1. Present

University of Edinburgh (JCMB)
Gwen Bayne - NLN for Remote Sensing         Kim Underwood - UMI Administrator
Jean Ritchie - UMI Coordinator

University of Glasgow
Margaret Brown - MANTCHI                        Iain Maclaren - NLN for Remote Sensing
Steve Draper - MANTCHI                             John McQuillan - NLN Remote Sensing

Napier University (Sighthill)
Kirsty Davidson - SUMSMAN                       Tom Scott - SUMSMAN
Sandra Foubister - MANTCHI                       Alison Varey - MANTCHI
Judy Goldfinch - SUMSMAN

University of Strathclyde
Allison Littlejohn - CVU                                 Niall Sclater - CVU

2. Communal paper on UMI 2 evaluation

2.1 All projects present agreed to contribute to a communal paper on the evaluation activities of UMI 2 projects. The paper would refer to individual projects’ evaluation publications, and was not intended to supplant these in any way. TS stressed that it was important that there should not be any conflict between the writing of the proposed communal paper, and the writing of each project's individual evaluation reports.

2.2 Since some projects were due to finish within the next few months, and others would continue till next year, it was important to decide on the nature of the publication now, even though serious work on it would have to wait until projects had written up their own reports.

2.3 All agreed that the communal evaluation report should be published, by UMI/ SHEFC/ JTAP or similar, probably as a paper booklet and possibly for sale. No decision was taken as to whether it would also be available on the Web. It will be published after the projects have ended.

2.4 The evaluation report would focus on the evaluation techniques and tools used, with different projects contributing their experiences relating to a particular technique or tool. It would not be presented project by project. JR had prepared a list of evaluation topics, methods and tools, with the names of projects that had used them. JR asked projects to add any topics, methods or tools that were at present missing from the list, and to indicate which of these they had used.
                                                                                                                    Action All

2.5 MANTCHI questioned whether extra funding would be available for evaluation reports. JR would clarify to what extent evaluation reports were a condition of the original project bids with SHEFC.
                                                                                                                    Action JR

2.6 CVU, SUMSMAN and NLN for Remote Sensing agreed that evaluation was an integral part of their projects, and they intend to produce evaluation reports. They agreed that they would contribute to the communal report, even though this would entail some work after the end of project funding.

2.7 TS said SUMSMAN intended to produce an evaluation report by the end of October. CVU plan to have a final evaluation report written by the beginning of November. JR asked that all projects let her know by email what information on project evaluation will be available at what time. JR requested that projects send her this information by the end of next week (19/6/98).
                                                                                                                Action All

2.8 No date was set for a further meeting; communication would continue via email.