Welcome and Introduction David Leech Director, Programme Operations

Welcome and Introduction

David LeechDirector, Programme Operations

CTA BRIEFING MEETING: 12 NOVEMBER

University Attendees

Bangor ……………………………….. David Joyner

Bath ……………………………….. Kevin Edge, Richard Griffith

Birmingham ……………………….. Paul Bowen

Brighton ………………………………Andrew Lloyd

Brunel …………………………………. Teresa Waller, Lynne Greenstreet

City …………………………………. Jo Bradford, Neil Maiden

Coventry …………………………….. Malcolm Gould, Keith Burnham

Cranfield ……………………………. Clifford Friend

Glamorgan ………………………….. Sheala Edwards, Louise Bright

Glasgow ………………………………Hazel Ruxton, Martin Hendry, Amanda Tannahill

ICSTM ……………………………….. Richard Jardine, Kenny Weir, Martin Richards

Leeds ……………………………….. Alan Coppock, Nigel Smith

Liverpool …..……………………….. Jane Cloke, Sue Barlow

Liverpool John Moores ……… Paulo Lisboa

Luton …………………………………. David Rawson, Phil Ladley

CTA BRIEFING MEETING: 12 NOVEMBER

University Attendees

Middlesex ………………………….. Mehmet Karamanoglu, Richard Bunce

Plymouth ..…………………………. Clive Williams

Portsmouth .……………………….. Nick Bennett, Vince Hughes

Sheffield ……………………… Peter Fearnley

South Bank …………………………. Razmik Boodaghians, Anjum (Jim) Pervez

Southampton ………………… Hilary Smith, Sally Brailsford

Staffordshire ………………………. Stephen John Rees

Surrey …………………………………. Chris France

UWE, Bristol ……………………….. Richard Bond, Tony Solomonides

Wolverhampton ………………….. Richard Hall, Sylvia Haycox

CTA : Implementation Timetable

Steve MilsomUniversity Interface Manager

CTA Project Team

CTA Timetable : 2003 - 2005

Call: Call Issued Expression of Interest

Confirmation of Bidders

Full Business Plans

Preliminary Decisions

Grant Starts

Student Starts

Pilot March 2003 Not relevant Not relevant 15 September 2003

1 November 2003

1 April 2004

October 2004

First General

1 September 2003

30 September 2003

15 October 2003

1 February 2004

31 March 2004 1 July 2004

October 2004

Second General

1 May 2004 31 May 2004 15 June 2004 1 October 2004 30 November 2004

1 April 2005

October 2005

Feb

July

Sept

Nov

Jan

March

April

May

Oct

‘Call’ released (01/09)

Business Plans (01/02)

Assessment (~ 01/03)

Decisions (~ 31/03)

‘Call’ released

Business Plans (deadline 15/09)Assessment (24/10)

Decisions (~ 01/11)

Close current activities

Announce CTAs

Course development

Major student starts

03

04

First General Call Pilot Phase

Dec

Expressions of interest (30/09)

Confirmation of bidders (15/10)

Indicative Limits and Other Financial Information

Alan ThomasHead, Technology Operations

CTA Project Manager

Research Grants76.7%

Training17.5%

Operations3.6%

£498 million

Expenditure 2002/03

Fellowships1.7% Public Awareness

0.4%

Why Use Indicative Limits?

Allows EPSRC to exercise control over its financial planning (i.e. by mapping demand to available resources).

Gives potential bidders a definitive and realistic financial framework.

Fairness and consistency (all bidders treated equitably and equally as possible).

A realistic reflection of an HEIs current EPSRC portfolio / track record.

Allows growth to planned and managed.

Method of Calculation : Basic Tenets

Simple

Understandable

Justifiable

Explainable

Generically Applicable

Calculation should also generate “realistic” figures.

The “Calculation”

EngDoc, KTP (aka TCS), MTP and RAIS schemes - all included.

Industrial Case – specifically excluded.

Current “portfolio” assumed to be continuing as is.

The “Calculation” (continued)

Entire MTP “portfolio” included.

Allowance made for MTPs of different duration

Contribution of RAIS and KTP at best an approximation – true level of support per annum very

difficult to determine accurately.

Contribution of EngDoc Centres based on unit cost (i.e. £3.5M and £4.0M).

Variation in the Value of Organisations

Collaborative Training Portfolio

£10,000

£100,000

£1,000,000

£10,000,000

£100,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Organisation Ranking

Vla

uen

of

Co

llab

ora

tive

Tra

inin

g P

ort

foli

o (

ES

PR

C

Fu

nd

ed) £300,000 - benchmark

Variation in the Value of Collaborative Training

Portfolio - Organisations in the First Call

£1

£10

£100

£1,000

£10,000

£100,000

£1,000,000

£10,000,000

£100,000,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Organisation

Vla

uen

of

Co

llab

ora

tive T

rain

ing

Po

rtfo

lio

(E

SP

RC

F

un

ded

)

