger the volume of research and knowledge activity then the more fragmented the structure. For example one research-intensive university21 has separate teams for research facilitation (horizon scanning and peer review of draft proposals), pre-award (costing, pricing and external submission), awards acceptance (negotiating contracts and setting up projects) and post-award (project management and closure). BU’s research volume is small in comparison22 and therefore the structure doesn’t require so many splits in responsibility.

This proposal recommends that the pre-award team will undertake all responsibilities up to receiving the result of the application and that the post-award team will be responsible for everything after this point for projects that are successful. This ensures that the pre-award team are aware of the results so this can inform the support they provide in future. It ensures a smooth handover between pre- and post-award teams for the relevant academic/s. It also ensures the post-award team are involved in the contract negotiation stage which is essential if they are to be responsible for managing the regulatory and legal issues arising from the contract during the project duration. It is acknowledged that the pre-award and post-award teams will need to work together to ensure knowledge about the project is not lost during the transfer between teams, and that there are likely to be times when the pre-award team are also involved in the contract negotiation (for example EU government funded projects).

7.2.2 Pre-award team

The proposal is that this team, led by a Pre-award Manager, will lead on all research and knowledge exchange support linked to the pre-award process, to include:

Identifying funding opportunities, building intelligence and horizon scanning Advising on proposal content, to include reviewing and critiquing draft proposals Advising on strengthening proposal content in terms of impact, public engagement,

research communications, etc. Facilitating internal peer review Staff RKE training, development and careers guidance (including the Grants

Academy) Costing / pricing Application forms Eligibility checks Internal approvals and proposal submission Creating records in RED23

Provision and analysis of pre-award management information EU specialist support

21 This university has an annual research income of c. £300m.

22 Bournemouth University has an annual research and knowledge exchange income of £7m.

23 BU’s Research and Enterprise Database


Receiving decisions on external applications Advice on redrafting and resubmitting unsuccessful bids

Research increasingly highlights the added value that research support staff can add to proposals to give the institution a competitive advantage and increase success rates.24 As such it is proposed to mature the pre-award structure from a research administration to a research development function, particularly through the introduction of 3fte specialist roles (Research Facilitators). Other universities have invested in similar roles with the remit of contributing to the development of proposal content, and some universities report significant increases in success rates and income linked to these posts and their input.25 The current RKEO structure does not permit the team to add this level of value to the content of proposals. This proposal is for 3fte Research Facilitator posts to provide dedicated, qualitative advice to colleagues with the development of research proposals. There will be two Research Facilitators to develop all non-EU/international proposals, each working closely with two/three schools/faculty.26 There will also be one Research Facilitator dedicated to developing EU and international proposals, working across all schools/faculty.

The Facilitators will not undertake the operational parts of the pre-award process, and will be supported by a team of 4.2fte Pre-award Officers who will provide this support for all research and knowledge exchange applications. Their responsibilities will include checking eligibility and funder guidance, advising on preparation timescales, costing and pricing, producing pre-award contractual documentation, obtaining internal approval and proposal submission. This will include support for EU and KTP proposals, building resilience and sustainability into the team by embedding this knowledge and these skills in all Officer posts, and enabling the Officers to progress into EU/KTP specialist roles. As with the Research Facilitators the Pre-Award Officers will be linked to particular schools/faculty.26

The Research Facilitators and Pre-award Officers will spend a large proportion of their time based in the schools/faculty, working proactively with academic colleagues to increase the quality and volume of RKE bids. The pre-award team will work closely with the post-award team to provide each school/faculty with a dedicated support team to ensure a holistic view of the bidding and project portfolios and to ensure knowledge is shared when the project is transferred between teams.

24 For example: The current health and well-being of the American research university, The Research Universities Futures Consortium, June 2012.

25 For example, UCL report an increase of c. 200% in success rates since introducing this function to their research support structure in 2009.

26 The proposed split of posts by school/faculty is available in Appendix F. The split will be flexible and adaptable to BU’s changing business needs and any future changes to school/faculty structures.


7.2.3 Post-award team

The proposal is that this team, led by a Post-award Manager will lead on all research and knowledge exchange support linked to the post-award process, to include:

Accepting and setting up awarded projects (including contracts) Financial administration and management of awards Project management, to include tracking milestones and project reporting Provision and analysis of post-award management information Project closure Support for project audits RKE systems management (including RED, BRIAN and pFACT) Collation and verification of data for statutory returns (including REF and HE-BCI) Research ethics and governance Research data management Publishing, research outputs and dissemination Research translation for awarded projects (including public engagement and impact) EU specialist support

The proposal is for 3fte posts (Research Governance Adviser, Research Outputs Adviser and Finance and Systems Adviser) to share line management of a team of dedicated post-award Project Officers (4fte) and Project Administrators (3fte). This will ensure the strategic post-award functions, currently in the development team and somewhat divorced from the operations team, are embedded in the post-award process in the proposed structure. The Project Officers will provide the schools/faculty with dedicated, specialist support for the post-award management of all externally-funded research and knowledge exchange projects. They will spend part of their time based in their schools/faculty working closely with the principal investigators and will provide expert advice on all aspects of the post-award process, to include project management and specialist skills in public engagement, impact, ethics and research outputs. Due to the significant increase in the number and value of EU government funded projects awarded to BU and the strategy to engage further with these funding sources,27 one of the Project Officers will be specifically focused on EU projects and will be supported by a dedicated EU Administrator. The post-award management of KTPs will be the responsibility of all Project Officers, building expertise and sustainability into the team. The team will be responsible for implementing the post-award initiatives from the RKEO delivery plan.

As noted in Section 7.2.1 the post-award team will work closely with the pre-award team to provide each school/faculty with a dedicated support team to ensure a holistic view of the bidding and project portfolios and to ensure knowledge is shared when the project is transferred between teams.

7.2.4 Knowledge Exchange and Impact team

27 EU government research income received in 2009-10 was £101k (13 live projects). In 2012-13 it had increased to £849k (19 projects).


The proposal is that this team, led by a Knowledge Exchange and Impact Manager, will lead on all KE development and corporate-level projects, to include:

Research communications Research impact Public engagement, to include the Festival of Learning Business engagement and development Knowledge Transfer Partnerships Engagement of the BU student body with research

It is proposed to separate out the existing KE and impact posts, currently in the development team, into a separate team. This is in line with the norm in the sector. All of the university structures looked at as part of the research for this proposal had a separate, but in most cases closely linked, outward-facing KE team. The KE and impact team will comprise specialists working across all schools/faculty and professional services, linking with other outward-facing posts as appropriate. They will work across RKEO to ensure knowledge exchange skills and expertise are embedded throughout the team. This will enable the pre- and post-award teams to support KE activity at individual proposal/project level, releasing the KE and impact team to predominantly focus on corporate-level KE activity (for example directing the annual Festival of Learning, leading on corporate research communications, producing the Bournemouth Research Chronicle, developing the external research and KE webpages, undertaking KE with BU alumni, and impact acceleration for potential REF impact case studies). The team will also be responsible for implementing the KE and impact initiatives from the RKEO delivery plan.

