Add a risk section

paper.tex

@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ \section{Motivation for central RSE units}
 Handling this increased complexity whilst ensuring timely delivery requires dedicated RSEs in central RSE units.
 
 \subsection{Pooling: a necessary ingredient}
+\label{subsec:pooling}
 The main focus of this paper lies on central RSE teams since the benefits of RSEs to research in general are described elsewhere, \eg{} in~\autocite{Anzt2021}.
 The main advantages of central RSE units all stem from the pooling of resources.
 There are at least three aspects to RSE pooling that research institutions can benefit from: funding, diverse knowledge, and a central point of contact.
@@ -473,6 +474,7 @@ \section{Existing Implementations}%
 
 A number of successful RSE units have already been established in Germany and many more exist in other countries, especially the UK and the US\@.
 In order to understand the service portfolio of these existing RSE units, we conducted a small survey that received a total of twelve responses from Germany, the UK and the US\@.
+This very small sample size does of course not allow any quanitative analysis about RSE departments.
 We asked RSE units for the composition of their service portfolio --- a number of illustrative examples from the results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:survey}.
 The interested reader finds the full data we received in~\cite{datapub}.
 
@@ -624,11 +626,24 @@ \subsubsection{Growth of the Unit}
 In addition, SIS offers services in the areas of data science, machine learning, bioinformatics, trusted compute environments, and training and consulting.
 \end{mdframed}
 
+\subsubsection{Risk Assessment and Mitigation}
+Naturally, establishing a “new” department like an RSE department at an academic institution will lead to a realignment of responsibilities of existing departments.
+Units that might be affected include not only traditional IT centres, libraries, but also RDM units and legal offices.
+We argue, that an RSE unit does not aim to replace them, but offers new possibilities to connect these existing departments and thereby enables an academic insititution to offer a stronger service portfolio to its researchers.
+Giving the new RSE department a clear mandate and mission statements ensures further delineation from other departments and helps to avoid overlapping responsibilities.
+The governance of an RSE unit and its location within the organisational chart depend on the specifics of each institution.
+In order to avoid risks from unclear governance, however, leadership and responsibilities should be clearly set out at the inception of the unit.
+Finding qualified staff for an RSE unit is a challenging task, so there is a risk of it failing due to not being able to recruit the required staff.
+We provide countermeasures to that risk in section~\ref{subsec:staff}.
+Finally, an omnipresent risk in the academic sector is the availability of sufficient funding. 
+Initial funding, e. g., by initiatives outside of the university, can jumpstart the unit, but ultimately it has to prove its value to the researchers of the university such that the pooling idea we have given~\ref{subsec:pooling} gains traction.
+Even in the case that the establishment of an RSE unit fails, the employed people can still be transferred to other departments until a new research software support structure has been found.
+
 \subsection{Outsourcing}
 
 Another possibility for the realisation of local RSE Service providers is by forming a spin-off and pooling the RSE Skills into an external company, which has benefits but also drawbacks.
 This is an idea that so far lacks examples but for completeness we list some of the advantages and disadvantages.
-Among the most obvious benefits is that this enables the creation of contracts outside of the WissZeitVG.\@
+Among the most obvious benefits is that this enables the creation of contracts outside of the WissZeitVG~\cite{Germany2007}.\@
 This also widens the customer base of the RSE unit since the newly founded company may obtain contracts from industry.
 If this company is backed/branded by the institution, this enables another possibility for an institution to interact with local companies.
 This might open opportunities for employees to more freely move between industries and academia.
@@ -642,7 +657,7 @@ \subsection{Outsourcing}
 On top of these drawbacks, there are soft factors, like whether an external company is accepted by scientists.
 
