Category: Collaboration and innovation

Postgraduate Research Stories: Dr Tingfa Liu and Shahin Huseynli

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Anna Wallace, Claire Parnall and Alice Ferns, Bristol Doctoral College

This is the first of a series looking at research culture stories within the postgraduate community.

While many postgraduate research (PGR) students at the university thrive as part of their research environment, sometimes at the Bristol Doctoral College we encounter PGRs who struggle to connect with the broader community. This can be for a range of reasons, as every PGR journey is different, but common factors can include: the solitary nature of some research; lack of an identifiable cohort; the intensity of work demands or the ongoing impacts of Covid-19 on collective working.

In 2023, the Postgraduate Research Excellence survey revealed that only 54% of postgraduate researchers (PGRs) at the University of Bristol knew about chances to get involved in the wider research community outside their department.

To inspire staff across the university to address this, we have collected some examples of where schools and faculties have made a positive impact for PGRs.

The individuals showcased in these cases have used their initiative, creativity and community spirit to develop activities or events help PGRs connect with the broader research community at Bristol, and enhance their wellbeing, research and student experience.

We hope you are inspired by these examples to think about the ways we can all make a difference for the PGRs who work at Bristol.

This blog series was curated by the team in the Bristol Doctoral College as part of work on enhancing research culture.

Reconnecting after Covid: A conference of postgraduate research in Civil Engineering

In July 2023, Dr Tingfa Liu, a lecturer in Geotechnical testing and Shahin Huseynli, a 2nd-year PhD student from the School of Civil, Aerospace and Design Engineering (CADE) felt there was a need to organise an in-person event for researchers and PGRs to reconnect with their wider research community, after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Faculty of Engineering PGR Cohort Fund (which supports cohort-building activities) was used to fund the event, which was the first big post-COVID research and social event for the Earthquake and Geotechnical Engineering Research group (EGE) in Civil Engineering. Four sessions were held throughout the day, each beginning with a mini seminar from an academic staff member. These offered the PGRs advice and academic insights, on subjects like “10 suggestions for a novel PHD thesis” (Professor Anastasios Sextos) and “Social media usage reveals recovery of small businesses after natural hazard events” (Professor Flavia De Luca).

Professor Flavia De Luca, an attendee and speaker at the conference explains:

“The conference of postgraduate research in Civil Engineering was a fantastic event to reconnect the community. The students had the opportunity to present their research in an “away day” environment, creating the space for personal and professional development and connecting the community across all levels through the participation of postdoctoral researchers and staff members. The focus on the presentations was about research results, but also on disciplinary cross-pollination of skills at peer level for the civil engineering PGR community”

Benefitting the broader Civil Engineering research culture

The conference was a great chance for researchers from across the School of Civil, Aerospace and Design Engineering to share knowledge, learn about different projects, spread their ideas, expertise and reconnect with other researchers who had also missed in-person interactions due to the pandemic, helping to build a stronger research culture.

Numan Aloko, a graduate teacher in Civil Engineering and attendee at the conference highlighted:

“Events like this conference are helpful and crucial for maintaining a lively and connected research community. They offer a platform for students and faculty to share their work and make personal and professional connections that are very important for long-term academic and research success.”

The conference successfully brought the Civil Engineering research community closer together. Dr Tingfa Liu summarised:

“For me it is important that we celebrate the successes of our postgraduate researchers as a community of colleagues and friends. Our PGR students work so hard, often behind the scenes. The conference was a chance to shine a light on all their efforts and ensure they can share their research with the broader community, which benefits our own research too.”

What’s next?

Building on the success of the July 2023 conference, Dr Tingfa Liu and his team have invited PGRs to present their research projects and findings during their monthly Research Group meetings. This new initiative started in September 2023 and has proven successful, with plans to continue.

 

Shahin shared;

“The PGR presentations at our monthly meetings have really boosted the research, professional, and personal growth of the PGRs, helping them get ready for wider recognition and impact.”

Tingfa has been both, impressed and inspired by the PGR projects and noted that the support from the School and Faculties has been crucial in making this event, and any future ones, a success.

If you’re looking for advice on setting up something similar for your PGRs, feel free to reach out to doctoral-college@bristol.ac.uk with the subject line ‘PGR research culture case study’.