The proposal recommends three new posts in this team – a KE and Impact Manager (1fte), a Student Engagement Coordinator (1fte) and a KE Officer (1fte). The role of the KE and Impact Manager will be to lead the team, to deepen and expand the range of external partners working with the University and to diversify the range of engagement mechanisms. As part of this remit the KE and Impact Manager will direct all large-scale engagement events, such as the annual Festival of Learning. It is proposed that the Student Engagement Coordinator be offered as a rolling 12-month placement opportunity for a BU student to work with SUBU to implement a programme of activities to increase student awareness of, and engagement with, research at BU, an important part of the strategic agenda around fusion. The KE Officer post will provide high-level support to the team, particularly with regard to the implementation of large-scale KE events.

7.2.5 Cross-team collaboration

A critical success factor for any department is its ability to coordinate itself to communicate and achieve common goals. It is therefore essential that the functional teams proposed in this document work collaboratively to deliver high-quality support for research and KE activities. One of the concerns with the current structure is the perceived divide between the teams and their lack of interaction, sometimes leading to duplication of effort or a lack of ownership of tasks. As part of the implementation of the proposed structure, the Head of RKE and the functional team managers will provide a framework to support horizontal and vertical collaborative working within RKEO. This framework will include: creating cross-team groups to focus on specific projects (for example public engagement or open access), RKEO


training/development initiatives (for example in leadership and management), RKEO team building activities (for example focusing on communication), implementation of a shared tool to manage knowledge within RKEO, and developing a greater awareness of the goals and projects led by individuals, functional teams and RKEO as a whole. It is anticipated this this framework for collaborative working will facilitate the sharing of information across all functional teams, embedding skills and knowledge in a more inclusive and proactive way to the current structure. This will support and encourage career progression between functional teams within RKEO and prevent teams from becoming vertical silos.


8. Impact of proposed changes

8.1 Summary of significant proposed changes to existing roles in the current operations team:

Proposal for the RKE Operations Manager role (1fte)

The RKE Operations Manager post has been vacant since January 2013 and has been filled on a temporary secondment basis since then. The post provides management and leadership for the operations team for both pre- and post-award operational management. It is proposed that these duties are incorporated into two new posts – Pre-award Manager and Post-award Manager.

Proposal for the RKE Senior Support Officer role (3fte)

In the current structure there are 3fte RKE Senior Support Officer posts. The remit of these posts in relation to the RKE support officers whom they manage is ambiguous as they have similar job descriptions and remits. Currently 2fte of the RKE Senior Support Officer roles provide non-EU pre- and post-award support to all schools/faculty; 1fte role (of which 0.4fte is vacant) provides pre- and post-award EU support across all schools/faculty.

As noted in Sections 4.1 and 7.2.1, there is a need for more strategic pre-award support to be provided to the schools/faculty, particularly in relation to horizon scanning for opportunities, nurturing inter/multidisciplinary research and reviewing and critiquing the content of proposals. Having specialist posts dedicated to these activities will enhance the service provided to the Schools/Faculty and should increase the success rate of research proposals (and therefore income to BU). This specialist support is graded at a higher level than the current RKE Senior Support Officer post. Given the increased duties involved it is proposed that the roles of RKE Senior Support Officer are no longer required and will be incorporated into 3fte new Research Facilitator posts (including one EU/international funding specialist).

Proposal for the RKE Support Officer 28 role (8.41fte)

In the current structure there are 8.41fte posts (filled by 9.41fte people, taking into account substantive post-holders). Currently 6.81fte provide non-EU pre- and post-award support; 1fte provides EU pre- and post-award; 0.6fte provides pre- and post-award KTP support.

As noted in Section 7.1.1, the proposal recommends splitting the team into pre-award and post-award specialists, rather than all roles undertaking both remits. At the moment the pre-award deadlines and pressures result in the post-award sometimes being overlooked. It is proposed that dedicated post-award project managers would have time to provide thorough post-award management, proactively supporting the financial and project management of the awards. They would be able to work closely with principal investigators, and reduce the institutional risk of non-compliance. Developing and enabling staff to be specialists in either pre-award or post-award management is essential due to the increasingly complex and important nature of these roles.

28 This includes the roles titled Research and Enterprise Officer, RKE Research and Enterprise Officer and Research and Enterprise Support Officer.


The proposed new structure includes 8.2fte posts (4.2fte Pre-award Officers and 4fte Project Officers).

Proposal for the Assistant Management Accountant role (1fte)

The Assistant Management Accountant (1fte) provides financial management and administration for all post-award research and knowledge exchange projects, including provision and analysis of management information and system support. It is proposed that these duties are incorporated into a new post – Finance and Systems Adviser – along with system management for RKE IT systems, such as pFACT and RED. Embedding this revised post into the post-award team’s management structure will raise the importance of financial management and records maintenance, as well as providing the post-holder with sufficient authority to ensure compliance. Given the increased responsibility and duties involved it is proposed that the role of Assistant Management Accountant is no longer required and will be incorporated into 1fte new Finance and Systems Adviser post.

8.2 Summary of significant proposed changes to existing roles in the current development team:

Proposal for the RKE Development Manager role (1fte)

Since January 2014 the substantive post-holder has been on secondment to another department in the University and this post is currently filled on a temporary secondment basis. The post provides management and leadership for the development team with a particular focus on increasing the quality and quantity of research proposals submitted. It is proposed that these duties are incorporated into two new posts – Pre-Award Manager and Post-Award Manager.

Proposal for the Public Engagement and Impact Manager role (1fte)

Since January 2014 the substantive post-holder had been on secondment within RKEO and this post is currently filled on a temporary secondment basis. The Public Engagement and Impact Manager supports the expansion of the University’s public engagement with research, with a particular focus on directing the annual Festival of Learning, as well as providing specialist public engagement support and impact support to individual academics on specific projects. It is proposed that this latter role is provided by the pre- and post-award teams, and that the former is provided by a new role – Knowledge Exchange and Impact Manager. This will ensure that routine support for public engagement and impact is embedded throughout RKEO, reducing reliance on one individual and building resilience and knowledge into the team. This will release time for the KE and Impact Manager to focus on more strategic objectives and corporate-level activities across a broader remit of KE. Given the increased duties involved and the broader remit required it is proposed that the role of Public Engagement and Impact Manager is no longer required and the responsibilities will be incorporated into 1fte new KE and Impact Manager post and 1fte new KE Officer post.

