Stakeholder maps for DCE and UA

[f-rower]

Summary

• Using this issue to document conversations between @dingaaling and I about building a joint stakeholder map for UA and DCE

What needs to be done?

• Create key personas for map (users/maintainers): https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVKM0xvog=/?share_link_id=195271128697
• Determine specific use cases for the map
• Develop a taxonomy for the stakeholder map database
• Create process for maintaining map

---

Updates

• 15/04/2024 @dingaaling @f-rower working on possible taxonomies for the stakeholder map, building upon @cassgvp 's work for E&S community map http://tinyurl.com/turing-es-map
• 22/04/2024 - @f-rower DCE map: https://kumu.io/frower/dce-stakeholder-map-2
• 23/04/2024 - @dingaaling UA map: https://embed.kumu.io/fb15a5af5de7c345b300ded5dedbd6d9
• 01/05/2024 - Personas template/notes: https://hackmd.io/@k3-Hm3HpQrGUONdRb-3pBg/HJOIyyxfC

[dingaaling]

Feedback from @slynn:

• Are we trying to map opportunities to reach out to new users?
• Missing: links that represent potential users
• What is our current gap in knowledge?
• How do we use this visualisation to reach goals; can we capture the user stories (e.g. Partnerships, RAM, Research Team Strategy Lead/Coordinator, PMU)
  - Research Team Lead: 1) identifying for new/existing project a group that could be community steering group/community of practice 2) identifying technical collaborators (more about the intermediate product, not the end product)

[f-rower]

Possible use cases, following from meetings with Partnerships and PM team

• Useful for keeping track of connections
• Identifying new opportunities
• Finding new possible Interconnections across the Turing
• Knowing what others are working on
• Identify existing connections and cross-feeding

[f-rower]

Necessary fields:

• Connections
• Possible connections
• Status of engagement
• Status of project wrt impact pipeline (e.g. not started, fundamental research, deployment in industry,...?)
• Project outputs
• Project output possibilities

[dingaaling]

• Project status: not started, ongoing, complete
• Adoption status: is the project ready to be used and by whom?

[f-rower]

• Avoiding information clutter: what is the right amount of information to display on the map?
  e.g. only showing engaged stakeholders, only showing projects that are active in some way (from funding confirmed all the way to deployment in industry for example)

[cassgvp]

re: developing taxonomy, I have given @dingaaling and @f-rower access to the sharepoint list which build the map, so you can see the fields we developed for E&S (with the RCM team and @kallewesterling @aranas :) ). Fields also below. I think the only thing not covered from the above is project outputs.

• name-person
• affiliations
• email
• notes
• pronouns
• type (person/company/project)
• size
• affiliations-turing
• position/role
• github
• url
• projects
• influence-over-programme (low/medium/high)
• interest-in-programme (low/medium/high)
• how-to-engage (inform/satisfy/manage/monitor)
• moe-level (discovery to leadership. See https://open.win.ox.ac.uk/pages/open-science/community/Open-WIN-Community/docs/community/mountain-of-engagement/)
• consent-kumu
• interaction-participant-all (list of engagements)
• interaction-participant-active  (list of engagements)
• interaction-participant-presenter  (list of engagements)
• interaction-participant-leadership  (list of engagements)
• ID (unique for sharepoint)
• Created date
• Modified date
• Created By
• Modified By

I'm currently mapping these onto the fields available in Dynamics CRM to manage mailings, and I think project outputs is in there. The data in Dynamics is not well populated centrally, but we need to keep an eye on duplication of efforts - If we're collecting data about outputs etc, it should probably be going into Dynamics...

[f-rower]

@cassgvp is Dynamics CRM the CRM system used by the Turing?

[dingaaling]

@cassgvp did you use a different system/kind of fields for organisations?

[cassgvp]

@dingaaling We made our own fields in a custom sharepoint list. We weren't getting much traction with our request for support/access to Dynamics when we started, and it wasn't clear that it was necessary, but now I'm increasingly leaning back towards it...

[dingaaling]

Initial feedback on v1

UA REG:

• They will be curating info on UATP to feed into a blog post that can be an "update" on the source of truth for UATP components
• Stakeholder map visualises "user need" for UATP, and it'll be interesting to see how user need maps onto technical capacity for integration of different components

Partnerships:

• I am also cautious to think it will fit all needs
• Really like it as a way to promote thinking, identify gaps, and just show the plethora of activity in one place

[dingaaling]

RAM Goals:

• Generate impact portfolio
• Create reports for different teams
• Identify impact opportunities
• Identify impact priorities
• Identify gaps
• View project stage in impact pipeline

RAM Target outputs

• Visualisation of projects in impact pipeline (slides, reports)
• Kumu Google sheet (database)
• Kumu Visualisation (filter)

Backlog of features

• Quantify impact of projects

[f-rower]