FDTL
Project: 34/99
RAPID 2000
Loughborough
University
FINAL
REPORT
Theme: To promote
generic, transferable and professional skills on undergraduate programmes in
Civil and Building Engineering
Lead Institution: Loughborough
University
Partner institutions: University
of Central England
Project number: 34/99
Duration: 3 years
(August 2000 – July 2003)
Funding: £249,972
Contact: Alan Maddocks
(Project Manager)
Tel: 01509 227192
Web: http://rapid2k.lboro.ac.uk/
The RAPID
2000 project sought to enhance the skills of future professionals throughout
the construction industry. The project involved the extended development of the
web-based RAPID Progress File1 to assist in the skills development
of students on degree programmes accredited by professional institutions within
the construction industry.
1.3
Project Objectives
The RAPID 2000 project
sought to enhance the skill development of undergraduates in civil and building
engineering by:
·
Developing a minimum of 5
customised versions of the RAPID Progress File based on the Professional
Development requirements of leading Professional Institutions within the
Industry
·
Implementing the original and
customised versions in a minimum of 10 Higher Education Built Environment /
Civil Engineering departments
·
Inducting 1000 students in the use
of the RAPID Progress File
·
Evaluating the impact on student
learning and progression, identifying good practice in the implementation of
RAPID, capturing and using experience
·
Disseminating project findings
within Higher Education and beyond
·
Establishing mechanisms to ensure sustainability of the
benefits arising
1 The RAPID
Progress File (http://rapid.lboro.ac.uk/) is a web-based personal and
professional development planning tool. It was initially developed as part of a
DfEE funded project, ‘Recording Achievement in Construction’ (1998-2000). It is
a mechanism designed to:
·
build and maintain a record of achievement
·
audit skills compatible with the competence requirements of
professional institutions
·
develop such skills through a process involving action
planning and reflection, and
·
store evidence of skill competence.
The RAPID Progress File has been developed, in the main, for
disciplines in the Built Environment and Civil Engineering disciplines but can
be readily customised for other disciplines and subject areas.
2.1 Deliverables
The RAPID 2000 Project set out a range of deliverables in
relation to the objectives listed in Section 1 (1.3). These are detailed in Table
1 below:
Original Project Objectives |
Actual
Deliverables & Outcomes |
Variations
from original and reasons for change |
|
Developing a minimum of 5
customised versions of the RAPID Progress File based on the Professional
Development requirements of leading Professional Institutions within the
Industry |
7 Customised versions developed, as follows: ·
Architectural Technology (AT) ·
Building Engineering (BE) ·
Civil Engineering (CE) ·
Graduate Professional Development Award (GPDA) * ·
Quantity Surveying (QS) ·
Town Planning (TP) ·
Transport Management (TM) * * unanticipated versions |
The number of customised versions (7) exceeded the number
planned (5) due to demand expressed by Transport Management academics within
the Civil & Building Engineering Department at Loughborough University,
and interest expressed by the Steering Committee for a project to pilot the
‘Graduate Apprenticeship’ scheme in the academic year 2002-3. |
|
Implementing the original
(Construction Management (CM)) and customised versions of the RAPID Progress
File in a minimum of 10 Higher Education Built Environment / Civil
Engineering departments |
The RAPID Progress File was implemented at 12 Higher
Education Institutions, as follows: ·
Loughborough University 1 ·
Anglia Polytechnic University 1 ·
Bolton Institute 1 ·
Coventry University 2 ·
Kingston University 2 * ·
Liverpool JM University 1 ·
UMIST 1 ·
University of Central England 1 ** ·
University of Greenwich 2 ·
University of Manchester 1 ·
University of Sheffield 1 ·
University of the West of England, Bristol 1 1 Academic Years 2001-2 &
2002-3 2 Academic Year 2002-3 * Actual implementation deferred to academic year 2003-4 ** Part implementation on Foundation Degree course delayed
to academic year 2003-4 |
The number of HE Institutions engaged in the RAPID 2000
project (12) exceeded the planned numbers (10) for the following reasons: ·
UMIST and the University of Manchester put in a
joint bid for involvement in the project (Thus 2 Institutions for the price
of one) ·
Some budgetary savings in Years 1 and 2 of the project were
re-allocated to enable an additional HE Institution to be involved in the
second implementation stage of the project RAPID was implemented across a full range of programmes (including HND and HNC programmes) with both full and part-time students |
|
Inducting 1000 students in the
use of the RAPID Progress File |
Well over 2000 students have been inducted in the use of
the RAPID Progress File, and currently maintain a RAPID portfolio |
The number of students involved far exceeded that which
was anticipated. The primary reasons for this was the decision undertaken by
the School of the Built Environment at Liverpool John Moores University that
all registered students (full and part-time would be expected to develop and
maintain a RAPID record in order to progress from one level to the next.