Proposal for the Research Development Officer (Funding and Processes) role (1fte)

This post has been vacant since January 2013 and the substantive post-holder is currently on secondment within RKEO. It is recommended that the system support tasks are


embedded elsewhere so that the management of the systems is more closely aligned to the relevant specialist posts and functional teams (for example support for BRIAN is embedded in the Research Outputs Adviser role and support for RED and pFACT is embedded in the Finance and Systems Adviser role). The other major responsibility of this role is the identification of funding opportunities and horizon scanning for the whole of BU. It has always been a challenge for this role to undertake this activity due to the breadth of BU’s research areas and the separation of this post from the operations team and the schools/faculty. To maximise the opportunities available this work needs to be undertaken by someone with technical knowledge of the discipline and an awareness of the research interests and expertise of individual academics. This would be best undertaken by school/faculty-facing pre-award roles and it is therefore proposed to include this task in the pre-award team. As such this post is no longer required.

Proposal for the Research Development Officer role (Proposal Development) (0.5fte)

This post has been vacant since July 2013. It is recommended that the peer review responsibilities are embedded into the Research Facilitator roles as these posts will be working closely with academic colleagues from an early stage of bid preparation and will have established the good working relationships that are necessary for facilitating quality internal peer review and proposal development. As such this post is no longer required.

Proposal for the Research Development Administrator role (1fte)

The Research Development Administrator supports the development team particularly with facilitating internal peer review and the research development schemes, such as the Grants Academy. The majority of these responsibilities have been incorporated into the new Pre-award Administrator post. The existing role is also responsible for undertaking basic reviews of proposals submitted for internal peer review and granting institutional approval for proposals submitted electronically. This proposal recommends these responsibilities will be moved to other posts in the pre-award team to spread the workload, to empower the specialist pre-award officers and to streamline and simplify the submission process. This reduces the need for this role to operate at its current level of responsibility.

8.3 Summary of significant proposed changes to existing roles in the current administration team:

Proposal for the Finance and Resources Officer role (1fte)

Since June 2013 the substantive post-holder has been on maternity leave and this post is currently filled on a fixed-term basis. The role was originally planned as 1fte however it has been filled on a 0.8fte basis since 2011. It is proposed that the line management responsibilities for the majority of the administrative posts (4fte) are moved to the pre- and post-award teams. The administration of the HEIF projects and the Fusion Investment Fund will also move to other teams so they are managed by the posts to which they more closely align and are embedded in the relevant functional teams and their wider processes. As such it is proposed that the Finance and Resources Officer post is reduced to 0.6fte.


Proposal for the RKE Senior Project Administrator role (1fte)

The RKE Senior Project Administrator supports the operations team and line manages the two RKE Project Administrators. This proposal recommends decentralising administrative support and embedding it within the three functional teams (pre-award, post-award and KE and impact), therefore removing the need for this role to operate at its current level of responsibility.

8.2 RKEO review – proposed impact table

Current post job title Current fte of posts

Grade Proposed new post Proposed fte of posts

Grade

Development teamRKE Development Manager 1 fte Grade

8Post no longer required. Incorporated into Pre-award Manager / Post-award Manager

- Proposed post holder is slotted into either Pre- or Post-award Manager

Public Engagement and Impact Manager

1 fte Grade 7

Post no longer required, incorporated into KE & Impact Manager

- Current post holder potentially at risk of redundancy

KE Officer 1 fte Grade 6

KE Adviser- Proposed that current

post holder be slotted in

1 fte Grade 6

KTP Officer 1 fte Grade 6

KTP Adviser- Proposed that current


1fte Grade 6

Research Development Officer (Funding and Processes)

1 fte Grade 6

Post no longer required, incorporated into Finance & Systems Adviser, Research Outputs Adviser, Research Facilitator and Pre-award Officer roles

- Substantive post holder potentially at risk of redundancy

Research Development Officer (Outputs)

1 fte Grade 6

Research Outputs Adviser- No substantive post

holder

1 fte Grade 6

Research Development Officer (Conduct)

1 fte Grade 6

Research Governance Adviser- Proposed that current


1 fte Grade 6

Events Organiser (Festival of Learning)

1 fte Grade 3

Events Organiser- Proposed that current

post holder be slotted in to post with pay protection

1 fte Grade 2

Research Development Administrator

1 fte Grade 4

Pre-award Administrator- Proposed that current

post holder be slotted in to post with pay protection for 2 years

1 fte Grade 3


Operations teamRKE Operations Manager 1 fte Grade

8Post no longer required, incorporated into Pre-award Manager / Post-award Manager

- No substantive post holder, no impact

RKE Senior Support Officer 3 fte Grade 6

Post no longer required, incorporated into Research Facilitator and Pre-award Officer roles

- Current post holders potentially at risk of redundancy

RKE Support Officer / RKE Research & Enterprise Officer / Research & Enterprise Officer / Research & Enterprise Support Officer

8.6 fte29 Grade 5

Pre-award Officer /Project Officer

- Current post holders potentially at risk of redundancy

8.2 fte Grade 5

Assistant Management Accountant

1 fte Grade 5

Finance & Systems Adviser- As duties of the current

role and proposed role closely match and it seems there are no individuals at risk who have the skills and experience to undertake this role, exceptionally it is proposed that the current post holder will be slotted into this post.

1 fte Grade 6

Administration teamFinance and Resources Officer 1fte30 Grade

5Finance and Resources Officer

- Proposed that substantive post holder be slotted in

0.6 fte Grade 5

FIF Administrator 1fte Grade 4

FIF Coordinator- Proposed that current


1 fte Grade 4

Senior RKE Project Administrator

1fte Grade 4

Post no longer required.- Proposed that current post holder be slotted in

to Project Administrator post with pay protection for 2 years

RKE Project Administrator 2fte Grade 3

Project Administrator- Proposed that 2 current

post holders be slotted in

3 fte Grade 3

Resources Administrator (development team)

0.6fte Grade 3

Finance and Resources Administrator

- Proposed that current post holder be slotted in

0.6 fte Grade 3

OtherHead of Research and Knowledge Exchange

1fte Grade 10

Head of Research & Knowledge Exchange

- Proposed that current post holder be slotted

1 fte Grade 10

29 8.6fte posts covered by 9.21fte individuals due to maternity leave / secondment cover.

30 1fte post covered by 1.8fte individuals due to maternity leave cover.


in

Research Communications Manager

1fte Grade 7

Research Communications Manager

- Proposed that current post holder be slotted in

1 fte Grade 7

Posts currently vacant

Research Development Officer (Proposal Development)

0.5 fte Grade 6

Post no longer required

Resources Administrator 0.6fte Grade 3

Post no longer required

Resources Administrator 0.67fte Grade 3

Post no longer required, post removed from establishment

New posts under this proposal

Knowledge Exchange and Impact Manager

1fte Grade 8

Pre-award Manager 1 fte Grade 8

Post-award Manager 1 fte Grade 8

Research Facilitator/Research Facilitator (EU and International)

3 fte Grade 7

Knowledge Exchange Officer 1fte Grade 5

Student Engagement Coordinator 1fte Grade 2


9. Proposed process for implementation

Comments and suggestions on any part of these proposals are very welcome and should be made to Julie Northam, Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange, at [email protected] at any time but not later than 12pm on 26 May 2014.

