Welcome and Introduction David Leech Director, 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 UniversityAttendees 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 Milsom University Interface Manager CTA Project Team

CTA Timetable : Call:Call Issued Expression of Interest Confirmation of Bidders Full Business Plans Preliminary Decisions Grant Starts Student Starts PilotMarch 2003Not relevant 15 September November April 2004 October 2004 First General 1 September September October February March July 2004 October 2004 Second General 1 May May June October November 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 First General CallPilot Phase Dec Expressions of interest (30/09) Confirmation of bidders (15/10)

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

Research Grants 76.7% Training 17.5% Operations 3.6% £498 million Expenditure 2002/03 Fellowships 1.7% Public Awareness 0.4%

Why Use Indicative Limits? lAllows EPSRC to exercise control over its financial planning (i.e. by mapping demand to available resources). lGives potential bidders a definitive and realistic financial framework. lFairness and consistency (all bidders treated equitably and equally as possible). lA realistic reflection of an HEIs current EPSRC portfolio / track record. lAllows growth to planned and managed.

Method of Calculation : Basic Tenets lSimple lUnderstandable lJustifiable lExplainable lGenerically Applicable lCalculation should also generate “realistic” figures.

The “Calculation” lEngDoc, KTP (aka TCS), MTP and RAIS schemes - all included. lIndustrial Case – specifically excluded. lCurrent “portfolio” assumed to be continuing as is.

The “Calculation” (continued) lEntire MTP “portfolio” included. lAllowance made for MTPs of different duration lContribution of RAIS and KTP at best an approximation – true level of support per annum very difficult to determine accurately. lContribution of EngDoc Centres based on unit cost (i.e. £3.5M and £4.0M).

Variation in the Value of Organisations Collaborative Training Portfolio

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

Collaborative Training Portfolio – All Research Organisations

Collaborative Training Portfolio – Pilot Organisations Only

Collaborative Training Portfolio – Organisations in the First Call Only

Portfolio Comparison (by value) – Pilot Organisations with Rest

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

Pilots – Breakdown of EPSRC Funding Sought

Pilots – Contributions to Total Value of CTA

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 Cameron Head, 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 MTP1MTP2RAISTCSEngD Individual programmes Individual objectives

A CTA? MTP1MTP2RAISTCSEngD

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

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