 

Dr. Tingfa Liu
Lecturer in Geotechnical TestingSchool of Civil, Aerospace and Design Engineering

 

 

Mr Shahin Huseynli
2nd-year PhD student
School of Civil, Aerospace and Design Engineering (CADE)

Looking towards the future of research culture at Bristol

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Yasmine Rhoseyn

Yasmine is Research Culture Strategy Manager at the University of Bristol. She supports the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Marcus Munafo in leading research culture activity across the university, and monitors the implementation of the research culture strategy. She also sits on the committee for the Research Culture Enablers Network based at Warwick, which is a solutions focused group dedicated to exchanging and challenging ideas to improve research culture and drive meaningful change.

The people that are involved in research activity at Bristol, and the environment that they work in, are critical to our success.  

The University of Bristol’s vision and strategy for research, enterprise and innovation can only be successfully delivered if it can support the people involved in the research process and create an enabling and supportive research environment. The commitment to fostering a positive research culture is reflected in the creation of the position of Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Research Culture Team members and the establishment of a Research Culture Committee, a formal sub-committee of University Research Committee. 

Pictured: Attendees gather at the Working Well Together event in October 2024 (an initiative funded through our research culture programme).

Here we set out our aspirational, medium term vision for research culture at the University of Bristol – the end state we hope to reach by 2030. We also describe our work to date, much of it supported by our Research England Enhancing Research Culture allocation. 

Read the vision 

To move us forward towards realising our vision, we are publishing an annual implementation plan that will include specific areas of focus for that year, and how success will be measured against pre-defined criteria. This annual plan will be overseen by Research Culture Commitee, which will review progress against these objectives at the end of the year, and approve the plan for the next year. This will allow us to constantly refine our approach and update our objectives and indicators of success as we as an institution progress and the sector evolves. 

Read the implementation plan  

The process to put together this vision and implementation plan was very much a collaborative effort – we spoke to hundreds of staff and students in research relevant roles across the University on what ‘good’ research culture looks like, the barriers to achieving it and how we can move towards a more positive culture at Bristol. I would like to thank all the staff and students involved in this process for their valuable time, perspectives and insight, it was truly an eye-opening experience.

Future Research Leaders and stakeholders gather at Bristol SU – Future Research Leaders is a joint initiative with Bristol SU funded through our research culture programme 24-25). Read more on Bristol SU’s blog.

Get in touch

If you have any feedback on the vision and implementation plan, and how this is relevant to your area of work, please get in touch – y.rhoseyn@bristol.ac.uk

Improving our research culture: it starts with Working Well Together

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Professor Marcus Munafò

Marcus is Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research Culture at the University of Bristol. He leads on research culture activity across the university, providing direction and vision, working across the institutional landscape, and identifying key challenges and opportunities. He is also institutional lead for the UK Reproducibility Network.

 

Last month we welcomed colleagues from across the University to the Bristol Beacon’s Lantern Hall to learn more about the Working Well Together resource, as part of this year’s Enhancing Research Culture event series.

So, what is Working Well Together?

Dr Sarah Campbell, part of the Working Well Together team, introduces the resource

The Working Well Together (WWT) resource is designed to support teams, and the people within them, who work effectively in an HE context and enhance their team culture. It helps to create an environment in which everyone can thrive, and which enables high quality, reproducible research. The approach is inquisitive, starting with where teams are, identifying approaches which are right for them, and continuing to ask questions along the way.

The resource is designed to help teams do more of what they are doing well, and to support them in areas that are more challenging. It focuses on identifying some quick wins, but offers no quick fixes. The aim of the resource is to offer groups the tools and expertise to develop a culture that can help its members respond to the evolving challenges of their work.

Professor Jack Mellor stands on stage to discuss his experience of using the Working Well Together resource
Professor Jack Mellor discusses his team’s experience of using the WWT resource

Groups that have used the resource have found it an enjoyable way to take stock of how things are going, and start some of the harder conversations they need to have. They say it’s given insights into challenges they weren’t aware of, and helped remind them of what is going well and how to do more of the things that have a positive impact. Others have found it has equipped them with the skills needed to work well together, and started the process of making time to reflect and review as a group.

Teams / groups are invited to pilot the resource until the end of January 2025. When we talk about teams / groups this can include anyone who is part of, and supports, research activity, so may include academic staff, technical staff, professional services staff and research students. If you are interested in learning more about a pilot, please complete this form.

The WWT resource is about building stronger, more supportive teams in order to work more effectively together and create a more inclusive working environment.