Additionally, at Loughborough, the HOD of the Civil & Building Eng. Dept.
decided that all Year 1 students within the dept. would use RAPID within
existing academic modules |
Original Project Objectives |
Actual
Deliverables & Outcomes |
Variations
from original and reasons for change |
|
Evaluating the impact on student
learning and progression, identifying good practice in the implementation of
RAPID, capturing and using experience |
A comprehensive evaluation programme has been a leading
feature of the RAPID 2000 project. Students engaged in the implementation
stage of the project were surveyed at the onset (to gather benchmark data),
during the implementation (to monitor progress), and at the end of the project
(to draw conclusions on student progression and skill development). The final
year implementation also involved the use of Staff Interviews and Student
Focus Groups. Evaluation Workshops were held at the end of each academic
year, and Evaluation Reports produced. A promotional CD-Rom arising from the
data gathered through the Evaluation programme is currently being developed
(see Section 2.2.4) |
There has been no significant variation from the
evaluation goals set out in the project’s evaluation strategy / plan. More
robust methodological techniques were employed in the later stages of the
project. Whilst (at the time of writing) the outcomes are still in the
process of synthesis and analysis, it is clear that the data gathered offers
considerable insight into the effective delivery of personal development
planning in HE. As such, the end products will include a promotional CD-Rom
that was not anticipated in the original evaluation plan. Furthermore, it
should be noted that the process of evaluation throughout the project has
been based on the principle of the evaluation being formative rather than
summative (i.e. it has been used to help develop the project’s future
thinking and action) |
|
Disseminate project findings
within Higher Education and beyond |
A detailed dissemination strategy / plan was developed at
the outset. The targets in relation to dissemination have all been met, and
indeed surpassed. Deliverables have included a project website, project
publications, newsletter items etc. published in LTSN Newsletters etc. In
addition, the RAPID 2000 project held a very successful joint Conference with
two other FDTL projects, six Dissemination Seminars, and made presentations
and contributions to a range of events organised by the LTSN Subject Centres for
the Built Environment and Engineering. Conference papers were produced and
presented at a number of Conferences, including 3 major International
Conferences held within the UK. |
Dissemination activity exceeded the targets set out in the
project’s dissemination strategy / plan. The major change to the
dissemination strategy was that the project team chose to exhibit at the BEAR
2003 International Conference in Salford, Manchester rather than hold a
dedicated final project conference. The rationale behind this decision was
the prospect of reaching a much wider audience than would otherwise have been
achieved (over 250 delegates attended the BEAR 2003 Conference, including
representatives from almost all of the UK Built Environment HE Departments) |
|
Establish mechanisms to ensure sustainability of the
benefits arising |
The project team have established a number of mechanisms
to ensure the sustainability of the benefits arising from the project. These
are detailed in Section 5 of this report |
No variation from planned activity involved |
TABLE 1
2.1.2
Major Project Events
During the course of the RAPID 2000 project a number of project events were held to assist in the progress of the project. These included a project Conference, three Evaluation Workshops, and six Dissemination Seminars. Details of each of these are given in the following tables:
TABLE 2: Project Conference (September 2001)
TABLE 3: Evaluation Workshops
TABLE 4: Dissemination Seminars
Event |
Event
Title |
Venue /
Date |
Purpose |
Participants |
|
Joint
Project Conference (RAPID 2000 (FDTL 34/99) / DEBS (FDTL 15/99) / Best
Practice in Building Education (FDTL 14/99) |
‘Built
Environment Education: Challenges for 2001 & Beyond’ |
Loughborough
University / September, 2001 |
To
