Repository Transition

1. Summary:

INPUT → PROCESS → OUTPUT

2. INPUT

2.1. Core Claim

A successful repository transition must begin from who we are and what we are committed to.

2.2. Roles

• Depositors
• Downloaders (including external partners, supervisors, students, etc.)
• Research Integrity & Governance
• REF/Impact team
• Archivists
• ?

2.3. Values

Inclusivity: “We celebrate, value, and provide equal opportunity to all.”

Confidence: “We have confidence in our staff and students.”

Enterprising creativity: “We’re adaptable and flexible; a fresh approach in everything we do.”

Connectedness: “Academic excellence is underpinned by learning by doing.”

Generosity of spirit: “Open and willing to share abilities, knowledge, and experience.”

2.4. The current research repository

RADAR is currently one among many (GitHub, Zenodo, Figshare, OSF, Octopus, disciplinary archives such as Dryad, etc.)

• … in a ecosystem that increasingly prioritises open research.
• … and also one of many software systems at Brookes (Moodle, Panopto, ServiceNow, etc.)

2.5. Input Summary

This identity sets the structural constraints for any credible transformation.

3. INPUT — Brief Observations

3.1. Invariants (true now and should be preserved in any transformation)

• Plurality: Multiple forms of contribution, use, and recognition
• Trust: data quality, rights metadata, ethical transparency
• Creativity: Reuse, interdisciplinarity, linking
• Helpfulness: User-friendly contribution pathways

3.2. Diagnostics (motivating change!)

• Workarounds, tacit dependencies, brittle workflows, duplication of effort
• Uneven visibility, unclear reuse pathways
• Large data sets and “nontraditional outputs” that don’t thrive in RADAR
• REF risk accumulates when “people, culture, and environment” drift in different directions

4. OUTPUT — Strawman Projection

4.1. Core Claim

If we do nothing, current discrepancies will show up as systemic misalignment in the PCE portion of REF 2029.

4.2. REF People, Culture & Environment: Some failure modes

• “Strategy”: reactive and ineffective planning → workflows that aren’t managed well
• “Responsibility”: unclear governance → inconsistencies regarding rights and reuse
• “Connectivity”: siloed or unusable deposits → brittle interdisciplinarity, little ecosystemic uptake
• “Inclusivity”: accessibility gaps; uneven representation of actual research diversity
• “Development”: training burden; reliance on librarian heroics

4.3. Baseline Summary

Something along these lines is the “default future” if issues remain unaddressed.

5. OUTPUT — The Research Emporium

5.1. Core Claim

Taking compliance as the floor and research excellence as the ceiling, the research repository can be an amazing asset to Brookes and a star of the PCE.

5.2. Core metaphor: Brookes Research Emporium

• Showcases Brookes’ intellectual portfolio
• Drives visibility, credibility, and external engagement
• Turns open research into a value generator, not a cost centre
• Aligns Inclusivity, Enterprising Creativity, and Generosity of Spirit

5.3. Keep an eye on indicators of reuse:

• Footfall: depth and diversity of visitors
• Portfolio exploration: interdisciplinary browsing
• Inbound calls: collaboration, consultancy, CPD enquiries
• Citation-motivated traffic and evidence of reuse
• Media/policy pick-up: external resonance
• Reduced training burden: more intuitive workflows
• Less stress: fewer ad-hoc queries about rights, REF eligibility, embargoes

5.4. Part of a much nicer PCE statement:

• “Strategy”: learning system replaces firefighting
• “Responsibility”: governance becomes visible and light
• “Connectivity”: workflows align across boundaries
• “Inclusivity”: reflexivity drives representation
• “Development”: capacity grows through practice

5.5. Capability Summary

By doubling down on “intelligent openness” the repository becomes a significant public-facing research asset.

6. PROCESS — The Transformation Engine

6.1. Core Claim

INPUT → PROCESS → OUTPUT

≈

Identity → Projection → Capability

This can be read as a repeatable cycle that evolves Brookes research infrastructure…

• safely, confidently, learning as we go.