Event attendees discuss how their teams could use the WWT resource

From the Enhancing Research Culture allocated we receive from Research England, to the new People, Culture and Environment (PCE) assessment category in the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessment, it is clear that the organisations that shape the higher education system are emphasising the importance of a robust, equitable and inclusive research process from start to finish, rather than focusing solely the outputs of our research.

Panel discussion and Q+A: Looking ahead to REF 2029

To delve into this new REF category and what it means for the research landscape, I was joined by Dr Helen Young (Associate Director of Research Excellence, University of Bristol), Dr Caroline Jarrett (Faculty of Science and Engineering Technical Manager, University of Bristol) and Dr Faith Uwadiae (Research Culture and Communities Specialist, Wellcome Trust).

Our panel answer questions from the audience during the event

Over the course of an hour’s discussion we covered a lot, but some key points and highlights are summarised below;

  • There was recognition from both academic and technical colleagues in attendance that the culture within research is improving, but there is still a long way to go
  • Funders are already considering, and in some cases requiring, grant applications to consider people, the environment they work within, and the culture they create.
  • The REF measures research outputs, which are naturally downstream from the work involved in setting up research or project teams, and carrying out the work.
  • Positive changes to how we approach project setup and delivery therefore have an impact on our research outputs.
  • Investing time and energy in building strong groups and ways of working pays dividends down the line, but currently this time and focus is often not prioritised.

The move to include People, Culture and Environment in REF2029 highlights the importance of the work that we have been doing both at an institutional level and within our own professional circles and teams to improve our research culture, and I thank all of you who have been involved over the years.

I’m reminded of a quote from one of our first ever Research Culture events, the talk on The Joy of Failure with Annie Vernon, who won Olympic silver in the Women’s Quadruple Sculls at Beijing 2008. Success doesn’t mean we did everything right, and failure doesn’t mean we did everything wrong. Together, we can continue to build on our success whilst recognising there are still areas to improve.

GW4 Open Research Prize 2023: Theory of Change

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Christopher Warren, Assistant Research Support Librarian

Following straight on from January’s blog, Change is the word! In 2023, the GW4 Alliance hosted their Open Research Week at the end of November with the theme of The Theory of Change showcasing a broad range of open research practices which make research more visible, accessible, transparent and reproducible (or, Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable – FAIR). 

This year GW4 opted hold a competitive award event in that week to elevate, celebrate and promote best academic practice: the GW4 Open Research Prize 2023. 

Graphic promoting GW4's Open Research Prize 2023, including the logos from all 4 GW4 institutions: University of Bath, University of Bristol, Cardiff University, University of Exeter

Background

In 2021 the University of Bristol started our own institutional Open Research Prize, with a second event following in 2022. From the success of those, and working with our colleagues at Bath, Cardiff and Exeter as well as the GW4 team, the new GW4 Open Research Prize built on our past work and opened it out to researchers from all four institutions.

To our original two categories – Improving Quality and Widening Reach – GW4 added a prize specifically for Posters, and, with the Bristol University Press (BUP), an Early Career Publishing Prize category for ECRs writing monographs. The amounts of prize money for each category was raised as well, as well as the chance for the Publishing Prize winner to work with BUP explore publication of their doctoral thesis.

Events and awards

After an initial submission period, we invited entries short-listed to attend an afternoon online conference through Zoom, where all entries sent in a short pre-recorded case study presentation video – so there would be a level playing-field for all. Q&As were taken after each between presenter and audience. At previous UOB events we had split judging between a panel of judges and a popular vote from those attending, but here the decision on choosing winning entries was made by the audience alone (other than for the monograph prize, see below).

GW4 Open Research Prize for Widening Reach

The winning entry for Widening Reach was Matt Lloyd Jones of University of Exeter (Penryn Campus): Exploring the potential of using simulation games for engaging with sheep farmers about sheep lameness

This study codesigned a videogame with farmers and vets to identify lameness in sheep. It showed an open, involved process, increasing uptake and impact among those it benefitted. Publications from it were preregistered and published as Open Access. The data itself was published as FAIR data, in an Open repository. It demonstrated excellent Open Research practice, while being honest about the limitations and costs involved in the project.