explore issues relevant to Built Environment Educationalists / To showcase
project activities |
UK
Higher Education academics / 65
registered delegates including Guest Speakers from the QAA and the LTSN
Generic Centre |
Event |
Event
Title |
Venue /
Date |
Purpose |
Participants |
|
Evaluation
Workshop 1 |
‘RAPID
2000 Evaluation: Feedback from Professional Institutions’ |
University
of Central England / July, 2001 |
To gain
feedback from interested parties on RAPID development programme |
12
delegates including representatives from Professional Institutions & HE
academics |
|
Evaluation
Workshop 2 |
‘RAPID
2000 Evaluation: Feedback on Year 1 implementation’ |
University
of Central England / July, 2002 |
To gain
feedback, experiences etc. on the Year 1 RAPID implementation |
12
delegates including HE Tutors / Students |
|
Evaluation
Workshop 3 |
‘RAPID
2000 Evaluation: Experts’ Forum’ |
Loughborough
University / June, 2003 |
To
analyse the lessons arising from the implementation of the RAPID Progress
File |
14
delegates including representatives from the LTSN Generic Centre, the CRA1
and CDELL2 |
|
Key: 1 Centre for Recording
Achievement 2
Centre for Developing and Evaluating Lifelong Learning |
||||
Event
|
Event
Title |
Venue /
Date |
Purpose |
Participants |
|
Seminar
1 |
‘Sharing
& Transferring Good Practice in the use of the RAPID Progress File’ |
Loughborough
University / February, 2001 |
To
inform on the aims of the RAPID 2000 project / to encourage involvement in
the project |
21
delegates representing 12 HEIs |
|
Seminar
2 |
‘Sharing
& Transferring Good Practice in the use of the RAPID Progress File’ |
Loughborough
University / September, 2001 |
To
prepare participating HEIs for implementation of RAPID |
14
delegates representing 9 HEIs involved in the implementation |
|
Seminar
3 |
‘Sharing
& Transferring Good Practice in the use of the RAPID Progress File’ |
Loughborough
University / February, 2002 |
To
enable project participants to report on progress / to encourage further
involvement |
16
delegates representing 13 HEIs |
|
Seminar
4 |
‘Transferring
the RAPID Progress File to the Professional Institutions’ |
Loughborough
University / October, 2002 |
To
encourage Professional Institutions to take ownership of RAPID (under licence) |
15
delegates representing 11 Professional Institutions / Industry Agencies |
|
Seminar
5 |
‘Transferring
the RAPID Progress File to HE partners’ |
Loughborough
University / March,
2003 |
To aid
transfer of RAPID (under licence) to HEIs involved in the project |
14
delegates representing 12 HEIs |
|
Seminar
6 |
‘Transferring
the RAPID Progress File to HE Institutions’ |
Loughborough
University / June,
2003 |
To
encourage transfer of RAPID (under licence) to HEIs not involved in the
project |
15
delegates representing 10 HEIs |
2.2
Products available beyond the life of the project
The
following products are available:
2.2.1 The
RAPID Progress File (software)
Following the RAPID 2000 project there are now 8 versions of the RAPID Progress File. These are:
·
Architectural Technology (AT) *
·
Building Engineering (BE)
·
Civil Engineering (CE) *
·
Construction Management (CM) *
·
Graduate Professional Development Award (GPDA)
·
Quantity Surveying (QS)
·
Town Planning (TP)
·
Transport Management (TM) *
* These
versions carry the endorsement of the relevant Professional Institution
All these
versions can be accessed through the RAPID Progress File website at: http://rapid.lboro.ac.uk/
(Note: this is separate from the project website)
Full access (for demonstration purposes) enabling the recording and maintenance of data on the data-base is by a registered User-name and Password. User-Names and Passwords are available on request from the Project Manager (see Section 5).
The
software for these versions is available on request and is supplied with the
following written documentation:
·
Recommendations on appropriate hardware requirements (File
Server)
·
A step by step guide on installation procedure
·
Advice on customisation (including the development of RAPID
style skill statements)
The
software is available at no charge (for HEIs in England and Northern Ireland)
as per the funding regulations. The ‘client’ is offered the option of taking
the software under a Licensing Agreement. The benefits of such an arrangement
are recorded in detail in Section 5.
