21
perspective, and to facilitate the delivery of a range of events, meetings, and wider initiatives which are important to the core purpose of the operation to help raise awareness and buy-in to LegalTech and enhancing the University’s existing strong position and profile in relation to Cyber Threats. 2.33 Frequent communication via weekly team meetings was valued by researchers and software developers. However, some feedback suggested a lack of interaction and communication between the researcher teams and the software developers in the day-to-day delivery of projects, resulting in less frequent engagement and communication between the constituent parts of the operation. This was likely influenced to some extent by the pandemic and changing working behaviours, and potentially exacerbated owing to changes in personnel throughout delivery (with changing contacts and the need to establish new relationships and understanding). 2.34 The original Project Manager left the University and was replaced in August 2022. This led to some short-term delays in the delivery of activity associated with the handover e.g. in relation to the PASF accreditation process and Virtual Platform (as noted above). However, overall it was reported that this transition was well-handled and did not adversely impact on overall progress; this is a positive finding, and was enabled in part through continuity in the academic leadership of the operation. 2.35 Monitoring and reporting processes have been implemented effectively overall. Feedback suggested that reporting to WEFO has been thorough and high quality, and the project team has effectively engaged with the University’s R esearch, Engagement and Innovation Services (REIS) department to support with the process. 2.36 However, there was scope for better collection of data on the wider benefits of the LILW outside of formal ERDF indicators. The operation sought to implement the use of a consistent and comprehensive process to gather data on key outputs (such as events hosted/attended, research publications, articles, or prototypes developed), involving the distribution of an online form to staff every six weeks. However, the quality and coverage of the material provided in response was very varied and not comprehensive. As such, the data does not provide an accurate reflection of the activity, outputs, and outcomes delivered by the operation. As a result, the evaluation has not drawn on this data source. This is an important learning lesson for any similar future interventions.
…and project governance
2.37 As set out in the Mid-Term Evaluation Report, the original governance structure of the operation – with a Project Board, a Project Advisory Board 6 and a single Principal Investigator
6 Called a Project Steering Group in the Business Plan
Legal Innovation Lab Wales
Made with FlippingBook HTML5