GW4 Open Research Prize for Improving Quality

The winning entry in the Improving Quality category was a team from the University of Exeter Katie Young, Pedro Cardoso, Laura Guedemann, Rhian Hopkins with their study: Improving reproducibility and transparency of diabetes research with electronic health care records

This study took electronic health data, messy at source, and applied Open Research practices to make it reproducible and transparent. They wrote code so it could be securely shared with clinicians for validation, creating safe, clean data all in one place, that would help reduce researchers’ workload, raising quality and facilitating protocol approval. This was excellent science, showing the benefits of applying Open Research practices in a key area.

GW4 Open Research Prize for Poster submission

The winner in the Poster Prize category was Eoin Cremen of University of Bath: “The influence of AI advice on decision-making strategies in a hypothesis testing task”

The winning poster (which can be viewed here: The influence of AI advice on decision-making strategies in a hypothesis testing task) focused on how people use AI to search for health results. Focusing on ‘aches’, this looked at running a feasibility study for checking the AI-advice provided to test the diagnosis and see whether this is accurate and relevant to the information given.

GW4 Early Career Publishing Prize

The winning Publishing Prize entry was judged ahead of the event by a cross-institution panel of judges working with the BUP. This was an entirely new prize category for us, not having worked on selecting or awarding a monograph prize before.

In first place was Bristol’s own Alison Oldfield, University of Bristol: Going to the farm: A sociomaterial ethnography of autistic young people in a natural environment.

Alison’s thesis, on which her winning submission was based, can be found through the UOB Research Portal here: Thesis: Going to the farm

**Details of all taking part is available from GW4 or the School of Education blog here: GW4 Open Research Prize 2023: Winners announced!

Wrapping up

The Open Research Prize was a great day, bringing together many strands from across the Open Research Week and a chance for colleagues to celebrate and recognise each other’s achievement.

The next prize will be in the spring of 2025. Bath University, which is another of the GW4 institutions, will be taking the reins on organising this prize, but watch out for events and updates via GW4’s website or on our own Open Research pages.

Contact

Christopher Warren – Assistant Research Support Librarian

Christopher Warren is an Assistant Research Support Librarian with the Research Data Service, a section of the Library Services’ Research Support Team that deals with all matters relating to Research Data Management. We’re based online and on the 1st floor of Augustine’s Courtyard. Please contact data-bris@bristol.ac.uk or lib-research-support@bristol.ac.uk for more information.

 

Changes ahead: doing change well

Posted on by University of Bristol

‘Change’ seems to be the word of the day, every day – change is part of everyday life and work. Humans must adapt to survive, and so must universities. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. The dream is to manage change so well that it becomes part of the day job, and we’re so comfortable with it that we don’t even notice that change is happening. But how realistic is that? The familiar sense of ‘change fatigue’ comes not always from too much change, but from change that isn’t done well.

What does the University do to manage change?

Aiming to ensure that change is done well is the University’s Change Management Team. The team comprises professionally-accredited Change Managers working to support change across the University by preparing people to deliver the University’s ambitions. The team has developed its own model for managing change, with the intention of getting it used across the University by everyone leading and managing change, whether it be a relatively small local change or a large strategic initiative. The framework, which is simply called ‘5 Steps to Successful Change’, puts the University ahead of most within the Higher Education sector.

By following the ‘5 steps’ we take the impact on people into account, and adequately plan for change, thereby ensuring that people retain a sense of control over what is happening and can play their part in long term successful change. It necessitates those leading change to really interrogate the reasons for change, so that they can speak about change honestly and consistently, and in a way that is meaningful to those impacted. The ‘5 Steps’ also helps to ensure as much as possible that people can maintain their day-to-day work during times of change.

5 steps to successful change – University of Bristol Change Team

To facilitate successful use of the ‘5 step’ model, the Change Team operates as business partners. Whilst a consistent approach to change is essential, it also needs to be contextualized, and by working as partners with each Faculty and Division, the Change Managers can tailor the approach to change to consider what is unique about each part of the University and advise on planning for change accordingly.

Why is change so difficult?

If there is a team dedicated to managing change, and it has a sector leading approach, why then does change appear to be so hard to do well?  To a certain extent, change will always be difficult, particularly in an organisation the size of the University, with multiple cultures at play, and concurrent initiatives requiring many people to play a part in change. Most significantly, change is difficult because of the factor of human emotion. Remaining in our comfort zones is a safer place to be, requiring less energy and threat, meaning that it is normal to desire to move away from change.