The proposal is circulated to all RKEO staff and will be placed in I:\R&KEO\Collaborative\RKEO review which contains detail about proposed job descriptions.

Those individuals who hold posts which are directly affected by this proposal will be invited to a meeting with the Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange and a member of HR to discuss the proposal. Individuals have the right to be accompanied at these meetings by a work colleague or recognised member of the Trade Union.

BU will undertake to ensure prior consideration is given for suitable alternative employment within the organisation. The prior consideration process can be found at Appendix E.

9.1 Voluntary Severance

In accordance with the University’s code of practice on redundancy it is the aim wherever possible to avoid compulsory redundancies and where avoidance is not possible to take reasonable steps to mitigate the effect as far as practically possible. Staff affected by this proposal are invited on a without commitment basis and without prejudice to the final outcome of consultation to express interest in voluntary severance.

When considering applications for voluntary severance the main criteria will be;

the need to sustain staffing resource and skill levels to support existing and proposed posts and structure;

financial implications.

Should any member of staff identified as potentially at risk wish to explore voluntary severance on a confidential basis please contact;

Clare Clayton – HR Manager

[email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Process for implementation

Timetable

Effective date Activity

w/c 21/04/14 Proposal to RKE staff to include job descriptions etc, Trade Union and ICE representatives for consultation.

Open meetings (dates to be confirmed) led by the Head of RKE.

26/05/14 Consultation closes at 12pm

w/c 26/05/14 Review of feedback by Head of RKE

w/c 26/05/14 Subject to the outcome of the consultation process and having made any amendments as appropriate as a result of comments and suggestions, revised/final proposal submitted to UET

w/c 02/06/14 Final decision announced. Feedback summary circulated to all RKE staff


APPENDICES

Appendix A – Key findings from other universities

Available information on other University research and knowledge exchange structures was readily available and good practice from other institutions was used to inform this proposal. Site visits to three universities took place in February/March 201431 and discussions were held with five other institutions.32 A summary of these is provided in Sections A.1 and A.2. A desk-based review of the structures at several other universities was also undertaken.33 These institutions are not necessarily comparable to BU in terms of research and knowledge exchange volume, bidding/grant profile, staff numbers or strategic objectives. The remit of research and knowledge exchange support services varies and there is no model structure. Where relevant however good practice from other institutions has informed this proposal. Examples of other university research and KE support structure are located in Appendix B.

A.1 Site visits

Three site visits took place in February and March 2014. An overview of the findings from each is detailed below, prefaced by statistics as to the volume of RKE activity at each institution.34 For comparison purposes, BU’s statistics are:

Annual research income: £3m

Annual KE income: £4m

RKE income per academic FTE: £13k

Size of RKE support team: c. 32fte

A.1.1 University College LondonAnnual research income: £335m



Size of RKE support team: c. 60fte posts centrally plus separate EU office (c. 5fte), separate KE support team (number of posts unknown) and faculty-based support staff (number of posts unknown). Separate public engagement unit (c. 8 posts, wider remit than public

31 Site visits took place at University College London, University of Southampton and University of the West of England.

32 Discussions took place with Northumbria University, University of Kent, Nottingham University, University of Bath and Arts University Bournemouth.

33 Desk-based structure reviews were undertaken for University of Cambridge, Imperial College London, University of Leeds, London School of Economics, University of Oxford, Swansea University, University of Plymouth, University of Surrey, Brighton University, Queens University Belfast and University of Chichester.

34 Source: HESA data 2012-13.


engagement with RKE). Specialist advice, such as ethics, is provided by separate departments.

Key findings:

Structure: UCL’s structure is split into four main teams: research facilitation (horizon scanning and peer review of draft proposals), pre-award (costing, pricing and external submission), awards acceptance (negotiating contracts and setting up projects) and post-award (project management and closure). All of these teams are based centrally with the exception of the research facilitator posts which are based within the facultiess.

Strategy: The structure supports the institution’s strategy to obtain large grants for blue skies funding from the major research funders, i.e. UK research councils, major charities and the European Commission.

Proposal development: UCL introduced a research facilitator role in 2009 with the aim of providing academics with specialist support for developing research proposals to ensure they are as strong as possible prior to submission. They report that this has led to a c. 200% increase in research success rates. The research facilitators meet with academics to discuss their research plans and ambitions and work closely with them to identify appropriate funders/schemes. They read draft applications and provide critical feedback as to how to improve them. Once submitted, they also support academics with responding to external reviewer comments.

Support for KE: This is based in a separate team to research support and is located across the institution both centrally and locally. UCL are a sector-leader for public engagement and support is provided by a specialist public engagement unit, separate to research and knowledge exchange support.

Other: Unless required by the funder, no fEC costing is required for any research application for less than £5k (such as a travel grant application). The application is still approved by the Head of Department and the Principal Investigator. Cross-disciplinary and research with a high societal value is strategically supported by the Grant Challenges initiative.

A.1.2 University of Southampton




Size of RKE support team: c. 63fte posts centrally plus c. 6fte posts in the finance department to support costings and post-award financial management. Separate public engagement unit (c. 2 posts, wider remit than public engagement with RKE).

Key findings:

Structure: There was a university-wide restructure in 2010 to centralise all support staff into professional services, including RKE support roles. As at February 2014, the University of Southampton were mid-way through a second restructure. The new


structure will be split into five teams: research funding development (pre-award), external relations, technology transfer and legal advice, new business creation and incubation, research performance.

Strategy: The new structure reflects the institution’s strategy to obtain large research grants from the major research funders, as well as it’s increasing emphasis on technology transfer, IP and commercialisation, new business creation, etc. There is also a significant focus on fostering cross-/multidisciplinary research collaborations.

Proposal development: Proposal development is undertaken by the funding development team. There are dedicated posts to support large, complex, strategic bids. There are also dedicated posts to proactively foster and support cross-/multidisciplinary research collaborations and EU proposals. A separate public engagement unit has been recently established on a temporary basis.

Support for KE: This is undertaken by the research and KE department, and is a significant part of the team’s remit.

Other: Costings, institutional approval for submissions and post-award financial management are undertaken by Southampton’s finance department, not by their RKE support team. There is no requirement for academics to use the RKE support team at all as all procedural tasks are undertaken by the finance department.

A.1.3 University of the West of England




Size of RKE support team: c. 55fte posts centrally (including c. 20fte posts supporting CPD development and support) plus staff in the finance department supporting costings and post-award finances (unknown number of posts).

Structure: There was a university-wide restructure in 2012 to centralise all support staff into professional services, including RKE support roles. The current structure has faculty-facing staff who are based in a central team. The central team is split into three teams: research administration (with separate pre- and post-award teams), research and business development and CPD development and support. UWE are currently reviewing their current structure and considering a further restructure later in 2014.

Strategy: The structure proactively supports UWE’s modest but rapidly increasing research and KE income streams from a diverse range of RKE funders.

