Case Studies. CollaborationThis work, excluding institutional logos, is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.

The following resource was created for academic teaching staff within UK higher educational institutions as a part of the Intellectual Property Rights For Educational Environments (IPR4EE) project of the University College Falmouth. The IPR4EE project is funded by HEFCE and part of the JISC/HE Academy UKOER Phase II programme.

Case study 1The Communication Trust – DCSF Cabinet Office for 3rd Sector (2008) Working in a Consortium HMSO online http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/groupdocument-Simon_Cope/Working_in_a_consortium_fnl.pdf

The Communication Trust, funded mainly by the DCSF, was established in April 2007 with the specific aims of:

Raising awareness of speech, language and communication across the entire children’s workforce

Enabling the children’s workforce to gain access to the skills and knowledge to support the speech, language and communication development of all children

Encouraging collaborative working both within and across relevant sectors

The Trust was founded by Afasic, The BT Better World Campaign, the Council for Disabled children and I CAN. This small group is supported by a consortium of 26 voluntary and community groups which deliver services and support to children with speech, language and communication needs. In addition the Trust is support by an Advisory Panel made up of 10 lead bodies in the field of workforce development.

The Trust is run by a small programme board made up of the founders. The Consortium and the Panel have very clear roles and responsibilities, including quality assurance and ensuring the relevant expertise is used in all the projects of the Trust. In addition, the panel ensures that the Trust is not duplicating any existing work. A small project team are responsible for delivering all the products. To ensure cost-effectiveness, any additional

support that is needed is bought in from the consortium and panel based on relevant experience and expertise and paid a representative consultancy fee.

In the first 18 months the Trust has achieved the following:

The Trust developed a Speech, Language and Communication Framework (SLCF) - a clear, comprehensive framework which sets out the skills and knowledge needed by practitioners to support the speech, language and communication development of all children, including those specific to supporting children with SLCN. It can be used by individuals and managers across the children’s workforce to assess skills and plan effective professional development in this area and it has been accessed by over 1500 practitioners to date.

We mailed 19,000 primary schools with information about speech, language and communication and directed them to high quality, relevant resources. This generated over 4,000 requests for a particular resource.

The consortium agreed a shared language and understanding of speech, language and communication (SLC), enabling clearer communication between different sectors who were using different terminology to describe similar issues.

We ran two very successful conferences, raising awareness of the issues and highlighting current resources for over 300 delegates made up of managers and practitioners from a wide range of sectors.

The Trust is working with Government and in particular presenting a cross-sector position on the Bercow Review and its subsequent implementation

The Trust has been asked to represent SLCN organisations on government reviews

Key learning points An independent evaluation of the Trust has recently been completed and the Trust has received high praise from the DSCF and its partners. The report also identified key learning points to strengthen the work of the consortium, i.e. to:

Increase clarity of definition and purpose. As the Trust as been so successful and the programme of work has extended, it is important to revisit initial aims with all members.

As the Trust looks to its next programme of work we need to clarify the funding or tendering process to ensure that it is transparent and fair.

As the Trust grows we need to enhance our membership and ensure the right organisations are invited to support our work.

Case study 2

Opportunities for collaboration and the benefits of releasing OERs https://openeducationalresources.pbworks.com/w/page/24838012/Stakeholders-and-benefits

Millions of pounds have been invested worldwide into the development of OERs and yet the different benefits to the range of stakeholder groups have not always been well articulated or evidenced. Whilst there is increasing evidence of benefits to educational institutions (e.g. as a showcase) and to learners there is less evidence of the benefits to the people who are expected to go to the effort of releasing their learning resources - the teachers themselves. For a fuller list of potential barriers and enablers, see the Overcoming barriers and finding enablers section.

OER links to several other strategic goals, in the UK and worldwide.

OER release could also meet strategic needs, especially:

engagement with a wider community

engagement with employers sustaining vulnerable subjects enhancing marketing and engagement of prospective students worldwide brokering collaborations and partnerships

The following is a visualization of what the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation sees as the methods for equalizing access to educational resources worldwide:

 

(based on an original by Michael Reschke)

 

Stakeholders

It is useful to tease out the range of benefits to different groups and to articulate these clearly as external funding sources may become more scarce. Sustainability of OER release is currently a significant issue for institutions around the globe and evidence of benefits must be clarified if resources are to be made available for continued release. It is also useful to identify which benefits are most relevant to each stakeholder group:

The global community (affected by cultural, language and political issues)

The national community (sometimes significant investment by Government) Educational Institutions (not one homogenous community but several) Subject communities (including employers and professional bodies)

Individuals supporting learning and teaching (teachers, librarians, learning technologists, educational developers)

Learners (enrolled and global)

Good intentions: improving the evidence base in support of sharing learning materials (JISC study 2008) includes a table in the Supplement: Business Case section identifying benefits to different stakeholder groups with links to evidence. 

