Research Management Systems

RMS Options

This page provides an overview of research management systems currently in use in the Australian higher education environment. In their 2005 Educause presentation, Jewell and Carpenter observed that a research management system "needs to cover the gamut of activity areas, including researcher expertise and funding opportunity searches, full application and award project management, ethical clearances and post-graduate student supervision, facilitating research partnerships, the recording of research outputs, and captured management of commercialisation initiatives". They provide an overview of an 'ideal' research management system, highlighting the need for integration with other corporate systems in order to manage the "inter-related business processes involved in research administration". The challenge for Research Offices has been to source and implement systems that satisfy a diverse range of functions, often with limited budgets. The diverse range of functions supported by the research office has meant that customised, in-house developments have commonly been used to satisfy research management needs. Recent quality assessment mechanisms (RQF and now the ERA) have seen a greater emphasis placed on research output management that have lead in some cases to greater involvement between the Research Management System and institutional digital repositories, most often managed by University libraries (see, for example - APSR). Greater emphasis is also being placed on management level reporting on research performance, requiring the Research Management System to be integrated with corporate information reporting systems, often involving data warehousing and Business Intelligence toolsets (eg University of Adelaide ORBIT project).

The range of Research Management System (RMS) options available to research offices have been:

• in-house development;
• purchase of a commercial off-the-shelf system;
• contracted development; and
• collaborative development (eg Open Source development).
  

Research Management Systems Market Scan

Results of a market scan conducted by Higher Ed Services (HES) in 2008, showed Research Master to be the most widely used RMS, followed by in-house developed solutions. The number of sites purchasing the InfoEd RMS has increased and now includes four universities and one research institute. Many institutions rely on a combination of commercial solutions and in-house developments to meet their RMS needs.

Australian University Systems Survey results can be found in the pivot table spreadsheet located on the HES website: http://www.hes.edu.au/page/collaborative-group-management/collaborative-research-administrators-group/useful-links/

NZ Research Management Systems Market Scan

As at February 2010, the spread of research systems in NZ Universities was:

Research System Options

1. Commercial Off-The-Shelf Solutions

Commercially available research management systems:
1. University Office
2. Research Master
3. InfoEd
4. Callista Research
5. Technology One - Research / Grants Management Module

University Office

A UK based product currently installed at ANU. It includes functionality in projects (grants), contracts and consultancy management, research output capture, ethics applications and intellectual property management. A presentation from ANU about their experience with University Office is available from the CRAG convened research forum: Directions in Research Systems and Repositories. Other University Office clients in Australia are: Murdoch University and Southern Cross University.

Research Master

RM dominates the Australian and NZ market for research administration systems. The company is very knowledgeable with respect to current practice and emerging developments in research and research training within the A-NZ higher education sector.

The product has good coverage across key research business areas. The RM suite includes: Project & Contract Management, Publications Tracking, Ethics Management, and integrated Post-Graduate and Scholarship management, with strong HDR support through the PORTIA module.The system is "plugged into" research administration within the Australian context: there is an interface to the ARC grant application management system, RMS, that can download applications from the RMS into RM; RM is aware of the NEAF and are looking to incorporate it into the Human Ethics module and they have developed an ERA support module for Australiaand an extensive PBRF module for New Zealand.  RM has long established dialogue with government regulators and other stakeholders to keep abreast of developments in the Quality and Accessibility frameworks; worked closely with the ARROW project at Monash on integration of digital repositories into research management processes to support quality evaluation requirements, assist internal users and processes and improve access to research outcomes.

eForms developments facilitate the collection and dissemination of information.  The system also has reasonably good electronic workflow features. For instance, both animal and human ethics application forms and processes can be built into the system, facilitating online data capture, review and processing of applications. Automatic reminders to researchers (via email) regarding any key event are possible - this is one of the strengths of the system.

Modules are inter-related functionally and are supported by emails with templates, embedded reports and the capacity to embed user developed reports and customisation of system supplied reports, data export to spreadsheets or other file formats, some system customisation through added user-defined scripts, supplied interfaces from other corporate systems and varying degrees of screen and field user customisation.

RM's web-based for modules for projects, publications, ethics and HDR candidature management - including applicant ranking, supervisor candidate interaction and scholarship management, - are supported by windows based 'back office' facilities which themselves are in process of being transitioned to dotNet technologies. Future developments include a sophisticated web-based ethics application system designed to facilitate the detailed requirements of the Australian National Statement and to receive application detail gathered through the NEAF, integrated IP disclosure and management as well as tools to better manage the extensive requirements of the Australian Code of Responsible Conduct of Research.