2.2.2 The
RAPID 2000 Project Website
The RAPID
2000 Project Website - http://rapid2k.lboro.ac.uk/ - is accessible on-line and
will remain on-line following the end of the project. The project website will
be modified and streamlined to focus on provision of information regarding the outcomes
of the project. The following information will be available from the website in
downloadable form:
·
The final Project Report
·
All formal Evaluation Reports
·
All academic papers produced during the life of the project
·
Details of past project events
·
PowerPoint Presentations made at academic conferences
The above
will also be available in paper-format directly from the RAPID 2000 Project
Manager. Contact details will also be provided on the project website.
2.2.3 The
RAPID Progress File Prospectus
A 16-page full-coloured prospectus for the RAPID Progress file is also available directly from the RAPID 2000 Project Manager. This prospectus provides:
·
An introduction to the RAPID Progress File
·
An explanation of the RAPID Progress File
·
Details on the development of the RAPID Progress File
·
Details on the implementation of the RAPID Progress File
·
Information on how Institutions can access the RAPID
Progress File
·
Contact details
2.2.4
Promotional CD-Rom
A
promotional multi-media CD-Rom will be developed in the three months following
the end of the project. This will focus on the outputs and outcomes of the
project’s comprehensive evaluation programme. It will draw out generic lessons
regarding the implementation of Personal Development Planning (PDP) and should
prove a particularly useful source of information for those HE academics /
educational developers / staff development teams charged with introducing,
implementing and supporting a PDP programme.
The project’s Dissemination Strategy
/ Plan sought to:
·
Raise awareness of the project’s aims, methods and outcomes
·
Foster understanding of the RAPID Progress File and the
processes that underpin its effective implementation and practice
·
Encourage the widespread adoption and implementation of the
RAPID Progress File throughout the HE sector (Civil & Building Engineering
disciplines) and by Professional Institutions in the Construction Industry
A number of prime stakeholders /
audiences for dissemination were identified. These included:
·
Course Directors / Tutors in HE engaged in planning and
delivering accredited degree programmes in Civil & Building Engineering
·
Academics with an interest in developing and implementing
systems to enhance the level of student skills
·
Professional Institutions seeking to support the processes
of chartered training and
implementing Continuing
Professional Development (CPD) systems
The Project Team sought to maximise the effectiveness of its Dissemination Strategy by employing a variety of media and channels including:
· Seminars / Workshops
· Conferences (National and International)
· Academic and Construction Industry publications
· Newsletters (specifically LTSN Quarterly Publications)
· Network groups
· A project Reference Group
· A Dedicated Website
· Electronic media
This
strategy has proved highly successful in that all the project’s main
dissemination targets were met. This is particularly reflected in the interest
shown from academic practitioners, in seeking involvement within the project
itself, desire (for those involved) to continue to use the RAPID Progress File
beyond the lifetime of the project, and firm interest from those not involved
in the project to acquire the RAPID software under our licensing arrangement.
Particularly successful features of the project’s dissemination were the benefits to be gained from:
·
Running small (maximum 20 delegates) focused project events
·
Supporting LTSN Subject Centre activity. Considerable
interest has been generated from presentations given at events organised by
both the LTSN Built Environment (CEBE) Subject Centre and by the LTSN
Engineering Subject Centre
·
Encouraging those academics involved in the project to
disseminate within their own Institutions
Less successful features of the project’s dissemination were:
·
Presentation of academic papers at national conferences (Has
not led to significant interest or involvement)
·
Engagement of a project Reference Group involving, in the
main, industry-based contacts (Very little engagement from group members)
The
primary lessons learned were the value of putting on small focused project
events, identifying and exploiting the interest of enthusiastic participants,
and making full use of the potential for targeted dissemination offered through
LTSN Subject Centre events.
The project’s Evaluation strategy / plan 1 sought to make evaluation a fundamental feature of the project. The emphasis has been throughout on evaluation having a formative role rather than being purely a summative activity. Data gathered through evaluation activity has been used to shape both the development and implementation phases of the project, with the growing body of evidence shared with those engaged in the project. A detailed evaluation programme of the final year’s implementation has just been completed. The results of this are currently being collated and analysed. Outcomes and outputs arising from this evaluation programme will form the basis for a ‘Transferability Funding’ bid to the funding body.
4.1 The Qualities of the Products and Deliverables
Evaluation has been employed to enhance both the quality
both of the products produced and of the deliverables provided. Feedback from
the initial Evaluation Workshop (July 2001) led to revisions to the RAPID
software to ease navigation within the system and to ratonalise content.