Benefits

There are many instances of documented material benefits to institutions from releasing course content as OER, including:

Brigham Young Paper on increased online enrolments where OER exists for courses [PDF]

OpenLearn case study  - bringing the OU into contact with new partners. A p resentation from Patrick McAndrew at the Open University regarding the 'conversion'

benefits to the OU of OpenLearn as regards enrolment. Excellent piece from the OpenCourseWare Consortium on ' making the case' for OER Good, if somewhat dated, summary of benefits to MIT, centring on reputational benefit of

OER adoption.

Case studies are also emerging on other benefits to institutions from sharing resources openly:

A number of Jorum stories highlight the reasons why individuals and institutions are benefitting from sharing via JorumOpen, such as increased visibility of resources   

Pilot programme outcomes and discussion of issues around business cases and benefits realisation are available on the OER Synthesis and Evaluation Team wiki in the Pilot Phase: synthesis and evaluation report and in the accompanying Pilot Phase: Synthesis of Strands pages

Pilot programme outputs: Business cases and benefits

Excerpt from OER Synthesis and Support Team Interim report (2009)

"Asked to identify potential benefits of participation in the pilot programme, and of OER release in general, projects suggested the following:

Learners can benefit from:

enhanced quality and flexibility of resources

seeing/applying knowledge in a wider context than their course would otherwise allow, e.g. international dimension

freedom of access (e.g. at work/home/on placement) and enhanced opportunities for learning (cf the Capetown Declaration)

support for learner-centred, self-directed, peer-to-peer and social/informal learning approaches

skills development (e.g. numeracy) through release of generic OERs that can be re-used and recontextualised in different subject areas

the opportunity to test out course materials before enrolling – and compare with other similar courses

The OER originator can benefit from:

student/user feedback and open peer review

reputational benefits, recognition benefits (efficiency and cultural) of collaborative approaches to teaching/learning

Other staff users can benefit from:

availability of quality peer reviewed material to enhance their curriculum

collaborative approaches to teaching/learning (CoPs) professional/peer-to-peer learning about the processes of OER release

Institutions can benefit from:

recognition and enhanced reputation

wider availability of their academic content and focus on the learning experience capacity to support greater numbers of students efficiencies in content production new partnerships/linkages with other institutions increased sharing of ideas and practice within the institution, including greater role for

support services

a buffer against the decline of specific subjects or topics (which may not be sustainable at institutional level but can be sustained across several institutions through shared resources)

Employers can benefit from:

access to repurposable content

new potential partnerships with content providers upskilling

OER is an international movement, linking innovative people and organisations in a common goal.

The OpenCourseWare Consortium (OCWC) has more than 200 members, including several of the world's most prestigious universities. 

OER Africa is a very clear and powerful use-case in terms of international sharing and development. 

The Cape Town declaration on OER  is a worldwide initiative with thousands of signatories calling for the removal of barriers to OER which will lead to 'a global revolution in teaching and learning'.

JISC infoNet has a range of online resources available on its website including activity that has direct links to the issues surrounding and related to OER, for example:

Strategy -  strategic planning and activity http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/strategy

The Bologna Process http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/bologna-process Business and Community Engagement http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/bce

Case study 3

Model for Managing Intellectual Property in Consortia

http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ManageContent/ViewDetail/tabid/243/ID/1925/Model-for-Managing-Intellectual-Property-in-Consortia.aspx

This document identifies issues related to the protection of intellectual property arising from collaborative research and suggests clauses which should be included in any consortium agreement.

The authors and the Department of Trade & Industry have agreed that the information can be disseminated freely, with the qualification that the attributions, origins of, and the information in this summary are not modified.

Authors Dr Gordon Malan & Dr Mike BarnesBEP Programme ManagersFor Department of Trade & Industry5 January 2004

Model for Managing Intellectual Property in Consortia

Based on a successful model that has been developed as part of the Department of Trade & Industry's Biotechnology Exploitation Programme (BEP) Challenge initiative.

Ownership of intellectual property (IP) normally rests with the employing institution. In most circumstances, ownership of an invention by an investigator in a single institution is thus easily dealt with. However, handling joint inventions that might arise from a consortium, and how this is to be exploited commercially, requires carefully prepared agreements.

