This question was designed to highlight the state of development of a RIM strategy within the institutions. There were thirty five responses to this question.

The fact that forty eight percent of institutions in the sample are currently developing a strategy is probably an indication of the relatively recent realisation in much of the sector that a 'joined up' approach to RIM is needed in order to respond to external drivers and improve internal processes.

This question was designed to highlight the state of development of a RIM strategy within the institutions. There were thirty five responses to this question.

The fact that forty eight percent of institutions in the sample are currently developing a strategy is probably an indication of the relatively recent realisation in much of the sector that a 'joined up' approach to RIM is needed in order to respond to external drivers and improve internal processes.

This question was designed to assess the degree to which various JISC, Research Council and funding council initiatives are influencing the strategy within institutions. The projects identified were:

• Research Outcomes Project (formally OOCS)
• RMAS
• EXRI-UK
• JE-S
• CERIF (Strictly speaking CERIF is a standard rather than a project)

There were thirty three/thirty four answers to this question. As for question 10 some horizontal analysis is revealing.

Forty percent of the institutions were 'very aware' of the ROP but one third were 'not at all aware'. Of those that were not aware a clear majority were modern (post '92) universities.

Exactly half the sample was 'somewhat aware' of RMAS and thirty percent were very aware. There was no obvious pattern amongst the institutions as to who was, and who was not aware of the project.

As anticipated by the project team awareness of the EXRI project is limited.

As JE-S is now in full operation it is not surprising that awareness of this project is very high.

Only twelve percent of institutions were very aware of the CERIF standard.

The three initiatives that institutions are most aware of are:

• JE-S
• ROP
• RMAS

While the three attracting least attention are:

• EXRI-UK
• CERIF
• ROP

This question attempted to separate the strategic and tactical drivers in RIM development. There were thirty five responses to the question.

Unsurprisingly sixty six percent of the answers were that the REF was a strong strategic driver for RIM in their institution. Only six percent thought that the REF was not a factor.

While not as strong as the REF forty six percent of the respondents thought that other funding requirements was a very strong strategic driver and a further forty six percent thought is was somewhat important.

A massive eighty percent of respondents ranked improved service delivery as a very strong strategic driver with a further twenty percent thinking that it was somewhat important. Significantly no-one rated this as not a strong driver.

Fifty one percent of the sample ranked increasing capacity as a strong strategic driver while a modest five percent thought it was not a strong driver.

In keeping with earlier questions a relatively small number of institutions (thirty seven percent) regard cost savings as a major strategic driver.

Perhaps surprisingly esteem does not seem to be a particularly strong driver with only thirty one percent of institutions seeing it as a very strong driver.

The three strongest strategic drivers from the survey were:

• Improved service delivery for end users
• Expected implications of the REF
• Efficiency gains to increase capacity

The weakest strategic drivers were:

• Esteem or external visibility factors
• Efficiency gains to reduce costs
• Compliance with other funding body requirements

This question was intended to gauge the likely level of support for the findings of the EXRI-UK project. There were thirty three responses to this question.

Unsurprisingly there was a huge majority (eighty eight percent) in favour of a single common format. The reasons given for this mainly centred on the saving in effort in producing returns though two replies did focus on the advantages of reducing ambiguity in the returns. One reply specifically suggested CERIF as the way forward.