> __Bid Markers Comments__
>
> 1. Usefulness of idea
> There was a mixed response to a bookmarking tool on the oer-discuss list but more than enough interest and demand for this to be considered relevant.
>
> 2. Experience of project team
> The team are experienced and have demonstrated a clear willingness to engage on the list. We note though that their technical experience is not well evidenced in bid.
>
> 3. Demand for outputs
> There is a demand for a service that doesn't have the current insecurity of delicious and possibly offers richer structured information and a more localised control over future service developments. The proposed service has the potential to seriously enhance quality of available metadata/ paradata.
>
> 4. Is the project achievable?
> We're not sure - there are some issues in the proposed scale and scope of project which are of concern: the plan to build a web scale service, and the assumed community-based sustainability plan. However, this is a demonstrator and if it manages expectations carefully it has potential. Social tools need scale to work so proof of concept developments are tricky - a designated community (for example medical education) might help get suitable scale. There's a lot of development mentioned in this bid, it may be overambitious.
>
> 5. Does the project build on existing work?
> A not insignificant issue is that the bid doesn't build on existing bookmarking projects or tools, however discussion on the list indicates a willingness from the team to engage with external services (via APIs). We would encourage the team to investigate the possibility of working with OERCommons / ISKME?
>
> 6. Does the project duplicate existing work?
> Yes - but with potential demand for the duplication and opportunity to collaborate.
>
> 7. Technical approach
> The aspect of the work lining to dynamic learning maps is quite innovative, we'd like to see more of this kind of approach.
>
> 8. Quality of proposal
> The bid could use some more technical detail in places
>
> 9. Fund?
> Yes with the proviso that they can they address the issues and questions raised here and on list as well as carefully managing expectations. This is not the type of service that JISC would fund further - this should be seen as seed funding to enable the team to develop a viable tool and attempt to secure further support from other sources.
--
Lorna M. Campbell
JISC CETIS Assistant Director
University of Strathclyde
Glasgow
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44141 548 3072
Skype: lorna120768
The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
|