£300,000 - benchmark

Collaborative Training Portfolio – All Research Organisations

EngDoc Centres31%

Industrial Case5%

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

5%

Research Assistant Industrial Secondments

1%

Masters Training Packages58%

Total Portfolio = ~ £170M

Collaborative Training Portfolio – Pilot Organisations Only

Masters Training Packages43%

Industrial Case3%

Research Assistant Industrial Secondments

1%

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

3%

EngDoc Centres50%

Total Portfolio = ~ £63M

Collaborative Training Portfolio – Organisations in the First Call Only

EngDoc Centres32%

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

5%Research Assistant

Industrial Secondments1%

Industrial Case6%

Masters Training Packages56%

Total Portfolio = ~ £66M

Portfolio Comparison (by value) – Pilot Organisations with Rest

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Masters TrainingPackages

Research AssistantIndustrial Secondments

Know ledge TransferPartnerships

EngDoc Centres Industrial Case Total Portfolio

Pilots HEIs Remaining HEIs

Portfolio Comparison (by value) – Organisations in the First Call with Rest

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Masters TrainingPackages

Research AssistantIndustrial Secondments

Know ledge TransferPartnerships

EngDoc Centres Industrial Case Total Portfolio

Organisations in the First Call Remaining Organisations

Pilots – Breakdown of EPSRC Funding Sought

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Org. 1 Org. 2 Org. 3 Org. 4 Org. 5 Org. 6 Org. 7 Org. 8 Org. 9 Org. 10

Other Costs

Equipment

SkillsDevelopment

Coordination

Delivery

Stipends

Pilots – Contributions to Total Value of CTA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e C

on

trib

uti

on

to

"T

ota

l V

alu

e o

f C

TA

"

Org. 1 Org. 2 Org. 3 Org. 4 Org. 5 Org. 6 Org. 7 Org. 8 Org. 9 Org. 10

Other

Industry

EPSRC

Issues and Questions

The CTA philosophy (the ability to use the funds flexibly, strategically and tactically).

Procedures and processes to implement any CTA award

What difference will a CTA make?

What are the main risk and challenges in implementing a CTA?

Why is your Organisation best placed to provide the type and range of training outlined in your Business Plan

How will difficult decisions be taken.

Identification of milestones and key performance indicators.

Business Plan Format and Structure

Iain CameronHead, Postgraduate Training

CTA Project Team

Funding Headings

Student stipends/RA salaries

Delivery (including course development costs)

Coordination (including management costs)

Skills development

Equipment

Other costs

Industrial contribution (cash/kind)

University/government contribution (cash/kind)

Business Plan : Format

BUSINESS PLAN (details)

Named Account Co-ordinator

Total value of funds sought from EPSRC

Total number of people trained

Total expected industrial contributions

Total expected contributions from other sources

Activity list of mechanisms and subject coverage

Business Plan : Format

BUSINESS PLAN (qualities)

Management structure proposed for the account

Fit to strategic vision and priorities

Explanation of user involvement in CTA

Estimate of number of people to be trained

Explanation of the use of EPSRC finance e.g. individual student fees, course development costs,

Pump-priming funding, co-ordination, etc

Pilot Panel Process

Panel of 6 with an independent chair

Early meeting of panel to confirm process and practice

Each member linked to 2 pilot universities

Bidders had comments from EPSRC Programme Managers and Panel members prior to final panel meeting

Bidders “interviewed” by panel

General Call Panel Process

Panel of around 10 with an independent chair.

Panel will have met to confirm process and practice.

• informed by pilot process

• continuity of membership from pilot

A Panel member will identified to lead the discussion on each bid.

Panel members queries (including from EPSRC Programme Managers) will be passed to bidders prior to panel meeting

EPSRC may invite bidders to make a presentation

A New Process Requires Risk Management

Developing a peer review process that would both be effective and acceptable to all stakeholders for a novel ‘product’ like the CTA was identified as one of the riskier elements. The risks derive from :

• the unfamiliar nature of the CTA both to bidders and peer-reviewers might give rise to unrealistic expectations,

• the need to develop new assessment criteria to support the EPSRC business objectives,

• the potential for imperfect understanding of the business plan requirements in the minds of bidders.

The unfamiliarity and communication uncertainties can only be addressed by working with the bidders throughout the process.

Reporting Issues

People (individual details)

• Doctoral student details c.f. DTAs - via eforms

• Outreach staff (RAIS and KTP) - via eforms

Masters level: (aggregate - annual)

• Annual throughput of Vocational MSc, Modular CPD and MRes: (Graduated/failed/dropped out)

• New courses developed / courses discontinued

Outreach activities: (annual)

• People and type/level of involvement in TT

• People flows: university to Industry

• Collaborative partners - turnover and total

Commentary on strategy/achievements (annual)

CTAs - A personal view

Kevin Neailey

Agenda What is a CTA? What a CTA means Four essentials The bidding process Problems to avoid

What is a CTA?

The Starting Point

MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD

Individual programmes

Individual objectives

A CTA?

MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD

A CTA ?

MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD

Flexibility to move funds between the programmes

A CTA

MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD

The CTA is greater than the sum of its parts

The CTA has its own objectives and measures

What the CTA Means Opportunity

Flexibility Novelty

Threat To the status quo Responsibility We are our own assessors

What a CTA Needs Novelty Management Measures

Four Essentials

1. Collaboration With Industry

Meet UK needs Meet industrial demand Industrial input

2. Collaboration With University Management

Flexibility Fairness

3. Collaboration With other departments

To realise the flexibility Synergy

4. Collaboration With funding bodies

The Bidding Process

The Bidding Process Full bid Questions from the review panel Interview with the review panel The result

Problems to face This money is mine Me too!

Conclusions The CTA

is different is greater than its constituent

programmes We are our own assessors Collaboration