OSS Watch Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, 19 November 2010

by Sander van der Waal on 21 January 2011

Introduction

Present

  • SLo - Steve Loughran, HP Labs
  • DR - Dave de Roure, Professor of e-Research, OeRC
  • GH - Gabriel Hanganu, OSS Watch
  • PW - Paul Walk, UKOLN
  • SLe - Stuart Lee, OUCS
  • RG - Ross Gardler, OSS Watch
  • JN - John Norman, Cambridge
  • RW - Rowan Wilson, OSS Watch
  • SvdW - Sander van der Waal, OSS Watch (Minuting)
  • SW - Scott Wilson
  • MD - Matthew Dovey, JISC
  • JG - James Governor, Red Monk

Apologies

  • Stormy Peters
  • Andrew Savory

Absent

  • David Flanders
  • Phil Hands

New committee members

Stuart Lee - Director of OUCS and now Director of OSS Watch replacing Lou Burnard, who retired in Sept.

Dave de Roure - Professor of e-Research in the Oxford e-Research Centre and National Strategic Director for e-Social Science.

Minutes from previous meeting

  • Minutes previous meeting are accepted without change.

JISC funding [RG] Current funding up to July 2011, funding letter dependant on issues related to Spending Review. [RG] Status OSS Watch (OSSW) under the JISC unknown (Innovation Support Centre / Service / Project) [SLe] Need to think about the funding beyond July 2011

Overview of activity + discussion on potential charge points

[RG discusses action items from previous meeting :]

ACTION 2: How should open development contribute to shaping Uni. IT strategy/business models

Engaged with sector strategists.

Published two briefing notes applying open development to University research and exploitation

Concluded that there are lessons that can be transferred to a wider remit but it is not clear exactly how and where.

Working with groups like UKOLN/CETIS on specific actions to get additional case studies that are not exclusively software outputs.

Exploring collaboration opportunities with UKOLN and CETIS (content and standards)

[SW] From CETIS OER is big, overlap with open development,

  • Big OER - Projects sharing costs
  • Small OER - Individual academics contributing to resources

[SLe] OER not currently in OSSW’s remit. [RG] Don’t package up our materials as OER but:

ACTION 3: Packaging of educational materials using corporate funding

We have a number of warm leads in this area, one is quite hot right now (decision before end of year)

[RG] Is there a potential partnership? [SW] Lot to learn from open development, CETIS might help with packaging up content, but they have to learn in terms of how to do it.

[RG] We need to address the packaging.

[ACTION] SLe to bring OSSW into contact with unit at OUCS working on this.

[RW] Been active in OER as well on several projects at OUCS.

[PW] Fairly strong messages aimed at institutions needing to reduce capacity, making the case for innovation and that if you retain developers allowing them to engage with open development you can tap into a lot of external resources. Institutions might start to compete at the national level but will be good if they collaborate on the international level. Want to work with OSSW making the business case.

[RG] We need to identify the leaders in the field.

[RG] Worked on a glossy brochure together as OSSW, UKOLN, CETIS which helped to define areas of expertise and how the ISCs work together. Further on in the coming months determine how to capitalise on that.

[RG] Not currently following up other leads as this would require a major resource re-allocation. Need to secure funding for more resources - chasing one lead at a time. Have been asked to be a delivery partner for the Free Technology Academy - will accept if funding becomes available to resource this.

[ACTION] RG to explore potential OER for collaboration with CETIS and UKOLN

ACTION 4: Paid for Training

Defer to Agenda Item 3.

ACTION 5: Costed support packages

[RG] We have defined and implemented a support plan process. This provides a clear progression for support projects. If we’re charging we’d be moving towards Service Level Agreements (SLAs), identify projects as being Red/Amber/Green:

Red - core funded, reactive support only, respond to enquiries, half yearly reviews; no clear revenue streams, requires central funding.

