Owner: Roger Tritton

What business value does this roadmap item create? / Which problem is this roadmap item trying to solve?

Whilst Cochrane considers it important to continue to offer a review production tool to communities creating reviews beyond Cochrane Reviews, we believe it is becoming unsustainable to continue to support these communities with RM5. Many of those organizations producing non-Cochrane Reviews are organizations with whom Cochrane works closely, and with whom Cochrane’s relationship is important – including academic organizations and [especially?] guideline / policy organizations. RMW is an important part of the evidence ecosystem, and if Cochrane is to play an important role in that ecosystem, RMW needs to be available beyond Cochrane authors.

RMW offers new features (eg study-centric data and integration with other tools) that are not available with RM5. Non-Cochrane authors will want, and possibly expect, to use these functions.

The risk of not offering RMW to non-Cochrane authors – whilst at the same time RM5 starts to become obsolete [?] – may be high, with the potential for reputation damage.

There is no expectation of large-scale revenue associated with enabling use of RMW to authors beyond Cochrane; however we hope that the new business case, to be created, will demonstrate that Cochrane can at least cover its costs.

Which assumptions are made in relation to the value?

An assumption, to be validated, is that the main value for our non-Cochrane users is in analysis tools (and to a lesser extent RoB) – ie not so much the report writing tools that RM also offers.

Our expectation is that migration to RMW will be possible in the academic and government sectors, but less so in the corporate sector, where cloud-based solutions may not be suitable. We may lose the opportunity to raise revenues in the corporate sector – depending on our solution proposed and investment in data security.

What are the dependencies for fulfilling the business value?

Necessary licences in place [?]; clarity from Cochrane Contracts

Resourcing available for development and sustaining; including Customer Support

What are the risks related to this roadmap item?

That costs of delivering RMW for non-Cochrane authors will be very high

That the customer relationship burden of managing customers / users proves very high. Including the risk that migration to RMW results in more support being needed for non-Cochrane users than is currently the case.

Inability to meet minimum performance requirements

That in some cases, the SaaS / cloud solution is not considered sufficiently secure even in the academic / government sectors.

That the access and authentication solutions needed prove challenging to deliver.

That there are objections from the community to charging  for use of RMW

Data security breaches [we must state use at your own risk or similar]

What is included and excluded in the scope of this solution?

It is not proposed that the RMW offered to non-Cochrane users should be different to that offered to Cochrane users; though we may want to consider whether non-Cochrane users should be offered all of the features that Cochrane authors get

Development of a suitable SaaS solution

Development of a suitable access and authentication capability; including access individuals, teams, and organizations [tbc] across different groups within an organization

• We will need to investigate whether access at different levels (reviewer, editor, etc.) is required [noting that this may make a solution more complex]
• A preference will be to have individuals assigned to reviews; some individuals being assigned to more than one review
• Addressing whether use of a Cochrane account should be part of the access solution [need to speak with Gert about this]

Software development; maintenance; upgrades

Hosting – either in ReviewDB or in some other place

Use of memory / space; and taking account of the number of different customers / users whose content is held [question being does hosting content from lots of sources add to hosting cost]

Ability to archive [meaning?] older versions of reviews [ability to edit older reviews?]

Subject to validation, it is proposed that the RMW UI for non-Cochrane users be the same as that for Cochrane users; ditto file management (management of reviews and their contents eg analysis tables)

Account management [CRM?]; inc.

• customer management [customer engagement (if needed)
• Customer Services
• Payment / finance management

[Subject to feedback] it may be desirable for users to work offline.

Ability for both non-Cochrane reviews and Cochrane reviews to be created within the same customer organization.

Ingest from external tools (eg Covidence), and export to external tools (eg Rayyan) [tools to be specified]

A service level, at a level that can realistically be managed by Cochrane, will need to be agreed with customers; noting possible need for 24-hour support.

We must have a migration process in place that allows users to take existing projects from RM5 across to RMW [?]

It will be necessary, where reviews are to be updated, for old files (from reviews previously published) held in RM5 format to be uploaded into RMW for this purpose [?]

Proposed next steps to validate assumptions

Look at options for trying out developments of the practice review format so that that format might be used for non-Cochrane authors. Including:

• Not limiting lifespan of a practice review
• Enabling export figures and data
• Allow several users to work on the same practice review

How much time do we estimate to implement this roadmap item?

This is a guesstimate made by the Review Production Team based on known information about the roadmap item and the capacity of the team at the time of estimation (June 2020).

Large: 3 or more sprints = More than 6 weeks. High risk of increasing in scope as we learn more.