 So over to you, Nathaniel. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello all. My name is Nathaniel Lewis. I'm director of research reporting analysis data and systems at the University of Sydney. Our group manages the Herdsea and ERA submission for the University of Sydney. Among other things we manage all the research information of our researchers contracts and grants and maintain the information systems that hold all that data. Part of the work that we do is to look at other technological initiatives such as ORCID and see what sort of value that could add to I guess the management of research information. So today we've been asked to talk a little bit about how we've engaged with ORCID. What are some of the business drivers? What are the fit to services and some integration challenges and any sort of sexual issues we might want to raise. So for the University we've identified ORCID as a good opportunity. It's going to work across the research portfolio, library, our ICT and ANS of course. It's been presented to our senior executive group in the research committee and so all the deans and ADRs at the University are well aware of ORCID and now it's up to us to think about how do we implement ORCID across Sydney. So we joined ORCID as an institutional member in June this year and so we're now at the planning stage and considering what are the I guess the policy implications for ORCID that will lead to some of the implementations as well. Part of those implementation challenges around integrating it with our internal systems. We use d-spaces as our main repository for our ERA and HRC submissions. We've got a software platform called ERMA which is our main repository of research information. We also need to integrate with HR and ICT going forward if we're looking at identity management. In terms of the alignment to our research strategy we see ORCID as another tool to enhance the data quality, the accuracy and consistency of the information. It allows us to do some triangulation between scopus and Thompson and various funding bodies as well and I think one of the biggest challenges we face is around mapping affiliations of researchers. ORCID presents us with an opportunity to enforce persistent identifiers. We've got some researchers with upwards of I think there's one specific example where they've got over 200 identifiers in scopus. So this gives us an opportunity to minimize those different researcher IDs and bring some automation to that process. Again managing duplicates across the different systems and mapping those affiliations and publications, grants, data and also help us with our open access compliance so we can report against ORCID implementation. For us it's about maximizing the performance of the university in terms of its research performance to help with the reporting whether it's government compliance reporting and also rankings as well. It's about again specter data quality and the accuracy of that data and how well the university is represented. In terms of the fit to services it's going to impact across a few things and this is in relation to the policy procedures and workflows. We need to think about how it fits with any existing governance arrangements at the university, how it's going to be formulated and how we're going to implement that. We are looking at creating an ORCID identifier for all Sydney researchers so we need to think about how we're going to populate and maintain those records going forward. We see ORCID as supplementing the current Scopus and Thompson publication sweeps that we do to fill in the gaps for the under-reporting piece and we also see ORCID as an opportunity to help manage those non-citation based disciplines that aren't necessarily as well represented in the major publication and indexing houses. In terms of the technical and policy considerations we are looking to see how we can minimize research at burden. In respect to that administration issue we don't want to enforce another identifier on them, we want to make it as seamless as possible. It should be happening behind the scenes so that's a primary issue for us to consider. There are constraints, technical constraints on the ORCID record population policy. We'd like to be able to populate all records in ORCID on behalf of researchers but there's some issues around ORCID and how that can be set out but that's more around the philosophy of ORCID and that the researcher owns the record which is good but if the researcher owns the record but they don't want to administer the record how do we go about doing that so that's something we've got to work through. We do know that the information we collect on behalf of researchers on their research outputs is quality assured. We do the checking, the verification, we make sure we've got a record, we've got an actual publication and a file and that's populated into a research information system so we want to leave that to make use of ORCID and make it an effective tool to use. There's some questions around the capacity and service levels of ORCID but I think at the round table we had the CEO of ORCID there and they reassured everyone they've got plenty of resources and they can scale up their service as well if people do come online in a hurry. We've got I think at least 25,000 researcher records we need to manage and over 150,000 publications so we need to make sure that if we are populating these ORCID records that it can cope. There are also some concerns around the privacy and location of service in the U.S. Advice from our own legal counsel is that it's not such an issue because it's publicly available information that that would be dependent on your local provisions. There will be the usual issues around integrating existing ICT and HR systems. It's how far do we want to use ORCID and integrate it into the systems is the next question. Do we make it something that everybody signs up for when they join the university? How do we go about linking the existing ORCID IDs into their university identifiers and then how do we implement this at the local faculty level? At the university there are 16 different faculties and they are the ones that run the run show for example so we need to provide the advice that enables them to perform a implementation of ORCID at a local level and work with them to do so. In terms of the future of ORCIDs we see it as providing a consistent approach for research outputs and records management. I'd like to see it as a good supporting tool for research and mobility. It saves us having to re-enter all their research information again and again if they've got an ORCID ID and it's well maintained that will make transferring their research outcomes and outputs into and across universities more easy. We would like to see it as a tool for identifying collaboration opportunities and strategic recruitment. Better alignment to Scopus and Thompson databases and in terms of sustainability I think support from publishers of ORCID is key. Thank you.