date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 08:43:10 +0000
from: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Research income review - urgent
to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, j.palutikof@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk

Folks
As a 'non-oldie' (sic), Trevor has asked me to roganise the research
review as detailed in the note below which you all should have received
already.

Given time constraints, absence abroad etc, there is now way we can meet
as a group to discuss these issue. Indeed, as each of us in a sense
represent a research grouping it is arguably no appropriate anyway.

I suggest that each of us produce a one page maximum account of:
a) current portfolio (income sources ie funding agencies but not figures);
b) trends in income over the past three years or so;
c) remedial action if any is needed to combat decline (unlikely in case of
CRU); 
d) plans for fund raising over next year or so.
Please include any general lessons you think ENV faculty might
benefit from. (I didn't mean that to sound quite so patronising!)

I have already reported to the last faculty meeting that CRU income has
held up over the past few years. The decline in ENV income seems to be
sectoral. I reckon we should be upbeat without sounding complacent (and
deflect any future pressure to increase our income beyond a sustainable
point!). 

Phil has agreed to report back on these accounts to the meeting
which may or may not be in the week of Dec 20th and will also cover general
conclusions from our review of F5 performance and prospects. I encourage
all who can to attend this meeting. My spies tell me that there has been
very irresponsible murmuring along the lines of 'How can we afford to fund
CRU senior staff given this decline?' in one c'tee meeting. We need to do
some serious PR.

Can each of you seek input from other PIs in CRU working in related
areas and include that information in your report?

Thanks
Mick

Trevor has said...

Following discussion at the Faculty Meeting, I would like to move ahead
quickly with arranging a meeting to address our falling research income. 

I asked Research Committee to conduct a post-mortem on our Framework 5
applications. Review comments are now arriving, so I hope that RC will be
able to feed that information into the meeting.

Please can I ask the following to make arrangements within our loose
Research Grouping:

earth/hydro Julian/Jan/Richard
atmos/ocean Steve/Karen/(in consultation with Tim J - to cover the more
chemical aspects)
ecology/soils Alastair/Mark
social (& CSERGE/CER) Neil/Andy Jordan
CRU Mick (in consultation with others)

I've chosen those who were at the Faculty Meeting (I think) & who are, by &
large, not the oldies. Will you please organise colleagues into groups, of
around 3-4 individuals, which represent sensible "cognate" research themes.
Brief for the 3-4 is to:

1. assess past performance, sources (changes in), etc. I would not want you
to present detailed information of "funding performance" to the meeting -
we're not looking for league tables" - this is so each 3-4 is aware of:
changes in patterns of funding, have you adapted/not adapted, shifted/not
shifted cognate area, being particularly good/bad at some things,
improved/deteriorating strike rate, missed/taken opportunities (why/why
not?).

2. If funding is low/declining - analysis of why (a little more
sophisticated than "funding is difficult to get in my area"). If it's
high/increasing - why.

3. 1 & 2 will provide the "shape" of the recent performance, & so will help
each 3-4 to consider how they can contribute to the ENV-wide imperative to
reverse the funding decline. Topics, new topics, new linkages, pressing
more of the right buttons, more focused/diversified, relevance (are we
getting complacent, especially in the area of demonstrating that we can do
high class research whilst still addressing user needs; business/industry
relevance or support - will often trigger other sources of funding),
business/industry partnerships, too snooty about special programmes? And so
on. Just putting in more effort is not an option for most 3-4s; we need to
pick winning strategies. We also need to recognise that, especially, if we
are looking at different sources, there is a learning curve we may need to
climb before eventual success. 

I would like each 3-4 to try to meet over the next 2-3 weeks (i.e. we'll
have the breakout group sessions offline). Clearly, we need to ensure that
those who have a history of pressing the right buttons play their full
part. I will ask Janice (please Janice) to arrange a half-day meeting at
the beginning of the week of 20 December.

Please will the convenors named above be prepared to summarise the
deliberations of the groups of 3-4, to provide a Research Grouping
state-of-play, & start to sketch out possible mechanisms (incl. new
internal linkages) and strategies to increase funding. We need to bear in
mind that we have to continue to do very well with the Research Councils.
Let's plan on each Research Grouping having about 10-15 minutes - followed
by ENV-wide discussion.

We also need to ensure that we are familiar with the various relevant
themes/programmes (Foresight/LINK, etc), so I will ask Janice to collate
information & ensure that we have the appropriate specialists to advise
(e.g. Kerry on Foresight, our Research Council members, etc).

 
______________________________________________

Mick Kelly                       Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia     Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091          Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
______________________________________________