Proposal development: UWE introduced support for proposal development in 2012 as a result of the restructure. The research and business development team includes specialist posts with a responsibility for working closely with academic colleagues on horizon scanning and targeting funding opportunities, designing research projects, drafting proposals (including critiquing drafts and suggesting alternative text), and developing internal and external collaborations.

Support for KE: This is undertaken by the research and business development team based within the research and KE department.


Other: Costings and post-award financial management are undertaken by UWE’s finance department, not by their RKE support team, however the RKE support team are responsible for all non-financial aspects of the pre- and post-award processes (such as research outputs, staff profile pages, supporting seminars, impact and public engagement relating to funded projects, monitoring project milestones, etc). UWE are currently seeking to strengthen support for research ethics and governance. Their structure already includes a research governance officer and they are seeking to invest in a new research governance manager post.

A.2 Discussions with other universities

In addition to the site visits, conversations were held with colleagues at five other universities to discuss their RKE support structures. The findings are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of discussions with other universities

University RKE income per academic

Size of RKE support function

Overview of structure

Arts University Bournemouth

£6k c. 4.5fte Centre for Knowledge Exchange, Research and InnovationSmall department with no sub-teams. The department supports all RKE activity, including pre- and post-award, REF support, research outputs, business development, new business creation, and PGR support.

University of Bath

£43k c. 42fte Research and Innovation Services Pre-award – undertake all proposal coordination

administration, such as costings, internal approvals and contract admin.

Post-award – focused primarily on financial administration of awarded grants.

Research Development – supports academics with large bids. There is one dedicated EU specialist post.

KE Team – focuses on exploitation work, licences/spin outs, KTPs, etc.

Research Information – focuses on REF, systems, management information, etc.

University of Kent(Separate research and enterprise offices. This information only relates to the research office)

£31k c. 26fte Research Services Funding Development – proactive development of

research, strategy, support, funding opportunities, supporting the writing of proposals, basic costings.

Research Contracts – official costings, internal approval of proposals and formal acceptance of awards. Set up award and liaise with HR re: recruitment.

Research Accounts – post-award financial management of awards.

Research Systems Research Ethics and Governance REF Support

University of Northumbria at Newcastle

£9k c. 55fte Research and Business Services Grants and Contracts – made up of separate pre-

and post-award teams that undertake all RKE proposal and project administration.

Research support – a separate team that provides advanced bid development support (such as structuring proposals, advising on impact, horizon scanning, fostering collaborations, etc).

Business development - outward-facing team


responsible for key account management, identifying and brokering relationships with potential clients, developing consultancy projects, etc.

University of Nottingham

£48k not available Research and Graduate Services Research Policy and Development Research Operations Research Contracts and Governance Research Outcomes Graduate School

Business Engagement and Innovation Services Partnerships Knowledge Transfer Technology Transfer Innovation Park Asia Business Centre

In addition, some Schools/Faculties have their own local support, such as post-award administrators and research managers/developers.


Director of Service

Pre-Award Manager

Pre-Award Officers

Post-Award Manager

Post-Award Officers

Systems Development

Manager

Administrators

Research Policy Manager

Director of Service

Deputy Director (Research)

Research Funding and Policy Officers

Deputy Director (Operations)

Pre-Award Manager

Post-Award Manager

Deputy Director (KE)

KE Managers

Research Funding and Policy Admin Pre-Award Admin Post-Award Admin KE Admin

Appendix B – Examples of other HEI research and knowledge exchange support structures

Example structures have been simplified and are anonymous.

Figure 1: Example HEI research support structure #1 (note this does not include KE)

Figure 2: Example HEI RKE support structure #2


Director of Service

Head of Funding Development

European Team:Comprising:- Manager

- Pre-award officers

- Post-award officers- Admin

Head of Innovation

Head of Performance and

Governance

Public Funding Team:

Comprising:- Manager



International Funding Team:




Innovation Team:Comprising:- Manager- IP- Impact- KTPs- Admin

Performance and Governance Team:


- REF- Ethics

- Facilities- Systems- Training- Admin

Director of Service

Faculty Team (Science):

Comprising:- Head



Head of KE

Faculty Team (Medical):

Comprising:- Head



Faculty Team (Humanities):Comprising:

- Head- Pre-award

officers- Post-award

officers- Admin

KE and Impact Team:

Comprising:- KE Manager- KE Officers- KE Admin

European Team:Comprising:

- Head- Senior Officer

- Officers- Admin




Head of RKE(1 fte)

RKE Operations Manager (1fte) Research Communications Manager (1 fte)Finance and Resources Officer(1 fte)RKE Development Manager (1 fte)

Operations Team:Comprising:- Senior Support Officers (3 fte)- Support Officers (8.6 fte)- Assistant Management Accountant (1 fte)

Development Team:Comprising:- Public Engagement and Impact Manager (1 fte)- Research Development Officers (3.5 fte)- KE/KTP Officers (2 fte)- Research Development Administrator (1 fte)- Events Organiser (1 fte)

Administration Team:Comprising:- FIF Administrator (1 fte)- Senior Project Administrator (1 fte)- Project Administrators (2 fte)- Resources Administrators (1.87 fte)

Appendix C – RKEO structure as at March 2014

Figure 5: Current RKEO structure at BU (as at March 2014)


Appendix D – Notes from initial RKEO staff meeting and subsequent feedback

1. Outputs from RKEO process and structure review meeting, held 5 February 2014:

1. Review of existing pre-award support

What is currently missing or could be improved? Development tasks could be embedded in pre- and post-award processes Funding opportunities How ideas are generated and guided, e.g. Research Professional, Research Blog,

Grants Academy, etc Public engagement events/activity Networking and collaboration, especially with the business community Grant matching Career progression – awareness and opportunities Reduced face-to-face contact with academics Training in bid writing

What currently works well? Costing RED Relationships with academics Recent initiatives to improve efficiency, e.g. the intention to bid form Ops Officers – ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ debate

Areas of disconnect and/or overlap: Staff development schemes, e.g. the Grants Academy BU processes Large volume of emails

Possible areas for improvement: Stronger connection/interaction between operations and development tasks Tracking planned engagement Seeing the bigger picture More face-to-face contact with academics To become an extension of the schools/faculty Lack of standardisation of processes

2. Review of existing post-award support

What is currently missing or could be improved? The ‘personal’ aspect Less emphasis on why people are doing research (we are good at ticking boxes but

are concerned that we have lost the ‘human’ side of research support) Not enough importance is given to post-award in general Not always clear if ethics and/or IP have been considered Need more proactive reporting An understanding of research communications, impact and public engagement Don’t always hear from academics as to the result of the application Common practice / standardisation and a lack of best practice Proactivity A holistic approach to post-award Not enough communication between the operations and development teams Not meeting with academics enough

What currently works well? Budget control Contact with the principal investigator


DIRECTOR

EUManagerOfficers

Administrators

PRE-AWARDManagerOfficers

Administrators

POST-AWARDManagerOfficers

Administrators

RED Monitoring via checklists

Areas of disconnect and/or overlap: Not involving/considering research communications, impact and public engagement

earlier in the post-award process Need greater involvement from an ethics/governance perspective Filing, especially hard copy filing Finance systems – a lot of time is spent translating financial information Proximity in the office