Further refinements were carried out in the summer of 2002, most notably to
enhance SENDA (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act, 2001) compliance
by making the RAPID website and system compatible with W3C and BOBBY standards.
Further refinements and developments are planned in the light of more recent
feedback. All future upgrades of the RAPID software will be provided to all
Institutions that take the RAPID software under a licence arrangement.
Delegates to all project events were invited to complete an
evaluation form at the close of each event. Invariably these events were graded
as either ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’ by all those who attended these events.
Individual comments and suggestions were noted and where appropriate action
taken to enhance future events.
4.2 The Extent of Take-up and Use of the products
The project exceeded its target of involving 10 Higher Education Institutions in the project. Twelve HEIs were engaged, this number limited by the funds available to support this implementation. An additional 4 HEIs (one in Australia) have taken the RAPID software under a Licence Agreement, and talks are on-going with other HEIs not involved in the project. Of the HEIs involved in the project, all have indicated their intention to continue to use the RAPID Progress File beyond the funding period.
4.3 Effectiveness and Impact of Take-up and Use
As stated in Section 4.2, all the HEIs involved in the project intend to continue to use the RAPID Progress File. Most of these have embedded the use of the RAPID Progress File into their programmes of study. Module specifications have been written with direct reference to the use of RAPID. As such, it is fair to say that the implementation of RAPID has proved sufficiently effective for these Institutions to wish to continue to use it. Moreover, comments received in the Final Reports from these Institutions, identify ways in which most of these Institutions intend to extend the use of the RAPID Progress File across more programmes of study and / or to further integrate RAPID within existing practice (e.g. to support the personal tutorial system). Whilst it is too early to judge the effect on student learning and progression, evidence arising from our Student Focus Group evaluation indicate that students’ perceptions of their role in managing their own learning is changing.
On a more global level, the potential of the RAPID Progress
File as a tool to support the processes of Personal Development Planning (PDP)
within Higher Education has been noted by both academics and educational
developers. The current interest we are seeing in the RAPID Progress File from
academics outside the Construction / Civil Engineering disciplines is fuelled
by the 2005-6 target for the introduction of PDP in Higher Education. The
potential to customise the RAPID Progress File by changing the discipline
element content of RAPID offers academics a tool that can readily contextualise
the PDP process.
The RAPID 2000 Project has been successful in
meeting, and indeed exceeding, all of its targets. Some of the more pertinent
lessons that may be of value to future HEFCE initiatives, FDTL and TLTP
co-ordination, and other FDTL and TLTP projects include:
·
(In terms of future
HEFCE initiatives) the advantages of being able to align with important
national objectives, initiatives and proposals. In this respect the RAPID 2000
project has been able to identify with the needs of academics in trying to find
means of addressing the introduction of the PDP element of the Progress File
for Higher Education, and in providing a solution to the challenge of
delivering and assessing students’ key and transferable skills, especially in
non-traditional contexts such as work-based learning. In our experience,
academics see more value in initiatives that can provide potential solutions to
those challenges they may be encountering in offering students a full and
rounded curriculum.
·
(In terms of FDTL /
TLTP co-ordination) the value of mapping activity with other similarly funded
projects. Whilst the RAPID 2000 project has sought to maintain dialogue with
other projects and where appropriate offer means that could assist these
projects in their development, we feel that insufficient direction has been
provided to assist this process. In particular, mapping activity and bringing
together projects on a thematic, as well as a discipline based, level would
probably have offered greater synergy
·
(In terms of other
FDTL / TLTP projects) the benefit of having clearly defined goals, well worked
out project plans including detailed dissemination and evaluation plans. Such
plans have proved invaluable to the RAPID 2000 project in terms not only of
identifying important milestones but in providing a means of constantly
measuring performance against target / intended outcomes. In addition, where
circumstances dictated, plans have been adapted to ensure that the over-riding
goals of the project are met and that activity is addressing the real needs of
the project and its stakeholders. In terms of such effective management of the
project, the RAPID 2000 project has benefited enormously by the inclusion, on
the project’s management team and steering committee, of individuals who can
offer a clear strategic perspective. Moreover, the RAPID 2000 project has also
benefited significantly from the pro-active and supportive input of the
project’s External Evaluator
·
(In terms of other FDTL / TLTP projects) the value of a
focused approach to the processes of project management. The RAPID 2000 project
has sought to work on achieving the possible rather than on grandiose design
and elaborate programmes. Thus, the RAPID 2000 project team broke down the
project plan by setting a number of small, achievable targets that were also
both manageable and measurable. Activity has tended to be very focused whilst
the project has sought to engage and foster a small core of enthusiastic
academics rather than seek larger numbers of less supportive staff.