 \subsection{Staff Acquisition/People}
-
+\label{subsec:staff}
 RSE units need to be staffed, but where do potential employees come from?
 So far, researchers accidentally find themselves in the role of an RSE because they pursued software development as part of their research.
 A more deliberate approach with specific RSE education may be necessary to train people in sufficient numbers for central RSE units.

positionpaper.bib

@@ -390,6 +390,14 @@ @Online{Princeton2025
   urldate =      {2025-01-31}
 }
 
+@Online{Germany2007,
+  author = {Bundesrepublik Deutschland},
+  title = {Gesetz über befristete Arbeitsverträge in der Wissenschaft (Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz - WissZeitVG)},
+  year = {2007},
+  url = {https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wisszeitvg/__1.html},
+  urldate = {2026-07-03}
+}
+
 @INPROCEEDINGS{Katz2019,
   author={Katz, Daniel S. and McHenry, Kenton and Reinking, Caleb and Haines, Robert},
   booktitle={2019 {IEEE}/{ACM} 14\textsuperscript{th} International Workshop on Software Engineering for Science (SE4Science)},

review_answers/review_1_answers.md

@@ -22,8 +22,10 @@ We thank you very much for your review and the opportunity to improve our manusc
 > The conclusions are generally consistent with the arguments presented, but somewhat stronger than the evidence allows. Recommendations for investing in central RSE units are justified, but statements suggesting widespread institutional improvements should be more carefully balanced with a discussion of risks, costs, governance challenges, and potential failure modes.
 
 **Answer:**
-We did not intend to conduct a statistically significant, representative survey of RSE units. Our aim was to collect some feedback that we can use to demmonstrate the breadth of services offered by existing units and to support the selection of service modules we defined. We have replaced the term survey with less formal formulations.
-
+The reviewer is right to suggest a more elaborate discussion of risks for an RSE unit and we took the opportunity to write a separate subsection on risks in the realisation of an RSE unit.
+However, we also did not intend to conduct a statistically significant, representative survey of RSE units.
+Our aim was to collect some feedback that we can use to demmonstrate the breadth of services offered by existing units and to support the selection of service modules we defined.
+We have replaced the term survey with less formal formulations.
 
 ---
 
@@ -32,7 +34,7 @@ We did not intend to conduct a statistically significant, representative survey
 ### Comment 2
 > Clarify the limitations of the small survey sample.
 
-**Answer:**
+**Answer:** We added a sentence that the small survey size does not allow quantitative analysis.
 
 ---
 
@@ -48,6 +50,7 @@ Please see our note above about this work being an position paper.
 > Separate factual evidence from advocacy-oriented arguments.
 
 **Answer:**
+Please see our note above about this work being an position paper.
 
 ---
 
@@ -87,5 +90,7 @@ We softened several claims in the paper
 > Expand the discussion on implementation risks, such as funding instability, unclear governance, overlap with IT/RDM units, and difficulty in recruiting qualified RSE staff.
 
 **Answer:**
+We thank the reviewer for pointing out this omission and have now added a risk assessmant and opportunities subsubsection in the realisation chapter.
+In this paragraph we elaborate on the risks mentioned by the reviewer.
 
 ---

review_answers/review_2_answers.md

@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ A mobile app development was selected as a domain-agnostic example. We have adde
 ### Comment 15
 > Module 8 ("Software maintenance service") lists three criteria for maintenance but criterion 3 ("mechanism for selecting projects") is not explained. How should institutions prioritize? Give at least two example prioritization strategies.
 
-**Answer:**
+**Answer:** The criterion reads: "For an overview of potential selection criteria see the section 'How to decide which software to sustain?' in Anzt et al, 2021." We would not want to redundantly repeat the information given there.
 
 ---
 
@@ -244,7 +244,8 @@ Please see our general answer on this manuscript being an _opinion article._
 > You do not discuss risks or failure modes. For example, what happens if a central RSE unit cannot get enough project funding? What if it competes with existing IT or RDM units? Add a short paragraph on risks.
 
 **Answer:**
-
+We thank the reviewer for pointing out this omission. We have added a subsection on risk assessmant in the realisation chapter where we elaborate 
+on the risks mentioned by the reviewer.
 ---
 
 ### Comment 25
@@ -261,5 +262,6 @@ The sentence "By unifying previously scattered RSE efforts into a coordinated ap
 > The paper has no separate "Limitations" section. This is a major flaw for a position paper that makes strong claims. Add a section after Conclusions or before Data Availability that explicitly lists: small survey size, lack of longitudinal data, focus on Germany only, no cost-benefit analysis, and no comparison to alternative models (e.g., fully decentralized RSE support).
 
 **Answer:**
+We added a sentence about the small sample size not allowing quantitative analysis to the manuscript. Regarding the strength of claims made in the manuscript, we again refer to this being an opinion article.
 
 ---