The reality of change either posing threat or reward is something that the Change Team talk about in change management workshops, which run regularly for academic and professional services colleagues. If we consider a change that we have felt uncomfortable with, it’s likely that it has posed some threat to us. David Rock’s SCARF model identifies five key factors that impact the extent to which we feel threatened or rewarded by a change. It provides interesting insights into why we may feel differently about certain changes than others, and how these manifest in our reactions to change.

SCARF model – David Rock, 2009

Change fatigued?

To return to the notion of ‘change fatigue’, change is tiring, and it impacts people differently from one individual to the next depending on their history of change, what else is going on for them at the same time, and the extent to which they are either threatened or rewarded by it. Change requires us to psychologically process the change before we can fully move with it, and this alone is tiring, even without having to continue with our day jobs and personal lives at the same time. The extent to which we feel a sense of influence or control over the change is also a key factor. Whilst we may not have ultimate control over whether a change happens, if we can feel a sense of control by understanding the true reasons for change, feeling well informed and understanding what’s expected of us (the first step in the 5 Steps to Successful Change), then that all helps to lessen the sense of fatigue and equip people with the energy to change.

So, whilst we must accept that we must adapt to survive and that change will usually be difficult, by following the ‘5 Steps to Successful Change’, we can set ourselves up to manage change in a way which stands the greatest chance of success with minimal negative impact on people.

Contact the Change Team

Author: Julia Davies – Head of Change Management, University of Bristol

Please contact change-team@bristol.ac.uk to find out how the Change Team can support change in your part of the University.

The End-to-End Research Lifecycle Project: What is it, why is it important, and what’s coming next?

Posted on by Alison Evans
Alison Evans
Alison Evans, Director of Post Award

After more than 20 years working in research management, and having gained first-hand experience in nearly all of the research support functions – from pre-award, bid development, contracting and project management, through to commercialisation, impact and the REF (as well as having completed a PhD!) – I consider myself to have a pretty good understanding of the research process.

So, when I joined Bristol as Director of Post Award in the Division of Research Enterprise and Innovation (DREI) in November 2019 it wasn’t a huge surprise to be delegated responsibility from Jon Hunt, Executive Director of DREI, for delivering the End-to-End Research Lifecycle Project – affectionately known as E2E. Three years in, and having now launched our researcher’s route map, it is timely to reflect on what we’ve done so far, and what’s next…

What is E2E?

The E2E initiative was launched in April 2019 as part of the then Professional Service Fit for the Future programme. In the first phase, KPMG led a review of our existing processes for supporting research applications and awards. Whilst their report highlighted some good practices to be preserved, including the dedication, knowledge and skills of many staff, it also identified a number of weaknesses that were leading to delays, additional effort, high risk exposure in some circumstances and sub-optimal decisions.

In response, we first concentrated our efforts on some major changes, including implementation of Worktribe, creation of the Research Finance Centre of Excellence, and development of a single contracts administrative hub. I think it’s fair to say that these all went some way to improving service delivery, as well as bridging the critical interface between DREI and Finance.

However, we also knew that concerns still remained around a lack of common and transparent processes, decision-making gateways, and defined institutional risk parameters (with appropriate escalation points and risk owners). So, in August 2020, the second phase of E2E got underway, focusing on the design and delivery of three key tools:

  • A high-level, visual E2E route map setting out the researcher journey, from application and award through to project delivery and lifecycle closure, that incorporates decision points (eg whether or not to go ahead with a bid), and acts as a single platform from which to access information, guidance and advice at all stages of the journey.
  • Clearly defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of everyone involved in the E2E process, including academics, Heads of Schools, Deans and various professional services.
  • A set of defined features or attributes (eg funder type, bid value, space requirements) that enable DREI and finance to “classify” a proposal based on its complexity as being low, medium or high (now called Levels 1, 2 or 3) and allocate resources accordingly.

This all took a huge effort, with staff across DREI and Finance working together to scope, consult on, and trial the three tools extensively with numerous academic and Professional Services colleagues. It truly was a collective effort, and the levels of engagement from everyone are testament to the interest in the project.

Katie Glenton-Wall
Katie Glenton-Wall, Project Officer

The Researcher Route Map was finally launched two years on, in August 2022. This is still very much a work in progress, and we are keen to continue to get feedback and make improvements where we can – so please do get in touch with our project manager, Katie Glenton-Wall.

Why is E2E important?