RM hold a conference for users and others interested in research management systems biennially.  Its systems are in use at 31 Australian and New Zealanduniversities and research organisations.

Further details can be found at http://www.researchmaster.com.au/products.asp

Details on the Macquarie University experience with implementing Research Master can be viewed at: Directions in Research Systems and Repositories.

InfoEd

This is a US-based system that provides support for electronic Research Administration processes (eRA). The InfoEd suite includes: Proposal Development (pre-award grant application preparation); Proposal Tracking (post award grant management); Project Management; Compliance Systems (Ethics and Safety); Clinical Trials Management; Anmial Facility management and Technology Transfer modules. The company's popular funding opportunities and CV database service, SPINPlus, is also fully integrated with the administrative systems to complete the concept to closeout coverage. Publication management is handled as part of the GENIUS CV module. A comprehensive research outputs module is currently being developed. InfoEd does not provide any support for HDR management. Further details may be found at: http://www.infoed.org/Default.asp.

InfoEd comes with a framework that allows Research Administrators to build their own processes and workflow into the system. Instead of being locked into a process that is dictated by the system, there is a reasonably high degree of flexibility for tailored practices to be incorporated into the software. InfoEd has facilities to build intelligent/dynamic forms that expand and contract depending on answers given and can lead researchers through processes such as risk assessment and conformance checklists. Like RM, it supports on-line application forms and online review plus electronic routing of applications.

As at early 2008, InfoEd is being implemented by four Australian Universities and one Australian research institute.
Details of the University of New South Wales experience with InfoEd can be found at: Directions in Research Systems and Repositories.

Callista Research

Callista Research originated from the in-house developed RMS at the University of Tasmania. Callista software services commercialized the product and a consortium of institutions worked to develop and implement the system. It has modules for managing grants, consultancies and contracts, ethics applications, recording of I.P., post-graduate candidature and publication management. It supports some electronic workflow with automated emails and form templates, as well as automated status and action tracking. The system is fully web enabled and provides an online reporting tool. Further information is available at: http://www2.callista.com.au/products/ResearchOverview.htm

CallistaResearch initially had a high level of interest with several institutions involved in the collaboration. However, most institutions have now reduced their reliance on Callista Research. It is currently in use at five Australian universities.

Technology One - Research / Grants Management Module

Technology One have developed a Grants Management Module that allows institutions to manage Grants Administration activities from the cradle to the grave.

2. Contracted Development

A number of institutions have adopted the approach of developing their own system specification and then out-sourcing the development work to a software house. UWS have recently taken this approach with an Oracle developed database, RHESYS (Research Higher Education System).Details on the UWS experience with outsourcing their Research System development can be found at:Directions in Research Systems and Repositories.

3. In House Development

In-house developed RMS are still quite common. Some examples:

• THEMIS - The Melbourne Integrated System.
• RAD - Griffith University (PeopleSoft developed RMS)
• RMDB - UTAS (this was the precursor to Callista Research) including the Web Access Research Portal
  

4. Other

Given the diversity of requirements imposed on research management systems, alternative approaches such as Open Source development may have merit. This approach is radically different from the traditional vendor/customer relationship. Open source has been used successfully in a number of industries and public sector areas. It is potentially quite well suited to the Higher Ed environment which has a strong history of collaborative ventures. However, to date, no open source solutions for an RMS have been tried in the Australian higher education sector.
The Kuali Foundation is a non-profit organization responsible for sustaining and evolving a comprehensive suite of administrative software using open source approaches to meet the needs institutions. Kuali is developing a research administration system through its Kuali Research Administration community, see: http://www.kuali.org/communities/kra/

University Systems in Use

Higher Ed Services conducted a survey in April/May 2008 on University Systems in use across all Higher Education institutions.  The results are presented in an excel pivot table and chart which may be pivoted to show specific systems and their usage, the range of systems in use across all institutions, or all systems in use at a particular institution. Many areas are covered, but mainly data is available on Human Resource Systems, Student Systems, Research Management Systems and Finance Systems.  University Systems in Use - As at May 2008.

We would appreciate your assistance in keeping this data up-to-date or filling in any gaps. If you wish to amend your institutional data, please forward the update to leanne@hes.edu.au.

