Thanks ever so much Nikki for all your support and also well done Sean, Lorraine et al for taking this forward. It's coming together very well. List of partners looks very impressive:) One thing that I think is missing is the legal contribution. I really think we ought to include Law, especially given our strength in IT law here at Southampton. I think Steve Saxby may still be away (although he's on email) but he would be the obvious person to name as a co-I, even if in practice his actual time for the project may be limited. He's such a big name in the area and there are others in the Law School who would definitely be able to contribute in practice. It would just need an extra sentence or two in places (not sure how you are doing word-count-wise). Best wishes Sally Sally Brailsford Associate Dean (Research & Enterprise) Faculty of Business & Law Professor of Management Science School of Management University of Southampton Room 3029, Building 2, Highfield Campus Southampton SO17 1BJ Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 3567 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 3844 Mobile: 07801 289132 www.management.soton.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthews N.S. Sent: 30 August 2011 17:26 To: Group working in the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Cc: Brown H.M.; Taylor C.; Smith H.E.; Nelson P.A. Subject: Re: [Centre] draft Dear All, I am back from leave today and happy to say I had a wonderful time in sunny France. I have reviewed the latest draft 1.07 attached (last contributed - Lorraine Warren). I will not be adding or advising on the academic content and direction as I am not an academic, but below are some comments and observations from a bid writing and admin viewpoint. 1. On page 4 of the guidance notes (attached) are the Key aims of the centre as specified by AHRC. It is important that we tick all these boxes in the application. From lay person view (mine!) I think that more emphasis could be given (in Demonstration of need and, Key features and strategic fit) to the final 4 bullet points of the Key aims, particularly with regard to how the Centre would influence policy and strategy. The last bullet point is about becoming a focal point for excellence and I think the bid could mention more about how and why this would happen. 2. On page 2 of the guidance notes mention is made of potential links with TSB's ICTomorrow Digital Testbed, the IPO and NESTA. There is no mention of these in the draft, so it might be worth highlighting them. (see point 4 below) 3. In the draft, the third paragraph of the 'Key Features and strategic fit', highlights non-economic, value driven creativity. It may be worth highlighting the continuity and complementarity between this aspect of the Centre and AHRC's Connected Communities. (Though not so much as to duplicate work in that programme) http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundingOpportunities/Pages/connectedcommunities.aspx 4. In the Partnership section of the draft, it would probably be worth formatting so that there is more clarity and differentiation between the people and organisations mentioned. It may also be worth emphasising the value of these partnerships, any long term relationships and future partnerships, as on page 6 (section 8) of the guidance notes, partnerships feature strongly in the assessment criteria. 5. The funding and legacy section of the draft: Can I check that Clare Taylor is aware of this bid and that costings are underway. As well as costings, wording and strategy about sustainability will be needed. 6. The Institutional Commitment section of the draft will need to be written (or ghost written) by Phil Nelson. Is this arranged? With regards Nikki Nicola Matthews Collaboration Manager (Social & Human Sciences, Humanities, Business& law) Research & Innovation Services Building 37, R4107 University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ Phone: 023 8059 8340 Internal: 28340 web: www.soton.ac.uk/ris/ "This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person." -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Warren L. Sent: 27 August 2011 12:43 To: Group working in the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Subject: Re: [Centre] draft OK, my two-pennorth back in the mix, minor amendments L Dr Lorraine Warren Director Postgraduate Programmes Senior Lecturer in Innovation School of Management B2/3011 University of Southampton Highfield campus Southampton SO17 1BJ Tel: + 44 (0) 2380 598972 skype: lwarren1759 http://www.management.soton.ac.uk/people/details.php?Name=LorraineWarren& http://www.doclorraine.com twitter: @doclorraine ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Earl G.P. [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 8:45 AM To: Group working in the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Subject: Re: [Centre] draft Attached some comments from a DE and archaeological perspective. Cheers, Graeme -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Franco Iacomella Sent: 26 August 2011 14:04 To: Group working in the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Subject: Re: [Centre] draft El 26/08/11 00:14, Volker Grassmuck escribió:
Thanks Sean for your first draft and Sally-Jane - Great to meet you again! Even greater if we would be working together in this centre! - and Lorraine and Franco for edits.
Let's add more contibutions, deadline is approaching!
Franco, you're right, we have to agree on a mode of editing. From the interaction so far, the wiki doesn't seem popular, while everybody seems comfortable with editing text files. So I would suggest we go with that. Please turn on "track changes".
Ok, let's do it in that way. My worry is that the whole process becomes a mess in somepoint, because without a central source a lot of derivative versions would be produced. However, with the low level of inputs that we are having, that seems not to be a problem :(.
Franco, your changes can only be extracted by a time-consuming "compare documents" procedure.
I attach version 1.05 of the file, in the evil DOC format, with some little additions. Best, -- Franco Iacomella