The review is to be undertaken over a short time line. Ideas and issues will put out through an on-line forum to the Review Group. The aim is to complete work over the summer.
This is an important data set for PraxisUnico members. It will also be an important data set for the next Comprehensive Spending Review discussions. As the issues are raised through the Review Group we will be consulting our members. There were concerns arising in the first review group meeting that the survey places no or little value on partnership working and tends to measure financial transactions into universities as a proxy.
As a starter for discussion we would welcome open contributions and thoughts and contributions to the following questions:
- Would section A - the qualitative section - be better completed on a one, three or five year time line?
- Are there any key issues missing from the qualitative analysis that are important for our members?
- Does your University use the data set for benchmarking?
- Does your university use the data for any internal planning or resource allocation purposes?
- In section B are there key data sets missing? If so, which ones?
- In the IPR section how should activities like open source software, creative commons, Easy Access IP be dealt with?
- Would contributions to regeneration be better measured through other processes e.g. Qualitative case studies?
- How could we measure economic impact arising from IP?
Any contributions to these questions or other areas of HEBCIS are welcome. Please respond by email to email@example.com