6.2. Step 1 — Zoom in on Identity

Not just who we want to be but also our annoyances, frustrations, etc.:

resonances and tensions

e.g., “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”

constraints and pressures

some shared (e.g., finance), some discipline-specific (e.g., data storage needs)

6.3. Step 2 — Micro- Projection

Each “next step” should fit how collaborators actually work.

Connect and build around the things that matter to people

For most people it’s not a repository but their task, care, practice, mission, …

Build in a continuous improvement process

real-time co-learning loops (e.g., librarians/RDM) vs parallel or more distant cycles (researchers/IT)

6.4. Step 3 — Building Capability

Increase our ability to carry out and empower excellent research, e.g., through

• Transparent workflows and analytics where relevant
• Widening-out bottlenecks
• Less heroic labour
• Learning from the process!

6.5. Step 4 — Iterate the above

What I have just talked through without using technical terminology is the concept of a design pattern.

• IF (“identity”) HOWEVER (there is still tension)
• THEN (take best practice guidance for such a situation when it exists or develop such guidance empirically)
• BECAUSE (we should learn from what works!)

6.6. PCE one more time:

• “Strategy”: Not “perfect” workflows, but diagnostic patterns that make tensions visible, tractable, and correctable.
• “Responsibility”: Pattern-based templates make governance clearer without bureaucracy or formal restructuring.
• “Connectivity”: Not a grand unified platform, but organic connection.
• “Inclusivity”: Inclusiveness operationalised through reflective practice, evaluation protocol, and participatory design.
• “Development”: Build on what worked best in the Open Research Programme: peer-led practice.

6.7. Process Summary

This transformation plan works because it uses (1) time-tested and (2) culturally fine-tuned patterns while respecting identity, rhythm, difference, and connection.

7. Closing

7.1. In Conclusion

A repository transition is best led using a lightweight, patterned identity → projection → capability approach.

7.2. References (My Research Emporium)

If you’re wondering where the “tested” patterns come from? — I have spent the last decade building them.

• Peer Produced Peer Learning: A Mathematics Case Study (2014)
• Patterns of Peeragogy (2015)
• Patterns of Patterns (2021)
• Patterns of Patterns II (2023)
• Open Reseach Book (2025)
• “Don’t wait for the REF to improve the research environment” (2025)
• Patterns for a new generation (forthcoming)

8. ANNEX

8.1. Strategy

• Strategy becomes iteratively adaptive: each pattern cycle (diagnose → prototype → evaluate → re-ground) generates actionable evidence.
• Medium-term planning is structured around the Transformation Engine and backed by compatibility maps that clarify where cross-team interdependencies matter.
• Instead of lurching from fire to fire, the organisation moves into a mode where strategic foresight and operational readiness reinforce each other.

8.2. Responsibility

• Rights and responsibilities are expressed through micro-governance patterns (e.g., License Laddering, Institutional Drift reviews) that clarify who owns what decisions.
• Governance becomes legible and teachable, reducing incidental gatekeeping.
• Stewardship roles (e.g., pattern stewards, evidence stewards) are small, rotating, and embedded in normal practice rather than being heroic exceptions.

8.3. Connectivity

• Connectivity emerges from interoperability-by-design: compatibility mapping across units helps align expectations before infrastructure decisions are locked in.
• Patterned development generates shared mental models across disciplines, improving cross-team translation and reducing friction.
• Deposits and workflows are not “open by default” in a performative sense, but integrative by pattern: interactions and handoffs are deliberately designed.

8.4. Inclusivity

• Inclusivity is not an add-on; it’s baked into the pattern elicitation process, where lived experience becomes design evidence.
• Reflexive workshops ensure minority voices shape pattern revisions.
• The system becomes locally accountable: each cycle captures who is being served and who is being missed.

8.5. Development

• Capability development becomes embedded in workflow, not delivered as extra labour.
• Patterns provide “minimum viable upskilling”: just enough structure to act, plus a safe cycle for review and adjustment.
• Expertise becomes distributed: knowledge resides in documented cycles and shared artefacts rather than in a small number of heroes.

8.5.1. Underlying mechanism

Pattern cycle = structured evidence flow → better decisions → stronger culture.