The main rationale behind the E2E programme was that optimising resources across the research lifecycle (from bidding through to project delivery) will increase levels of success in a changing and challenging funding environment. This is clearly something that researchers and Professional Service Staff are all trying to achieve, and we hope the route map and associated tools with help to do this in the following ways:

  • Bringing together information, support and guidance in to one accessible platform.
  • Emphasising and encouraging consideration of project requirements and engagement with relevant stakeholders as early as possible to avoid delays, reworking and potential rejection.
  • Reducing bureaucracy between DREI and Finance where we can (e.g. in our contracting processes), and allowing us to reallocate resource to where it is most needed, in the most timely way.
  • Providing clear, consistent and transparent decision-making, with roles and responsibilities understood.

What’s next for E2E?

Since launching phase 2 it’s become clear that this is just part of a longer E2E journey of continuous improvement. We’ve now started to focus on particular pain points that have been identified, one of which is around our process for managing the more complex (L3) bids as described earlier, and we have been working with the consultancy MoreBrains to look at this.

We are also looking more closely at support for post award activities – an area of need that was highlighted both in our stakeholder consultations and in the recent review of research bureaucracy (UoB staff access only). We have been lucky to secure some funding from DREI and the Research England Enhancing Research Culture allocation to do this.

Our third, and possibly most exciting, next step is to evolve the package of tools into a single research office portal – giving easy access to everything a researcher might need to know from a user-friendly one-stop-shop. We hope to be telling you more about this shortly – so watch this space!

Enhancing the transnational nature of research: uniting (de)colonial researchers at Bristol

Posted on by Marcus Munafo

What does decolonisation really mean, and how can it enhance research culture? 

by Tarini Bhamburkar
Postgraduate researcher, Department of English

The past few years have seen serious, guided efforts within the University of Bristol to decolonise its curricula, its library shelves and its teaching patterns. This has brought an increasing acknowledgement of the implications of slavery and empire as regards socio-political history and its repercussions in the contemporary world. But “decolonisation” is a weighty term, and often an overwhelming one when pondering on how to bring it “into operation” across the different teaching and research functions of the University.  

So, how do you bring it into research culture? 

Primarily, decolonisation, and the understanding of the transnational nature of history and literature, begin with acknowledging and addressing the legacies of colonialism and imperialism in literature and culture. It requires a critical examination of the narratives, systems and practices that have perpetuated colonial discourse and hierarchical relations throughout history. And it sounds like an intimidating task for someone to initiate on an individual basis.  

This is where funding from the Research England Enhancing Research Culture (ERC) allocation at Bristol was able to provide support. It helped develop a project uniting researchers at Bristol (and beyond) who worked on the literature of the British empire, postcolonial studies, settler colonial studies, transnational relations, histories structured by racial difference, etc, to form a network. With the help of symposia, reading events and awaydays, connections were fostered and formalised between scholars who have worked on different aspects of “decolonial” studies – to acknowledge empire and colonial history.

One example is an interdepartmental symposium that brought together scholars across the Schools of Humanities, Modern Languages and Law (see images below). It was a day dedicated to discussing the transnational aspects of colonial and postcolonial studies. Another is the Victorian Diversities Research Network event, which brought together scholars engaged in seeking new methodologies, to “widen” and “undiscipline” historical, colonial literary fields in the nineteenth century. 

Events such as these, and the wider project in general, have helped to re-emphasise the importance of diversifying and decolonising our syllabi, brought together researchers who work in colonial studies, and enhanced the transnational aspect of how we conduct research at Bristol. I personally hope to sustain the communities and networks that were formed with the support of the ERC funding, and even to broaden them if possible.

As postgraduate researchers, we do not often get access to such funding opportunities, so the ERC support came as a blessing – especially after a harrowing two years with very limited networking and communication. Scholars – especially postgraduate researchers and early-career researchers – enjoyed coming together on a formal platform and sharing their research, thereby facilitating a community of decolonial researchers at Bristol. 

 

The Integrated Planning Process

Posted on by Steve Chadwick

Every organization – particularly large, complex ones like the University of Bristol – needs to plan ahead. The University introduced the Integrated Planning Process (IPP) in 2017 in order to help academic Faculties, Schools and the Professional Service Divisions to plan on a five-year timescale, within the framework of the University Vision and Strategy.