These notes are intended for guidance only. It is very important that any consortium agreement be drawn up by an experienced intellectual property lawyer: it is not a task to be left to 'someone with legal experience'.

Consortium agreement

Any consortium agreement should include clauses that address the following:

Detailed specification and descriptions of all background IP already developed and therefore owned by each of the consortium partners.

It needs to be understood that background IP belonging to one party can only be used by other members of the consortium under a separate agreement that should specify the IP and conditions attached to its use.

Any foreground IP emerging from the collaboration should, as early as possible in the project, be identified and the proportional contribution of each party to the invention, ie ownership of the IP, be agreed.

Foreground IP should normally be freely available to each member of the consortium during the project and for a predetermined period from the conclusion of the project.

For joint inventions, one of the partners should be designated the 'lead' for that invention, and their organisation's Technology Transfer Office (TTO) should thereafter protect and handle the invention on behalf of, and provide regular reports to, the parties involved.

Exploitation of all IP generated by the consortium, although it may be owned jointly or separately by the collaborators' institutions, should be available to be commercially exploited to the benefit of the consortium as a whole.

Commercialisation agreement

For commercial exploitation of IP arising from the project, the collaborators' institutions, ie the IP owners, need to enter into an agreement (either separately or as part of the collaboration agreement):

As early as possible in a project, the relative contribution of the partners involved in reducing an invention to practice or showing proof-of-concept should be agreed, (eg, one institution might own the IP, but a second might expend considerable resources in reducing it to practice). This contribution should be recognised and, in due course, appropriately rewarded. If this work is done by the second institution under a paid contract from the first, then they might be eligible for no share, or a reduced share, of the revenue from the invention.

For a specific portfolio of IP, the components of which might be owned by different partner institutions in the collaboration, agreement should be reached between the

institutions or their TTOs as to which institution is the most appropriate to take the lead in commercialising that IP portfolio.

This agreement should include details of the costs, how they will be shared or allocated, the preferred route(s) for commercialisation, proportions of revenue or equity share to be attributed to the various parties involved, and other related matters such as royalty or assignment conditions.

Shared information for the parties involved is required, along with regular reports during all stages of the commercialisation process.

Regular follow-up checks, and in some cases, further management of the IP might be required.

Timing and distribution of funds generated by the commercialised IP need to be specified and monitored regularly.

Dr Gordon Malan & Dr Mike Barnes BEP Programme Managers For Department of Trade & Industry

For further information: Mike Barnes: MBarnes466@aol.com Gordon Malan: PGMalan@biotech-is.co.uk Martin Harris, DTI: martin.harris@dti.gsi.gov.uk

5 January 2004 (Posted on 14/03/2011)

Resources

Guidelines on developing and working in a consortium from the Cabinet Office for the 3rd Sector. These guidelines are aimed at charities and voluntary organizations involved in public service delivery by contain clear approaches to setting up and maintaining a consortium to achieve the outcomes of a collaborative project.Cabinet Office for 3rd Sector (2008) Working in a Consortium HMSO onlinehttp://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/groupdocument-Simon_Cope/Working_in_a_consortium_fnl.pdf

JISC project management guidelines on developing consortium agreements for open educational projects in higher level education.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/projectmanagement/planning/partners.aspx

Collaborative Working & Mergers - Choosing to Collaborate: Helping You Succeed, from the Charity Commission. While focused specifically on charities, this resources contains invaluable information and guidance on ways to collaborate, planning and templates to help you identify the reasons for establishing your consortia and the goals your consortia want to achieved.  It highlights common pitfalls and gives practical advice including the legal aspects of partnership working.   http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/colltoolkit.pdf 

Consortium Toolkit for User Led Organisations. A toolkit which is intended to provide a reference for developing or considering establishing a consortium, with a particular focus on the legal and constitutional aspects of consortium development.  While this toolkit is focused on the charity sector, it contains excellent scenarios, covers a wide range of issues and provides easy to use templates to assist you in identifying the resources required for your project.   http://www.livingoptions.org/updocs/ULO%20Consortium%20Toolkit%20(Fusion).pdf

Charlesworth, A., Creating a Consortium Agreement, JISC/University of Bristol http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/funding/project_management/consortiumagreements.pdf

Example Consortium templates and Memorandum of Understanding: http://openspace.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/ipr-educational-environments/unit-two-working-within-your-institution/session-5-context-and-

Research Paper helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/