Welcome and Introduction

1. Welcome and Introduction David Leech Director, Programme Operations

2. CTA BRIEFING MEETING: 12 NOVEMBER Attendees University 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

3. 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

4. CTA : Implementation Timetable Steve Milsom University Interface Manager CTA Project Team

5. CTA Timetable : 2003 - 2005

6. First General Call Pilot Phase Dec Feb ‘Call’ released 03 July ‘Call’ released (01/09) Business Plans (deadline 15/09) Sept Expressions of interest (30/09) Assessment (24/10) Confirmation of bidders (15/10) Nov Decisions (~ 01/11) Jan Business Plans (01/02) Close current activities Assessment (~ 01/03) March Decisions (~ 31/03) April Announce CTAs 04 May Course development Major student starts Oct

7. Indicative Limits and Other Financial Information Alan Thomas Head, Technology Operations CTA Project Manager

8. Expenditure 2002/03 Fellowships1.7% Public Awareness0.4% Operations 3.6% Research Grants 76.7% Training 17.5% £498 million

9. 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.

10. Method of Calculation : Basic Tenets • Simple • Understandable • Justifiable • Explainable • Generically Applicable • Calculation should also generate “realistic” figures.

11. The “Calculation” • EngDoc, KTP (aka TCS), MTP and RAIS schemes - all included. • Industrial Case – specifically excluded. • Current “portfolio” assumed to be continuing as is.

12. 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).

13. Variation in the Value of Organisations Collaborative Training Portfolio

14. Variation in the Value of Collaborative Training Portfolio - Organisations in the First Call

15. Collaborative Training Portfolio – All Research Organisations

16. Collaborative Training Portfolio – Pilot Organisations Only

17. Collaborative Training Portfolio – Organisations in the First Call Only

18. Portfolio Comparison (by value) – Pilot Organisations with Rest

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

20. Pilots – Breakdown of EPSRC Funding Sought

21. Pilots – Contributions to Total Value of CTA

22. 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.

23. Business Plan Format and Structure Iain Cameron Head, Postgraduate Training CTA Project Team

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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)

31. CTAs - A personal view Kevin Neailey

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

33. What is a CTA?

34. The Starting Point MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD Individual programmes Individual objectives

35. A CTA? MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD

36. A CTA ? MTP1 MTP2 RAIS TCS EngD Flexibility to move funds between the programmes

37. 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

38. What the CTA Means • Opportunity • Flexibility • Novelty • Threat • To the status quo • Responsibility • We are our own assessors

39. What a CTA Needs • Novelty • Management • Measures

40. Four Essentials

41. 1. Collaboration • With Industry • Meet UK needs • Meet industrial demand • Industrial input

42. 2. Collaboration • With University Management • Flexibility • Fairness

43. 3. Collaboration • With other departments • To realise the flexibility • Synergy

44. 4. Collaboration • With funding bodies

45. The Bidding Process

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

47. Problems to face • This money is mine • Me too!

48. Conclusions • The CTA • is different • is greater than its constituent programmes • We are our own assessors • Collaboration