The IPP is built around the notion of an (almost) year-long series of regular, structured conversations between the University’s Senior Management Team – the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC) and Provost, the Pro Vice-Chancellors, the Deans and Heads of School, and Professional Services Directors. Staff with specific responsibility for aspects of our many and varied activities (e.g. Faculty Research and Education Directors) are also involved.

Ultimately, the process is designed to assist the Senior Management Team to take good, evidence-based management decisions. Topics within scope of the IPP include issues such as the size and shape of the University’s student population, staff / student ratios, investment in Professional Services support in specific Schools, and space requirements.

What are its key features?

  • It is co-created: a key principle of the process is that plans are co-created by the Senior Management Team. Plans, targets and budgets emerge from an iterative process so they are never merely ‘imposed’ by a small group of individuals. While priorities and constraints are determined at the start of the cycle, Schools, Faculties and Divisions have flexibility within that framework to plan their own activities.
  • It is comprehensive and scalable: the process attempts to cover the majority of the University’s planning and the associated enabling activities (e.g. workforce plans, student number plans, new programme approvals, budget-setting). Plans and budgets are prepared at School, Faculty, Divisional and Institutional level, using standard documents, templates, data and performance metrics.
  • It is evidence-based: a detailed data pack for each School and Faculty informs IPP discussions. The data pack covers student intake and populations, staff workforce plans, research income targets, and a wide range of performance indicators (e.g., REF, NSS, citations, league table performance). Summaries from this pack are used in the meetings. You can find an example from last year’s IPP here.
  • It is integrated: plans cascade not only up and down the management structure, but also across Faculty and Professional Services boundaries. Many colleagues from across the University are involved in the strategic conversation. The process has been designed in such a way that the documentation, templates and data used at Faculty level can be also be used for ‘local’ planning within Faculties.
  • It is iterative: the IPP conversations at Faculty and PS Divisional level occur periodically throughout the academic year through formal meetings to review and refine plans. Faculties have the option to replicate these for their own purposes with Schools.

How is it structured?

The IPP is carefully co-ordinated so that the main and sub-processes align, and decision points are clear. Conversations are usually free-flowing and can cover many aspects of the University Strategy, but the process has distinct phases:

 

  • September/October: Strategy Implementation Board[1] meets for a two-day residential to discuss matters of strategic importance. Key decisions that are taken here (e.g. the future size and shape of the University, financial constraints, ways of working) set the parameters within which Schools and Faculties can develop their own plans.
  • December – March: We then conduct a series of Strategic (SPMs), Faculty (FPMs) and Divisional (DPMs) Planning Meetings during these months. The meetings agree rolling five-year plans for each Faculty, School and Division. This year’s process, for example, plans our activities for the rest of the 2022/23 academic year, and the years to 2026/27.
    • SPMs and FPMs are led by the DVC and Provost; they provide an opportunity to discuss strategic issues for Faculties and Schools aligned to the aims and objectives of the University Strategy (e.g. growth plans, research strategy, workforce plans).
    • DPMs are led by the Registrar and Chief Operating Officer; they consider how resources within Professional Services can best support our academic endeavours and the University’s strategic ambitions.
  • April – May: Plans and budgets are considered, reviewed and approved by University Executive Board, Finance and Infrastructure Committee and the Board of Trustees.

Several key documents inform discussions in the IPP:

  • Strategy Thumbnails: standard templates used by Faculties and Schools to articulate their five-year plans, within the thematic framework of the University Strategy.
  • Data Summaries: extracts from the more detailed data packs mentioned above. Each summary is specifically tailored to inform the agenda for each meeting.
  • Issues/Comments Logs: shared documents where issues of strategic importance can be identified in the run-up to the planning meetings.

The outputs

The key outputs of the IPP are:

  1. agreed academic plans for each Faculty and School;
  2. operational plans for Professional Services Divisions;
  3. budgets and income and expenditure projections covering the next five years.

These detail future activities and investments in staff, buildings and other infrastructure. 

Where to find out more

You can find information about the IPP on this SharePoint site.

Colleagues in the Planning and Business Intelligence Team will also be happy to respond to specific queries. You can email them at ipp-project@bristol.ac.uk.

[1] Strategy Implementation Board is a new University committee. It comprises all members of the University Executive Board, meets once a month, and considers only matters relating to the University Vision and Strategy. These include implementation of the Strategy, monitoring of progress against our objectives using strategic performance indicators, and reporting of that progress to the Board of Trustees.