RAMS Overview: An update on the research workflow tool James Dalziel Professor of Learning Technolog

1
RAMS Overview An update on the research
workflow tool James DalzielProfessor of
Learning Technology, and Director, Macquarie
E-Learning Centre Of Excellence
(MELCOE)Macquarie University james_at_melcoe.mq.edu
.auwww.melcoe.mq.edu.auPresentation for 2007
European LAMS Conference, July 5th, 2007
2
Overview

• Introducing RAMS
• Sample eResearch Activityflow Use Cases
• Rationale for RAMS
• Progress to date
• New features
• Sakai integration
• Areas for future consideration
• Challenges of RQF assessment

3
Introducing RAMS

• The Research Activity Management System (RAMS)
  builds on the LAMS V2 workflow core ( new
  eResearch features)
• A suite of activity tools appropriate for
  group-based eResearch human workflows
• Including multi-purpose tools that apply across
  eLearning and eResearch
• The result is two different domain-specific
  applications (LAMS for eLearning RAMS for
  eResearch) that draw on a common workflow core
• Everything is open source

4
Introducing RAMS
Teachers
Researchers
LAMS Application
RAMS Application
eLearning specific tools
Multi-purpose tools
eResearch specific tools
Education Workflow Engine (LAMS core new
RAMS development)
Admin
Author
Monitor
Participant
5
As RAMS evolves
Teachers
Researchers
LAMS Application
RAMS Application
eLearning specific tools
Multi-purpose tools
eResearch specific tools
New tool features for eResearch
New tool features for eResearch
Education Workflow Engine (LAMS core new
RAMS development)
Admin
Author
Monitor
Participant
6
Sample eResearch Activityflow Use Cases

• High level use cases from RAMP proposal
• Managing the research enterprise lifecycle (from
  grant planning to grant submission, to project
  initiation, to project lifecycle management, to
  research outcome dissemination),
• Implementing auditable evaluation processes for
  assessing research quality (RQF assessor
  workflows, journal/conference peer review
  management, etc),
• Designing and tracking article submission
  processes for Institutional Repositories,
• Flexibly configuring and running online research
  collaboration processes (such as staged
  collaborative analysis and discussion for
  PhD/Postdocs around raw data, leading to
  interpretation, visualisation, and ultimately
  publications), and
• Process-oriented research data collection from
  human subjects (such as in the humanities, and
  social and cognitive sciences).

7
Use case 3 Institutional Repository submission
workflow
8
Use case 2 RQF assessor evaluation process
9
Use case 4 Example of weekly research group
meeting
10
Use case 4a Alternative example of weekly
research group meeting
11
Rationale for RAMS

• Greater standardisation of common or repeatable
  research processes, leading to higher quality
  outcomes and improved efficiency
• The ability to share descriptions of common
  research processes both within institutions, and
  between institutions including the ability to
  adapt and localise shared research processes
• Greatly improved accountability and audit for
  processes involving multiple actors across
  multiple steps such as for research assessment
  (eg, RQF assessor workflows), as well as for
  research itself (eg, as a deterrent to academic
  fraud) and
• Providing a process-oriented checklist to ensure
  the ordered completion of relevant research tasks.

12
Progress to date

• Development of RAMS activity tools core
  additions
• Done Basic RAMS release, RAMS skin, Live Edit,
  Participants as Monitors
• Coming in second half of 2007 (V2.1) Initial
  branching, conditionality, grouping, tool data
  in/out Contributed to
• JISC Human Workflow meeting in UK on July 3rd
• Ramscommunity.org website ready to launch as
  basis for sharing RAMS designs and discussion of
  issues
• Sakai 2.3/2.4 integration available (same as
  LAMS)
• Mid-way through workflow theory review
• Looks like LAMS/RAMS breaks significant new
  group, no really comparable system/specification
  found to date
• Key difference is that in LAMS/RAMS groups of
  people travel through the workflow, not
  data/processes

13
New RAMS Features Default assumption is all
Participants are also Monitors
14
New RAMS Features Live Edit (starting with
running sequence in Monitor)
15
New RAMS Features Open live sequence in special
author mode (some locked)
16
New RAMS Features Can change sequence
structure/tools for those not locked
17
New RAMS Features Live sequence is immediately
updated for current users
18
Areas for future consideration

• Areas considered (but not yet under development)
• New Welcome page based on researcher workspace
  for all eResearch workflows
• Include current status information for all
  workflows
• Allow system-launched sequences (eg, repository
  submission workflow)
• Investigating sequence aggregation, hierarchies
  and linking
• Investigating (actionable) roles for RAMS tools,
  including multiple roles across multiple actors
  with differential impact on different tools
• Investigating challenging what constitutes task
  completion issues (easy for single user, hard
  for groups)

19
Challenges of RQF assessment

• Consider the following version of the RAE/RQF
  assessment workflow
• Step 1 Academic submits articles for assessment
  assessors (including assessor manager) can then
  view articles
• Step 2 Assessors (including assessor manager)
  discuss quality of articles (eg, chat, forum or
  offline)
• Step 3 Assessors (including assessor manager)
  provide overall rating of academics quality and
  impact assessor manager then finalises an
  overall score for quality and impact based on
  prior discussion and review of ratings from all
  assessors at a later stage, the scores can be
  made viewable by the academic

20
Challenges of RQF assessment
Step 2
Step 3
Step 1
Submit
Discuss
Rate
Simple?
21
Challenges of RQF assessment
Step 2
Step 3
Step 1
Academic Role
Submit
No task
View
View
View
View
Assessor Role
View
View
View
View
Discuss
Rate
Assessor Manager
View
Discuss
Rate Finalise
?
?
?
?
?
(System)
22
Challenges of RQF assessment

• Some problems to solve
• How to design tools to allow for actionable roles
  without the system becoming unworkably complex
  for non-technical users?
• How does the system handle multiple actors within
  and across different roles?
• What constitutes task completion in group
  workflows?
• How does the system know to notify assessors that
  articles have been submitted?
• How does the system know that the discussion is
  finished and the rating has begun?
• How does the system know to notify the academic
  that their rating is now viewable?