1
The project’s ‘Evaluation Strategy
/ Plan’ is used as an example of ‘good practice’ in project documentation on
the NCT / (FDTL) website
4.5 Summary of External Evaluation
The following is a report by the project’s External
Evaluator:
The RAPID 2000
project developed an evaluation strategy, the aim of which was to provide valid and reliable evaluation data
which could be used formatively in the on-going development of the Progress
File itself and its implementation in the partner HE institutions. A notable
feature of the evaluation of the project has been the balance which has been
struck between the evaluation activities, which were seen as the responsibility
of the external evaluator, and those which were undertaken by the project
manager and by staff in the participating HE institutions. By working in this
way, the project became a ‘self-critical community’ in which evaluation was
seen from the outset as an integral component in all of its developmental
activities. As such it permeated the life of the project rather than being
something, which was ‘bolted on’ almost as an afterthought.
Within this framework, the following activities were undertaken by the external evaluator: participant observation at meetings of the Management Committee and Steering Group and at events run by the project; provision of advice on all matters relating to evaluation including the design of the strategic and operational plans and methodology; the conduct of focus groups with students and staff; the planning and implementation of the experts’ forum in June 2003 at which a range of evaluation data were analysed; the on-going monitoring of the progress of the project in relation to its stated aims and objectives.
As a consequence of
the above involvement with the RAPID 2000 project through its evaluation it is
possible to make the following observations. The project has received strong
support from its host institution, Loughborough University, as evidenced by the
willingness of a senior member of staff (usually a Pro Vice Chancellor) to act
as Chair to the Steering Group and by the support provided for the project by the University's Staff Development and Learning &
Teaching Development Units. In addition RAPID 2000 has benefited
from being housed with a number of other projects (including LTSN Engineering)
within a centre for Engineering Education. The Project Manager and Project
Director have built upon the experience gained in running the ‘Recording
Achievement in Construction’ (RAC) project, thus giving continuity to the
management and direction of the project. Consequently, the project has had a
clear sense of purpose since its inception, and has been extremely well managed
by a highly competent and experienced project manager. Meetings and events have
been invariable well planned, carefully documented and efficiently chaired -
the discussion having benefited from good attendance and the diversity of views
represented. Relationships initiated with partner HE institutions and the
relevant professional bodies have been well managed and sustained. It is not surprising, therefore, that the
RAPID 2000 project has succeeded in achieving its ambitious aims and objectives
as set out in Section 1.2 and 1.3 of this report.
Whilst the analysis
of the evaluation data collected in the final stages of the project is not yet
complete, it is already beginning to yield some important findings. It is
evident that these will be of relevance, not just to those HE institutions
which have some experience of implementing the RAPID Progress File already, but
to those who are in the process of adopting it (or similar tools) for the
purposes of furthering their students’ personal development planning. The
analyses undertaken thus far point to the importance, which should be attached
to the processes which support the students’ use of tools like the RAPID
Progress File including, greater clarity about the intended learning outcomes,
thorough induction into their use, the need for more rigorous staff training
and the willingness of tutors to demonstrate their commitment to their use by
students. The lessons to be drawn from the experience of the RAPID 2000
project, therefore, go well beyond the contexts in which its use has been
piloted.
External Evaluator
July 2003
The project team have established
a number of mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of the benefits arising
from the project. These include:
·
Continuation of the RAPID Project Team
·
Licence arrangements for the transfer of RAPID to HE
Institutions
·
Licence arrangements for the transfer of RAPID to
Professional Institutions
·
Arrangements with LTSN Subject Centres
·
Other funding opportunities
5.1
Continuation of the RAPID Project Team
The success of the project team in acquiring further
external funding until December 2005 has ensured the continued employment of
the key members of the RAPID project team. This will enable the team to
continue to respond to the needs of the HE community in respect of providing
access to the RAPID software and information on the project outcomes.
