Last changed 23 Mar 1999 ............... Length about 900 words (6000 bytes).
This is a WWW document maintained by Steve Draper, installed at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/gauguin/management.html.

Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [main Gauguin site] [Steve's Gauguin site] [this page]

Internal project management

The lead site will have to coordinate putting in reports to the commission both to our own timetable, and perhaps sometimes in response to queries or demands from them. With 10 sites, it is unlikely that prompt replies to requests for information will be met when needed. On the other hand, internal reports from our workshops and from funded researchers will provide a "stock" from which reports to the commission can be created: this would cover the need (1) for reporting on scientific achievements, and on evidence of activity.

Another issue (2) is monitoring our use of the funding for young researchers: basically in terms of person-years at each site. A third issue (3) is our use of other money.

I propose (we didn't discuss this at the meeting) that to cover (2) we agree that every 3 months (on the first day of each quarter of the year) each site submit to the lead site a short report (about 5 lines in an email) stating the current state of that site's plans and actions on spending their funding for young researchers. If you agree to this, this mechanism would be in the proposal as part of our management structure.

In the early months these reports would say when each site expects to advertise the post(s); later on when they expect one or more researchers to begin; later still, whether / when reports from that researcher are due for internal circulation. There will be nothing wrong with changing these plans, but they will make it clear when time is running out, and so on. When reports have to be sent to the commission, they will use the last set of these reports to give a picture of current activity. If a site has failed to send the last due report, this would be stated instead. Perhaps the lead site would maintain a web page with the latest of these reports from each site: that would give us all (not just the commission) a quick overview of the state of the project in terms of funding researchers.

As to (3) -- each site's use of other funds -- I am inclined to leave this to each site to report on if/when/as required to the commission. But I haven't checked if this will be adequate.

Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [main Gauguin site] [Steve's Gauguin site] [this page]
[Top of this page]