Possible areas for improvement: Involving research communications, impact and public engagement from an earlier

stage Rigour at project closure Clear guidance on when pre-award becomes post-award Links between IT systems, such as BRIAN (re outcomes) Advisory groups for large projects, meet with principal investigator and research

communications, finance, objectives, public engagement, reporting, etcReview of existing structure:

Mixed management structure Jumbled hierarchy Major barrier between operations and development teams Interactions between posts are limited Lack of team work

3. New structures proposed by RKEO

Four new structures were proposed (see Figures 1-4 below):

Figure 6: Proposed new structure #1


HEAD OF RESEARCH

PRE-AWARDSplit by:ResearchEnterpriseSchools

With allocation of work as per Legal Services model

POST-AWARDIncludes finance outputsADMINISTRATION

FLEXIBLE FLUIDITYSystems, ethics, Festival of Learning, Communications, etc

(activities not roles)

HEAD

PRE-AWARDQuality: Je-S, Grants Academy,

RPRSFinanceEthicsImpact

Funding expert/liaisonPartnership/ collaboration

Legal

POST-AWARDProject management: finance,

governance/ ethics, impactLegal

Public engagementEthicsImpact

Administration




BOSS

PRE-AWARDPolicy

FundingCostingTrainingAdmin

POST-AWARD?????

Admin


2. Summary of ideas and thoughts sent to RKEO feedback mailbox, February – April 2014

Table 2: Feedback summary. Feedback has been grouped thematically.

Feedback Response

Feedback on structure and postsRKEO would work well structured into three teams: pre-award, post-award and KE/impact.

This structure has been adopted in the proposal.

RKEO should be structured into pre-award, post-award, post-award communications (public engagement and impact) and compliance (including ethics policy and special projects such as the Festival of Learning) teams. The pre-award team should be split by the type of funder/activity (e.g. research, EU, KTPs, enterprise, etc). Compliance should be a separate functional team to ensure it is seen as separate and therefore objective from the other functional teams.

It is proposed to split into pre-award, post-award and KE and impact teams. It is suggested to split the pre-award team by school/faculty to ensure clarity of roles and a single point of contact for academics and schools/faculty. Engagement activities (i.e. public engagement, communications, impact etc) related to specific awards will be the remit of the post-award team, and corporate-level engagement activities (such as the Festival of Learning, REF impact case studies, Research Chronicle, etc) will be the remit of the KE and impact team. It is proposed to embed compliance within the post-award team.

There should be a KE/impact team including a senior level Research Communications, Public Engagement and Business / Corporate Relations post, supported by one or two Knowledge Exchange Coordinators

It is proposed that there is a separate KE/impact team, led by a senior level KE and Impact Manager with support provided by a Research Communications Manager, KE Adviser, KTP Adviser and KE Officer, plus a


Feedback Response

who could work across the three areas to help deliver on projects and objectives.

Student Engagement Coordinator and an Events Organiser ( two student placement opportunities).

There should be a dedicated externally-facing team which encompasses KE (including public engagement, research communications, etc) with the ultimate aim of achieving impact.

The proposal is for this to be the remit of the KE and impact team.

There should be separate pre- and post-award teams, split by school/faculty.

The proposal is for a pre-award team with staff dedicated to schools/faculty.

If there were dedicated pre-award staff then this would free up time for them to be more involved with improving the quality of bids at an earlier stage, and to offer services such as proof reading.

The proposal is for dedicated pre-award staff (Research Facilitators and Pre-Award Officers) with a remit for working with academics to improve proposal quality from an earlier stage.

If there were a dedicated post-award team then staff could support a wider remit of post-award management, such as dissemination, outputs, public engagement, etc.

The proposal is for dedicated post-award staff (Project Officers) with a remit for supporting academics with the whole breadth of post-award management, including dissemination, etc.

Could there be a pre-award team with a split in responsibility for supporting academics at different career stages.

The proposal is for a pre-award team with staff dedicated to schools/faculty. The new Research Facilitator posts will have a responsibility for providing career guidance and advice to academics at different career stages.

The central administration team is not used effectively and there is a disconnect between the team and the rest of RKEO. The current structure does not easily permit progression from the administration roles to other roles within RKEO.

The proposal is for the administration roles to be embedded in the functional teams. Two administration roles (Finance and Resources Officer and Finance and Resources Administrator) will sit outside of the functional teams, working across RKEO.

Job titles should be reviewed in line with the external sector.

Job titles have been reviewed in line with the external sector and with BU practice, and amended titles have been proposed.

There should be a post that is responsible for the IT systems RKEO uses (such as RED and pFACT), producing management information and undertaking financial management tasks (such as budgeting and forecasting).

These tasks have been incorporated into the Finance and Systems Adviser post.

More administrative posts are required to help support the expanding volume of workload associated with the growth of RKEO activities e.g. through more involvement from the administration team on projects, greater use of placement students etc. Some of the existing functional teams do not have access to administrative support.

The proposal is to embed the administrative support into the functional teams. It is also proposed to create two new jobs to support the expanding volume of work (KE Officer and Student Engagement Coordinator). This will ensure all functional teams have adequate administrative support.

Roles could be understood more in-terms of project managers (with different levels e.g. senior project managers, project managers

This is similar to the proposed structure of the functional teams (i.e. manager, facilitator/adviser, officer,


Feedback Response

and project officers) – which in-turn would allow more movement between different project areas. This would ensure greater cross-team knowledge and also reduce duplication of effort.

coordinator/administrator).

Some responsibilities do not fit neatly into pre- and post-award, and span the whole remit of RKEO.

It is proposed that these roles are located in the functional team in which they most closely belong, but with the remit of working across all functional teams in RKEO as appropriate.

We need a structure that supports continuity during the life of projects.

The project officers will be dedicated to particular schools/faculty and each will be responsible for a portfolio of projects for the life of the projects. This is of course subject to staff turnover.

Feedback on specialist rolesSpecialist roles mean colleagues are not able to support one another during busy times, periods of annual leave, etc.

The current structure has a significant reliance on specialist roles. The proposal is to reduce these and to embed specialist knowledge across the teams with the aim of increasing job satisfaction and increasing the sustainability and resilience of the team.

EU support should be embedded across the team, not just in specialist roles.

The proposal is for there to be EU specialist roles in the pre-award and post-award teams. In the pre-award team there will be a specialist Research Facilitator for EU and international funding sources and this post will work with all the Pre-Award Officer posts to submit EU and international funding proposals. EU specialist knowledge and experience will be embedded in all pre-award posts. In the post-award team there will be a specialist EU Project Officer as the EU rules and regulations are so different to other funders and there are strict sanctions for not adhering to these.

Policy development should be embedded across the team, not just in specialist roles.

The reliance on specialist policy development posts has been reduced in the proposed structure and there will be greater opportunities for all team members to be involved in policy development.