Amber - Business development. We believe potential for further collaboration, eg. with commercial organisation or other project. Therefore OSSW continues to be involved, proactive advice, quarterly reviews. Either potential revenue streams identified - funded by commercial sector, or potential third sector benefit identified - central funding

Green - Projects where we get income over and above the initial funding, OSSW staff actively involved to reach sustainability, help involving external parties, convince high level manager. Potential for revenue generation, e.g. high ROI for funders, exploitation routes etc., proactive engagement. Either revenue streams identified - funded by commercial sector, or third sector benefit identified - central funding

Charged support points during project lifecycle:

Proposal / project bid level stage:

  • Community planning
  • Business models
  • Resource planning
  • Central funding

[RG] project proposals need to plan for sustainability at bid stage otherwise they can’t afford to address it.

Setup stage:

  • IP management
  • Infrastructure
  • Community development
  • Central or project funded

[RG] When project’s starting to become active, help with governance structure, help how to deal with third party engagement etc.:

Ongoing

  • Governance
  • Upstream/downstream engagement
  • Community Development
  • Sustainability
  • Central/project or business development funded

[JG] We use subscription model, RG right that there are different entry points. Our experience largely being paid, we provide advice on all of these issues, but when people pay us is when they become commercial open source, not just open source. If you’ve made the contribution, when money becomes available projects willing to pay for ongoing advice.

[RG] Amber is ‘business development’ stage where we identify opportunities where there’s no money available yet.

[MD] JISC can cover the costs for initial support activities. When JISC’s funding a call when there’s a potential business to include funding to cover consultancy costs.

[RG] That would be the ‘red support’; which of experimental projects are becoming the more successful ones can move to amber according to the support plan process.

[DR] Difficult to handle the costs of this, at least a full-time job.

[RG] Agree, just talking to partners and interested third parties is time consuming. Doing a lot of travel lately to meet a lot of people to find partners that can help bridge gaps in both resources and skills. Set something up via ISIS Innovation (Tech transfer unit for Oxford University).

Retirement

  • Preservation
  • “leaving the keys in the door”

ACTION 6: Coordinated open innovation activity with UKOLN and CETIS

Completed a “brochure” with these two services, identified the strength and weaknesses of each centre.

However, we are not part of the JISC Innovation Support Centre review - which is a surprise. As a result, rather than closely coordinated activities, now thinking that charged out services (ACTION 5) might be more appropriate.

[ACTION] RG to create SLAs for these services [ACTION] RG to identify charge structures for these services

Training opportunities

[GH] Materials we produced have been recognised as useful for projects. Main point is how to switch from just funded to payable models.

  • Training events for professionals

    • eg. for lawyers, who need to collect CPD points by taking training. If we can package our expertise in open source licensing we can open IP management CPD courses.
    • Conference producer TransferSummit confident we can organise charged training events during the conference

  • Guest lectures for programmes that already exist

    • Already a few lined up, eg. Web science MSc Southampton
    • Work with Free Technology Academy

  • Open innovation events

    • Focus on open innovation in software as a framework for collaboration between academic and business sector using open development methodology
    • Open innovation already part of wider support plan.
    • Looking at industry partners that are interested in collaborating Identified business partners, first event on open source in mobile.
    • Focus on mobile software during the next conference
    • Working with 100% Open (NESTA’s spin-out) facilitating collaboration between commercial and academic sector

[JG] Good to have TransferSummit and drive commercial engagement from there.

[SLo] Mix of academics and commercial people is important.

[RG] Transfer as bi-directional, not just from the academic to the commercial sector.

[SLe] Offer training to commercial partners.

[PW] Excellent idea. Agree good to have healthy mix, TransferSummit succeeded in that. Love the idea of expanding out of developer community. Transferable skills from developers, eg. how to deal with version control interesting for other domains, eg. lawyers.

[SLo] Interest from outside Computer Science depts like physics that just need the tools and know how to apply them in open source projects.

[GH] Interested in experience of Southampton with guest lecture from Web Science MSC. [DR] Some opportunities there for OSSW, discussion to have later. [DR] Joined activity, now 4th year, web science is science of the web and sustainability of the web and tooling. Chair Web Science conference next year, software sustainability will be a theme there.

