Tender Minutes Conference Call

Things to discuss

  • Sections of tender (who is doing what?)
    • Go over existing text and go through sections at Tender
    • Lit review
    • Qualitative description of some examples
    • CVs (including evidence of competence to do the project!)
    • Risk assessment
    • Management procedures

Communication channels

  • Blogs wikis, usual suspects
  • Two formal papers
  • Overarching report for sponsors
  • Money (who needs to be paid how much?)

A Clear understanding of project rationale

  • Who we are - why are we coming to this project? What is our agenda?
  • The role of Web2.0 in bringing the team together
  • Why this is a good approach for this project
  • What do we want to get out of it - from a subject specific perspective

Rational at core is to investigate the degree of use and interest in using web2 tools in research and to investigate the things (age, discipline, experience) that correlate with usage and interest. We want to understand who uses these and why to build better tools and to make sure that what we are building is going to be used.

Role of partners

  • Need clear roles for each player (UKOLN, OKF, Gavin Baker, Mendeley, Niall Haslam, Cameron Neylon)
  • Victor - survey expertise, and analysis methodology and link to Mendeley (tools development and user base)
  • Niall - expertise in building web2 services, from a biological sciences perspective, interest in sharing and aggregating data from disparate sources
  • OKF - organisational interest in sharing and data availability, experitse in the literature of services and sharing
  • Cameron Neylon - making trouble, and attaching documents to emails badly, web2 tools for science, critical analysis of research systems, link to FriendFeed and online blogosphere community (heavy user group)
  • Gavin Baker - Open access literature etc.
  • UKOLN have a strong background in web2 deployment issues in higher education, expertise in running projects, digital object curation technology and policy

Literature review

  • Pointing at existing survey and general literature in the area
  • Collecting literature together (Citeulike and transfer later as appropriate)
  • Methodology (what is being done?)
    • Good methodology section now exists
    • We need a vague introduction that is basically outcomes and how - we will produce case studies of examples, qualitative survey analysis to build the model, quantitative in depth survey results and analysis of survey results

ToDo List

  • Niall - transfer current text project plan to gannt chart on googledocs
  • Cameron - outline budget and email people to check that, write or flesh out outline for introduction including specific outcomes
  • Victor - check over what C and N have done
  • Jonathan - triage existing literature and write short review section and cross check with methodology
  • CV's - need a common(ish) format to define expertise - CN to put up example
  • Risk analysis - Liz(?) or Gavin(?)
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License