History of RMS Developments

CASMAC (UniPower)

During the early 1990's a consortium supported by the Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee and involving a large number of Australian universities ("UniPower") attempted to define a Core Australian Specification for Management Administrative Computing (CASMAC). A primary objective of CASMAC was to develop, in a collaborative fashion, a specification that would define requirements for core university administrative systems (Finance, HR, Student and Research) which could be developed in an integrated IT solution. CASMAC specifications were developed and some modules were delivered, but ultimately the initiative was unable to deliver a comprehensive suite of administrative systems. The Research & Consultancy module was implemented at two Universities but was decommissioned when other CASMAC modules did not materialize.

Best of breed (UniOn)

In parallel to the UniPower initiative was a collaboration by several Universities (the 'UniOn' group) to identify "best of breed" commercially available systems that met university administrative system needs. The UniOn group collaborated to define common user requirements and determine means for integrating systems from different vendors. The UniOn group identified MasterSoft (the precursor to Research Master) as the best-of-breed RMS.

Role of HES

In both the UniPower and UniOn cases, HES played a pivotal role in co-ordination and documentation of the collaborative effort to identify common requirements for RMS needs. These specifications are retained by HES. many of the specifications still retain a high degree of currency and relevance to RMS requirements today.

Emergence of Research Master

During the mid 1990s, MasterSoft Pty Ltd emerged as the pre-eminent supplier for research management software in Australia. Several UniOn members and other institutions adopted the MasterSoft developed ResearchMaster Enterprise (RME) system. In 1997 MasterSoft was acquired by ResearchMaster Pty Ltd and the RME platform was re-written. ResearchMaster is the most widely used RMS in Austrlia and is in use in Australian and New Zealand institutions.

Evolution of Callista Research

In 2000/01 a number of universities were involved in an evaluation of a RMS developed at the University of Tasmania (UTAS). Rights to the UTAS system were purchased by Callista Software Services who marketed the UTAS system as Callista Research. A number of institutions purchased the Callista Research system and worked collaboratively on their RMS implementations. Despite the goodwill inherent in the collaboration, most Callista Research users have decided to adopt alternative RMS options.

Introduction of InfoEd

InfoEd is a US based company that gained prominence in Australia through the introduction of its searchable, web based funding opportunities database - SPIN (Sponsored Programs Information Network). InfoEd also offer a web based Electronic Research Administration (eRA) system that is used in over 600 sites worldwide. The University of New South Wales was an early adopter of the eRA system.

Continuance of in-house developed RMS

The diverse range of functions supported by the research office has meant that customised, in-house developments have commonly been used to satisfy research management needs. In-house developments provide a high degree of fit to sites' requirements and flexibility and responsiveness to changing requirements.

Attributes of an 'Ideal' RMS

Ideally, a research management system should provide services to all of the stakeholders involved in the research management life cycle. The RMS should offer functionality/services to: researchers, research managers, research administrators and research students.

Assistance to Researchers

The RMS should provide the following types of service/support to researchers:

• identification of funding sources;
• preparation and submission of funding applications;
• budget preparation; assistance with research 'costing' (on-cost calculations, overheads, multiplier factors);
• compliance management (preparation and submission of ethics and safety clearances)
• research output management; feedback on progress with assessment of various applications (grants, ethics, safety, publications);
• portal facility to allow integrated management of related research project components;
• real time information on grant/project budgets;
• expertise / capabilities management

Information for Research Mangers

Organisational unit heads (eg Heads of School, Deans, Research Development Managers etc) should be provided with aggregate level data regarding the research activity within their area.

Support for Research Administrators

The RMS should make the day to day processing of information about research administration easier and more streamlined. The system should include functionality that:

• Automates routine tasks
• Facilitates automatic reminders and notifications around key events (eg: acknowledging receipt of applications, progress reports reminders)
• Supports electronic workflow and routing of information to various administrative untis

System Attributes

• Elimination of duplication - no double entry of data. Once an applicant provides information in an electronic form, it should not have to be re-keyed into the system.
• E-Workflow/ Reduction of paperwork - electronic workflow should replace manual 'shuffling' of paperwork between administrative units.
• Highly configurable - wherever possible, the system should be configurable so that appropriate users can alter system parameters to meet requirements. There should be no need to go back to the vendor or rely on internal IT support to change components of the system that support the business. Nothing should be hard coded.
• Instant Reporting - the RMS should support intuitive reporting on all aspects of the research data held in the system.
  