We need to avoid losing the capability for some roles to be highly specialised to ensure excellence and innovation.

It is proposed to retain some specialists and to embed these posts into the structure and processes in a more coherent way. For example, specialist advisers in research governance, research outputs and finance and systems are proposed to manage the Project Officers. It is also proposed to increase the expertise within the team by creating specialist pre- and post-award officer posts and Research Facilitator posts.

EU should have a dedicated administrator. A dedicated EU Project Administrator is


Feedback Response

included in the proposal.It is important to embed specialist knowledge in ethics and governance into those undertaking post-award management.

The proposal is for a specialist Research Governance Adviser to be embedded in the post-award team and to be responsible for overseeing ethics and governance. The Project Officers would be responsible for managing ethics and governance within their project portfolios, referring complex queries to the Research Governance Adviser as necessary.

Where roles are highly specialised more could be done to ensure that there is more training within the team. For example, the specialist roles could be training up the generalist roles being that our clients get more service from one individual, which in-turn would free up the specialist to start new initiatives.

The proposal is for less to be less reliance of specialist roles and for this knowledge to be embedded throughout the team. Where it is proposed for specialist roles to be retained then there will be an expectation that these post-holders upskill the rest of the team.

Feedback on communication within RKEO, BU and beyondThere is a lack of communication between the current operations and development teams, and a lack of understanding of roles and pressures.

The proposal is for the rudimentary split between operations and development tasks to become obsolete and for team members to undertake both elements.

Academics often have to contact numerous people within RKEO to progress different aspects of their proposal or award.

The proposal is for each school/faculty to have a single point of contact for pre-award and a single point of contact for post-award.

We need to address relationship management so that a single point of contact can explain all the variety of schemes/processes available to BU researchers.

The proposal is for the schemes and processes to be embedded in the functional teams. All team members will be expected to have a thorough knowledge of the schemes and processes in their functional teams, and to have a good understanding of those in the other functional teams.

We need to increase undergraduate engagement with research.

The proposal includes a new post (Student Engagement Coordinator) with the remit of increasing BU students’ awareness of, and engagement with, research.

There should be specialist flash mob group meetings to discuss policy, best practice, procedure, etc. These would be quick bursts of conversation rather than working groups, and would involve people from across RKEO.

This will be considered by the RKEO Exec outside of this review, potentially as a means of encouraging greater cross-team working in future.

We need to avoid the creation of new silos through new teams; there needs to be embedded processes which facilitate more cross-team working.

This is a key requirement for both the existing structure and the proposed structure, and will be taken forward by the RKEO Exec.

We need to avoid losing the excellent relationships which currently exist between RKEO and the research community.

The relationships between RKEO and the rest of the University are of paramount importance. The proposal places a greater emphasis on these relationships, and in particular those with academic/research


Feedback Response

colleagues. The RKEO Exec will be responsible for reviewing this and ensuring relationships are strengthened.

We need to ensure a more cohesive approach to how we engage with external members of the public.

It is proposed that the KE and Impact Team will work closely with colleagues across BU who are in external engagement roles to ensure a more cohesive approach.

Feedback on processes and systemsThe operations team don’t currently see the internal peer reviewer comments and there is a disconnect between this, the APF quality approver comments and the proposal submission.

The proposal is for the pre-award team to be responsible for all aspects of the pre-award process, to include internal peer review, APF quality approval and proposal submission.

There is a disconnect between the operations team and the Grants Academy initiative.

The proposal is for the pre-award team to be responsible for the Grants Academy and to embed the Grants Academy in the process for proposal preparation.

We need a systems champion (for RED, pFACT, etc) to ensure the systems are being used properly.

This will form part of the Finance and Systems Adviser role.

We could move to an allocation-based system of splitting the work, similar to the one used by Legal Services.

Feedback from academics and schools/faculty has always been that they value having dedicated contacts within the team with whom they can develop a strong relationship. The proposal is for Research Facilitators, Pre-Award Officers and Project Officers to be dedicated to specific schools/faculty. However there would be an understanding within the team that during busy times all team members would be required to share workload and to support one another. This could be done whilst still providing the school/faculty with a dedicated contact.

There needs to be more resource allocated to horizon scanning, particularly with regard to matching funding calls to areas of BU expertise and putting together appropriate teams to respond to particular calls.

The proposal is for these tasks to be key responsibilities for the Research Facilitators.

RKEO needs to provide greater support for bid writing, proof reading, proposal development, etc.

This is included in the remit of the proposed new pre-award team roles.

We need to apply suitable significance and appreciation to the ‘back-room’ tasks. Without this any management information that we produce will not be accurate or able to allow decision making based on reality. Our current workload and division of work does not support this. Our records management is weak.

Splitting into pre- and post-award teams with dedicated posts linked to each will release time, particularly on the post-award side, for ensuring records management is fit for purpose. The Post-Award Manager and Finance and Systems Adviser will be responsible for ensuring records are accurate.

Other feedbackThere needs to be investment provided by This is outside of the remit of this review.


Feedback Response

BU in post-doctoral researchers.There is no clear point of entry for external stakeholders interested in working with BU to access information and services.

This is outside of the remit of this review and is being taken forward by the Head of RKE and Pro Vice-Chancellor (R&I).

Standards of service excellence and process improvement should be embedded throughout RKEO.

RKEO is already undertaking work to embed service excellence and process improvement throughout its processes and schemes. It is proposed to include service excellence and process improvement in all of the job descriptions.

3. Summary of the discussions at the cross-team focus group, held on 12th March 2014

Reflecting on the feedback from the other institutions, have there been any structures/approaches which you feel would be especially appropriate for BU?

Discussion was around a Research Facilitator – to act as a dedicated person to check the quality of submissions. They would present a fresh perspective when the bid is almost ready to be submitted.

Conversation around the table was that at the moment no one is responsible for this and the Officers do not have time to check.

Discussion around whether this side of the checking should be covered by the Schools.

However, it was felt that if the current team was spilt into Pre and Post award there would be more free time for the Officers to advise before submissions.

What should be the cut-off between pre- and post-award? There was a bit of discussion around this as there were different views of where the cut-off should be:

Once the signed contract is received as by this stage the contract has been negotiated and signed and sealed.

Once the award letter has been received, as some grants are awarded in collaboration with other stakeholders/institutions and so negotiations between the parties may still be taking place, although there would be a Memorandum of Understanding.

Should there be specialist EU and/or KTP roles? EU yes as they need to be specialists but there needs to be cover when there are

absences. Do not see the need for separation anymore. On the pre award side there could be a split EU/KTP/Research/Enterprise – split by

funder. On the post award side there would be a split by

Finance/Communications/Engagement.

Should support for knowledge exchange, public engagement, research communications and research impact be a separate team or should the functions be embedded in pre and post award teams? Benefits and/or risks?

The majority of this sits in post award, however the impact would be in pre award – such roles flit between the 2 areas.

