Information Management System Group Report
to the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group
for discussion at its meeting in October 2005
Prepared by Mike Clarke, in
consultation with the IMSG (September 30 2005)
|
DECISIONS needed in
response to question 5. |
Is this what you
expected when you set your budget for the year?
Yes. However, we have
not scheduled a meeting or teleconference for the IMSG for the last quarter of
2005 since the items to be discussed at that meeting depend on the decision of
the Steering Group in regard to the provision of adequate funding for the IMS
(see item 4/5 below).
Jacqueline Birks (Co-ordinating
Editor representative), Dave Booker (Cochrane Collaboration website
representative), Mike Clarke (Convenor, RAG convenor), Andrew Cullis (Wiley
representative), Kay Dickersin (Cochrane CENTRAL Advisory Group representative,
Kate Hey (EMAG convenor), Julian Higgins (Statistical Methods Group
representative), Monica Kjeldstrøm (IMS Director), Rasmus Moustgaard (Technical
Implementation Advisory Group convenor), Jordi Pardo (Steering Group
representative), Elizabeth Pienaar (Developing Countries representative), Rob
Scholten (Steering Group representative), and ), Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin
(Criticism Management Advisory Group convenor).
a. Monica Kjeldstrøm’s report on the IMS
contains information on
the schedule and plans for the new IMS, so these are not reported here.
b. In May 2005, a
major component of the RAG and IMSG meetings was a discussion of ways in which
RevMan 5 and the IMS can include features to help improve the quality of
Cochrane reviews and reduce the possibility of errors. These arose from ideas
collected after a call for suggestions to Cochrane entities and individuals.
The approved features will be implemented in the development programme for
RevMan and the IMS.
c. The IMSG discussed the draft remit for the CTAG as it
relates to the provision of advice to the IMSG at our meeting on 6 May 2005. We
suggested some changes to the remit, for consideration by the CCAG. In
September 2005, we considered further changes to the remit (in relation to the
role of convenor) by email and, on the basis of a majority decision, approved
these changes.
d. The IMSG discussed the need for future funding for the
IMS extensively at our meeting on 6 May 2005. There was a unanimous wish that
The Cochrane Collaboration should make the necessary funds available. Mike
Clarke wrote on behalf of the IMSG to the Co-Chairs of the Steering Group on 20
May 2005. (The content of that letter forms the basis for section 4/5 below)
e. Sonja Henderson resigned as convenor of the EMAG in May
2005 and has been replaced by Kate Hey (who has also joined the IMSG). Sonja
will remain a member of EMAG and RAG. The IMSG is very grateful to her for her
work with the IMSG and its advisory groups over the last several years.
We have combined our
answers to these two items because of the over-riding importance of resolving
this issue of adequate funding for the IMS. We hope that the Steering Group
will agree to commit adequate funding to the IMS at the meeting in October
2005. Without such a commitment, we are concerned that the future
sustainability and development of the IMS (which we believe is integral to
providing the support needed by CRGs and authors for the future growth of The
Cochrane Collaboration) will be jeopardised. Without commitment of this
funding, we believe that adequate planning for the future will not be possible.
In summary, the IMSG would like to stress:
a. We have a very high opinion of the work of the IMS team. They have done a
great job in developing the IMS and continue to impress us with their ability
to deliver a high quality product and service.
b. The IMSG continues to believe that planning for ongoing software development
is vital to an organisation such as The Cochrane Collaboration, and that this
development is likely to need to continue for the foreseeable future. In our
experiences (from inside and outside The Cochrane Collaboration), if continual
development is not planned for and supported the consequence will be a
start-stop-start cycle, which will be damaging to future growth and
sustainability.
c. We recognise that there are competing demands for core funding from The
Cochrane Collaboration but we hope the Steering Group will consider the IMS as
a crucial part of the budget for The Cochrane Collaboration with the highest
priority, because of its overwhelming relevance and importance to the 'core
business' of the Collaboration (as expressed in its mission statement):
preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of Cochrane reviews.
d. We would like the Steering Group to give further consideration to
identifying additional sources of funding above and beyond the royalties from
Wiley so that it has the resources to provide the necessary funding for the
IMS, as well as other core activities.
e. In light of the uncertainty caused within the IMS team,
and the danger that future planning by the team and the IMSG will stall (such
that future developments will be postponed, made more difficult and/or killed
off), we urge the Steering Group to resolve this continuing uncertainty at the
meeting in October 2005.
f. It has previously been suggested that the IMSG should
undergo a review of its remit and membership by the CEO. We believe that this
should wait until more of the new IMS is rolled out. However, if adequate
funding is not committed, it might be wise to review the role of the IMSG much
sooner because of the immediate impact that a decision not to commit this
funding will have on the IMS team, the IMSG and our ability to help The
Cochrane Collaboration to plan for the future.