[ACTION] RG to follow up opportunities with DR

[SW] Lot of handholding needed to help teachers, opportunities to train the trainers, advice lecturers to help them put their

[JG] Possibilities initiative by government to rethink the skills needed for the digital economy, Lord Baker consulted Redmonk for new Technical College and knowledge. Look at the aspects of open source for the curriculum of such a new college.

[RG] Points SW and JG similar, don’t feel there’s a open door, focal commercial interest.

[JG] Invited to help govt, volunteering to help OSSW. Can’t make it to the initial meeting, but happy to get RG there.

[ACTION] RG consider having OSSW follow up with JG

[SLe] Outlines and especially guest lectures good, concern we need to address not breaking connection with TransferSummit.

The subscription funding model

ACTION 1: Explore subscription models

We have developed an outline subscription model - should we continue to market research?

[RG] Connections in the US operate under subscription model where people subscribing get additional information about our expertise in vertical space, e.g. mobile campus.

Charge a subscription:

  • X days of face to face consultancy - apply what we know to their specific use case

Purchase:

  • Commission a specific vertical sector (JISC ITTs for example, institutional procurement evaluations)

All materials published as CC (paid for by community development project charge point)

[RG] Realise it’s similar to Redmonk’s model

[SLe] Difficult to find any money for that from OUCS’s point of view.

[SW] For potentially engaging in applying for funds with OSSW could be possible.

[DR] OII Trying to include software sustainability costs is difficult, successful in engaging for projects writing proposals eg. with JISC, but not with research councils.

[MD] JISC has had a sustainability clause for a while, but in practice still most projects don’t think about sustainability. Room for improvement on the funding side. Pleased that some projects managed to build up institutional support. More on the community than software side.

[SLe] Is the public sector a potential market?

[RG] Tried to engage with Office of Government Commerce (OGC), a lot to offer there. JG, does this work in the public sector?

[JG] Difficult, we’re oriented to the private sector. A lot going on within the public sector, a lot of excitement on the public data side rather than the open source software. New willingness to look into it. Non-profits are clients, like Eclipse Foundation and ASF, as a bridging role there is room for that. Rates are reasonable with Redmonk, and OSSW can be even more reasonable, I’d be willing to sell it. Subscription model works well for Redmonk, don’t necessarily have to pay everything up-front. Advice as a service doesn’t have a massive up-front cost, don’t lose a lot by just trying to give it a go.

[SLe] Link could be through UCISA to test the model.

[DR] Cost of subscription is relevant, was sometimes difficult to get money from the university for this, even if it’s a relatively small amount.

[RG] Thanks for a lot of clarity

[JG] Blog where you can put the ideas down and crowdsource, 10k followers on Twitter, why not ask them. Some people with come with interesting insights.

[ACTION] RG to research opportunities via a blog [ACTION] JG to help get input

[SW] Institutional subscription, why not individual membership? [RG] Shelved it, not sure about the additional benefits? We need the numbers so prefer to make it easier for individuals to engage and benefit, i.e. no cost. [SW] Alternative as a professional subscription instead of for instance membership of professional networks like BCS. [RG] Benefits are limited to persons, but on the other hand the DevCSI is more focused on persons, how would that work with DevCSI? [PW] Managers of technical development staff have difficulties in staff development, don’t understand the space. How to pitch training of technical staff to these managers? Potentially it would be interested to pitch subscription to organisations like OSSW to these people as well.

[GH] Overlap between subscription and training, eg. give discount to projects when subscribed.

[SLe] Individual membership could be more attractive depends on scale. (eg. anything more than 2k would be difficult for OUCS).

[JG] Redmonk traditionally industry analyst, you’re either helping the buyers or the sellers, not both, but this is rubbish and changing. Redmonk about practitioners, people that pay are the big vendors. Hard to maintain image of independence. Very rarely going to sell to developers. Sponsorship can work, who would pay to know what’s happening. Individual membership lot of overhead.

[PW] DevCSI starting to focus on managers, not developers. By working with professional journalists etc. it’s possible to convey the message to the managers.

[RG] Thanks for a lot of useful insights.

AOB

[SLo] Bristol major cut-backs in university funding and people getting significant pay-cut.

[All] Next time have slides with bullet points in the call