RMS Requirements

Overall system requirements will vary depending on specific institutional needs, differing internal environments and influencing factors, both internal and external to the organisation. Influencing factors include considerations such as:

• Research management organizational structure - centralised or de-centralised (or blend);
• Research student management - is it a function of the RO, student admin, graduate school (or blend)
• Compliance (Ethics and Safety) - is it handled by RO, corporate governance, HR (or blend)
• Grants management - division of labour, is it divided into pre-award vs post-award, by division/faculty groupings, by portfolio (funding body) etc?
• RMS 'ownership' - will the system be implemented, maintained and supported by RO, central IT. Is the RMS a corporate application or a system 'run' by the RO?
• Integration needs - what other systems will the RMS need to 'talk' to?
• Funding constraints and planning objectives.

Despite the differing institutional needs, there are a generic set of RMS requirements that can broadly be divided into the following areas:

1. Functional
2. Technical
3. Support / Vendor Capability

Functional Requirements

The functionality supported by the RMS needs to cover the following areas: General system requirements -

• Supports electronic workflow
• Automates reminders and notifications for any event
• Web accessible
• Customizable portal
• Focuses on researcher needs as well as RO support
• Supports Integration with other systems
• Provides On line help and user documentation

Business Areas/Functions to be supported

• Research Projects
• Grants/Contracts
• Ethics & Safety
• Animal Facility Management
• Research Outputs
• IP & Commercialisation
• HDR & Scholarship Management
• Research Expertise & Capability management

Technical Requirements

• Security
  • System provides different levels of security for appropriate user types
  • Secure web interface
  • Database security
• Scalabilty
• Degree of fit with institution's IT architecture
• Support / Vendor Capability
• Adequate internal IT support
• Client base
• User community
  

System Requirements Evaluation Criteria

A spreadsheet has beem compiled with input from HES and CRAG memebers to identify a generic set of evaluation criteria that can be used when assessing the suitability of a Research Management System.  This evaluation spreadsheet is available from the CRAG Members secure section of this site.

Buy or Build - Considerations

Numerous resources exist to provide information on buy versus build for information system needs. Noting research that has consistently found 25 percent to 30 percent of companies would prefer to build their own applications, research firm Gartner recently projected that maturing development tools and growing dissatisfaction with packaged solutions would see fully 20 percent of companies building their core application components by 2008 [ZNet - [http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/business/soa/Buy-vs-build-The-pendulum-swings/0,139023749,139181961-2,00.htm]]. However the majority of University corporate administrative systems are commercial off-the-shelf systems.

Buy

• Licence Cost to purchase RMS. For a large off-the-shelf system, licence costs may be in the order of 0.5M to 1.0M +, though these may vary on individual circumstance.
• On going maintenance fees.
•  System constraints. Might not be exact match to business requirements - compromise and work a rounds may be required
• Integration costs - development of code to integrate the RMS with other corporate applications.
• Ongoing maintenance of custom developments, internally developed integration routines etc will be required with future updates
• Vendor responsiveness to you requirements
• Get benefits of 'intellectual capital' put into product development from other external stakeholders.
• Provided vendor has good QA processes, should be protected from staff turnover.
• Vendor should keep on top of technology currency issues.

Build

• No licence costs but the institution needs to meet internal costs to support full systems development life cycle.
• Requires project management of entire development cycle in addition to implementation management.
• Length of time for development process may be excessive.
• Internal development costs and resource availability. Will the people who 'know' your system be here next year?
• On-going maintenance and support
• Integration 'costs' similar to above.
• Places technology currency issues on institution.
• Should get what you want. Will it be the best you could get though? Are the user requirements the system was built on a reflection of best practice or simply current practice?
  
  

 Business Intelligence Systems for Research Management

The Australasian Association for Institutional Research (AAIR) 2008 annual forum "Enhancing Quality Research: A Global Perspective" had a particular focus on research management and the use of BI and Data Warehouse solutions to facilitate better management level information on research assessment. See, for example:

'Integrated Research Reporting - Getting off the Ground into ORBIT' by Rod Jewell from the University of Adelaide

'[Developing a framework for tracking and benchmarking research performance at UTS]' by Michael Rothery and Robyn Peutherer which describes the use of a corporate business intelligence tool to measure research activity.

Also of interest was a paper by  Natalie Mast, David Glance and Robyn Owens from UWA 'The Evolution of UWA's Research Management Tool, Socrates' that deserves mention if no other reason the system is called Socrates.