5.2
Licence Arrangements for the transfer of RAPID to HE
Institutions
The RAPID software is, as per the regulations governing the
funding of projects through the FDTL, free of charge to all HEIs in England
(& Northern Ireland). To enhance the quality provision of the software the
project team are encouraging interested parties to take the software under a
licensing arrangement that provides additional benefits in terms of on-going support,
access to upgrades and future updates of the software (including any new
versions of the RAPID Progress File), bespoke advice on customisation
requirements, and access to a network of Institutions licensed to use RAPID. By
creating a network of licensed users of the RAPID Progress File, we intend to
continue to expand and share knowledge of good practice in the implementation
of the RAPID Progress File.
5.3
Licence Arrangements for the transfer of RAPID to
Professional Institutions
Additionally, talks are progressing in terms of transferring
ownership of individual versions of the RAPID Progress File to the respective
Professional Institutions, for assimilation into their existing provision for
members and future members. The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) have
already taken ownership of the original version of RAPID. These arrangements
should ensure continued support and encouragement from the Professional
Institutions for, where relevant, HE departments / programmes accredited by the
Professional Institutions to continue using the RAPID Progress File.
5.4
Arrangements with LTSN Subject Centres
The LTSN Subject Centres for the Built Environment and
Engineering have been primed to assist the above processes. The RAPID project
team will continue to develop the close working relationship established with
both centres.
5.5 Other Funding
Opportunities
The RAPID Project Team have involvement with a recently
commenced ESF funded project. This funding will assist in the development of a
‘generic’ Engineering version of the RAPID Progress File during the 2003-2004
academic year, initially for use within the Engineering faculty at
Loughborough, and a tracking tool to assist trainees in SMEs forming part of
the FORD Motor Company’s supply chain in Dagenham, Essex.
The RAPID project team will also be presenting to the
funding body a bid for ‘Transferability Funding’ to ensure that the wealth of
evaluation data arising from the RAPID implementation programme will reach the
widest possible audience (through Staff Development workshops) within
Institutions involved in the RAPID 2000 project.
Thus, as mechanisms have already been established, the
project team’s continuation secured, and with a continuation strategy
permanently evolving, the sustainability of the benefits arising from the RAPID
2000 project should be guaranteed for the foreseeable future
Project No |
34/99 |
Project Title
|
RAPID 2000 |
|
Project
Start |
August 2000 |
|
Project
Finish |
July 2003 |
|
Total
Project Funding |
249,972 |
ORIGINAL BUDGET *
|
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
Total |
|
Period
of funding |
08/00 -
07/01 |
08/01 -
07/02 |
08/02 –
07/03 |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staff |
61,950 |
53,850 |
56,250 |
|
172,050 |
|
Travel
& subsistence |
2,880 |
3,240 |
3,600 |
|
9,720 |
|
Dissemination |
7,300 |
20,200 |
27,500 |
|
55,000 |
|
Equipment |
3,000 |
0 |
0 |
|
3,000 |
|
Evaluation |
2,800 |
2,800 |
2,800 |
|
8,400 |
|
Other
costs (Please detail): Consumables |
480 |
600 |
720 |
|
1800 |
|
Total |
78,410 |
80,690 |
90,870 |
|
249,970 |
* As submitted to the RAPID 2000 project’s Steering Committee (September 2000)
ACTUAL BUDGET *
|
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
Total |
|
Period
of funding |
08/00 -
07/01 |
08/01 -
07/02 |
08/02 –
07/03 |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staff |
61,640 |
56,365 |
56,415 |
|
174,420 |
|
Travel
& subsistence |
2,640 |
3,560 |
2,215 |
|
8,415 |
|
Dissemination |
7,210 |
19,060 |
23,905 |
|
50,175 |
|
Equipment |
0 |
2,520 |
0 |
|
2,520 |
|
Evaluation |
1,905 |
1,995 |
8,690 |
|
12,590 |
|
Other
costs (Please detail): Consumables |
285 |
1,015 |
550 |
|
1,850 |
|
Total |
73,680 |
84,515 |
91,775 |
|
249,970 |
* Subject to final verification on submission of invoices,
and confirmation of costs where relevant.
NOTE: All significant amendments to activity /
time-scheduling (and concomitant budget re-allocation) were discussed with the
project’s National Co-ordinator, agreed with the project’s Steering Committee,
and detailed in previous Annual / Quarterly Reports to the funding body