In the structure they would sit on one wing but would be split between pre and post.


Some saw them as ‘orbiting’ pre and post award as they have involvement throughout the lifecycle of the projects.

Ethics could be dissolved in to Pre award. As there is little time to read applications a specialist person is required – ethics should be looked at the beginning of the process.

Admin support in the current structure is centralised in one team. What works well with this and what can be improved? Should it remain centralised in the new structure?

The view was that this should not be centralised. This was previously on the operations side and the admin had their own specific areas. It was felt there was a sense of ownership, ability to learn and progress from a career perspective. Also felt that this led to a familiarisation with the academics.

Could be split and integrated into the team more, into schools (more specific remits)

Thinking about the people RKEO engage with what could be the most appropriate names for the pre and post award support?

Post award – Project Manager / Project Management Officer. Grants Officers / Advisers. Advisers seemed to be a particular favourite.

All of the feedback suggests there needs to be a significant increase in working across and between teams. How could this be best supported in the new structure?

When people are currently on leave there is no one to cover the work so there needs to be more flexibility to pick things up.


Appendix E – Slotting in and prior consideration process

Introduction

As a result of the proposal presented for consultation, a number of posts are potentially at risk of redundancy. These have been identified within the table listing all current and proposed future posts within the structure. Within the proposal are also a number of new posts, job descriptions and grades are included. There are also a number of roles which it is proposed require a slight re-focussing of the role in order to ensure a flexible workforce is created which fits the needs of RKEO into the future. It should be noted that the principles apply to substantive roles as opposed to roles that staff may be currently acting up into or seconded into.

The following process will apply.

General Principles

Job descriptions have been updated to reflect the requirements of the roles in accordance with BU2018, the needs of the schools/faculty and the institutional development plan for RKEO. Where the duties of the current roles closely match those of the new roles, it is proposed that post holders be slotted in. Subject to final approval, and depending upon the nature of the final proposals, staff will (as appropriate) be notified that they are either formally at risk from redundancy or slotted into a new role.At the same time the new job opportunities (where there is no slotting) created by the proposal will proceed to recruitment on a prior consideration basis.

2. What is slotting?

This means that there is a close match (that is the clear majority of the existing role aligns with the duties in the new role) and the post is normally at the same grade. In these cases post holders (who will have been previously notified) will be automatically ‘slotted in’ to a specified role.

3. When will slotting occur?

Slotting will only occur after the final proposals have been decided and the timing of will be agreed on an individual basis but taking account of the proposed recruitment process that may affect the slotted post.

4. What is Prior consideration?

Where a member(s) of staff is at risk from redundancy, suitable vacancies (posts at the same grade or one grade below) will be made known to them. If the staff member(s) meets (or appears very close to meeting) the essential criteria of the person specification then they will be given prior consideration for interview and a decision made on their application(s) first. Specifically this will refer to the vacant posts in RKEO but equally applies to any other vacancies which may exist across the University.

You will be invited to express interest in vacant posts normally at the same grade or one grade below your existing substantive post on a prior consideration basis. If your knowledge,


skills and attributes appear to meet the essential criteria of the person specification then you will be invited to interview.

5. How will prior consideration work?

There will be two tiers of prior consideration; the details of Tier 1 as they apply individually to you are attached. As a general principle the following will apply;

Prior Consideration for RKEO vacancies

You have been notified that you are formally at risk from redundancy You are not proposed to be slotted into an alternative role Vacant posts at the same grade or one grade below are made available to you Exceptionally where significant elements (but not a clear majority) of your current role

(now proposed redundant) are proposed in a new vacancy at one grade higher

6. Can a member of staff formally at risk from redundancy get prior consideration for a post at a higher grade?

As a normal principle the answer is no. However if there are significant elements of the staff’s current role (now formally at risk of redundancy) in a proposed new vacancy then the University will allow for a member of staff to have prior consideration for interview at a post at one grade higher. Staff proposed to be affected by this exception are notified in their individual attachment to this document.

7. Can staff who are proposed to be slotted apply for vacancies?

If you are to be slotted into a role at the same grade as your current role then you may not apply (on a prior consideration basis) to any vacancies. This is because risk of redundancy does not apply.

8. Can staff be considered for vacancies on a prior consideration basis to posts at more than one grade below their current post?

The University would not normally recognise posts at two grades or more below a member of staff’s current grade as suitable alternative employment for them. However should the member of staff wish to express a preference then this may be possible and will be subject to the normal rules of prior consideration (i.e. meeting the essential criteria of the person specification). Staff will need to notify HR of any post at two grades or more below their current post that they wish to be considered against to ensure that they are notified appropriately.

9. What are the Possible Timescales for the Recruitment?

1. Applications will be based on the standard University application form with a covering letter. For those individuals applying for more than one post is it recommended that a single application form be provided but separate covering letters for each post which fit with the person specification and other information pertinent to the post.

2. Short listing of applications will be conducted by the Panel based on the criteria set out in the person specification


Notes

1) Any roles which remain vacant after the above process has been followed will then be offered as development opportunities to all other RKEO staff.

2) Any person engaged on a fixed term contract will be included in this process.

3) Any new posts will be filled by competitive recruitment in the usual way. Current staff are, of course, able to apply for these posts.


Appendix F – Proposed split of roles by schools/faculty

The proposed split of pre- and post-award roles by school/faculty has been undertaken on the basis of the number and value of proposals submitted per year and the number and value of awards made per year. This has been sense-checked by the RKEO Exec. It is understood that the split by school/faculty needs to be flexible in order to accommodate BU’s changing business needs and any future changes to school/faculty structures.

Table 3: Proposed pre-award split of roles by schools/faculty. Data is as per 2013.

School/faculty Number of RKE bids per year

Value of RKE bids per year

Average size of bid

Proposed posts in pre-award team

Estimated number of RKE bids per 1fte pre-award officer

SciTech 193 £20.8m £108k

Research Facilitator (0.75fte)Pre-award Officer (1.6fte)

121 per year2.3 per week

HSC 127 £6.6m £52k

Research Facilitator (0.75fte)Pre-award Officer (1fte)


BS & SoT 122 £6.9m £57k



MS 88 £7.3m £83k



Table 4: Proposed post-award split of roles by schools/faculty. Data is as per 2013.

School/faculty Number of RKE projects awarded per year

Value of RKE projects awarded per year

Average size of award

Proposed posts in post-award team

Estimated number of RKE projects per 1fte project officer

SciTech 94 £2.2m £23k Project Officer (1.33fte)

71 per year

HSC 70 £2.4m £34k Project Officer (1.33fte)

53 per year

BS, SoT & MS

109 £4.9m35 £45k Project Officer (1.34fte)

81 per year

35 Note that £1.8m of this is one grant that will be part-managed between the school and RKEO


Documents

RKEO Proposal Documentintranetsp.bournemouth.ac.uk/documentsrep/RKEO proposal... · Web viewPROPOSAL FOR CONSULTATION 24 April 2014 Contents Introduction Context and rationale for