Knowledge Strategy Committee Raeburn Room, Old College ... · 3/11/2016 · Knowledge Strategy Committee Raeburn Room, Old College Friday 11 March 2016, 10am AGENDA 1 Minute A To

Knowledge Strategy Committee

Raeburn Room, Old College Friday 11 March 2016, 10am

AGENDA

1 Minute A

To approve the minute of the meeting held on 22 January 2016 and the electronic meeting concluded on 18 February 2016.

2 Matters Arising

To raise any matters arising.

SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS

3 Student Systems Roadmap B

To consider a paper presented by Mr Barry Neilson, Director of Student Systems

4 9 Student Data Dashboards C

10 To consider a paper presented by Mr Barry Neilson, Director of Student Systems

9

5 10 EDINA and DCC Initial Approach D

11 To consider a paper presented by the Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University

12

6 13 Learning Analytics Project – Progress Report E

To consider a paper by the Vice-Principal Digital Education

ITEMS FOR NOTING OR FORMAL APPROVAL

7 Projects and Ongoing Activities Update F

To consider and note an update paper by the Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University.

8 11 Information Services – Key Performance Indicators G

12 To consider a paper by the Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University.

13

9 14 Delegated Authority Schedule – Revised Guidance DAS H

15 To approve revised guidance and DAS by the Head of Knowledge Management & IS Planning

14

10 15 Assistant Principal Digital Education – Role Description I

16 To note a paper by the Senior Vice-Principal

16

11 17 Committee Reports

IT Committee Report Library Committee Report

J1 J2

12 Any Other Business

To consider any other matter.

13 Date of next meeting

3 June 2016 at 10.00am

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2016

Minute

Present: Ms Doreen Davidson (Convener) Vice-Principal Professor Jeff Haywood Professor Richard Coyne Professor Allan Cumming Ms Alison Grant Ms Angi Lamb Dr Gordon McDougall Mr Gavin McLachlan Ms Imogen Wilson In attendance: Mrs Tracey Slaven, Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning Ms Jo Craiglee, Head of Knowledge Management & Planning Professor James Loxley Assistant Principal Professor Arthur Trew Senior Vice-Principal Professor Charlie Jeffery Mr Tom Ward, Director of Academic Services Ms Liz Welch, attending in place of Director of Finance Dr Lewis Allan, Head of Court Services Mr Simon Marsden, Director, IS Applications (for Item 3) Ms Melissa Highton, Director, Learning, Teaching & Web Services (for

Item 3) Mr Tony Weir, Director, IT Infrastructure (for Item 3) Mr Jeremy Upton, Director, Library & University Collections (for Items

3, 6 and 8) Apologies: Mr Peter Budd Dr Claire Phillips Mr Hugh Edmiston, Director of Corporate Services Mr Phil McNaull, Director of Finance Dr Catherine Elliot, College Registrar, CMVM

1 Minute Paper A

The Minute of the meeting held on 29 September 2015 was approved as a correct record. The Committee noted apologies and welcomed the appointment of Dr Claire Phillips as a new Court member of KSC. The Committee further noted that this would be the last meeting to be attended by three Senate members: Professor Richard Coyne, Professor Allan Cumming and Dr Gordon McDougall – with the Conveners of the four Senate committees expected to join Knowledge Strategy Committee

A

2

from the next meeting. Members thanked departing colleagues for their important contribution to the work of the Committee.

2 Matters Arising Verbal The Chief Information Officer provided updates on:

Student Data Dashboards (e.g. data on applications/admissions, student cohorts – characteristics, trends, progressions and outcomes, surveys and benchmarking, assessment volumes, feedback and mark turnaround, contact hours)

Prototypes have been demonstrated at a number of committees and School meetings, feedback has been uniformly positive;

A summary bid has been developed for the allocation of in-year funds to support the development and roll-out of dashboards for September 2016 based on the prototypes;

An in-year request for funding has been submitted to the Planning triumvirate; which would accelerate the project and reduce the requirement for a planning round bid for 2016-17;

A full presentation will follow at the next meeting. Chief Information Security Officer Alistair Fenemore, Deputy Head of Information Risk and Security for Prudential UK, has been appointed and will join the University on 1 February. The Committee welcomed the appointment and thanked attendee Professor Arthur Trew (Assistant Principal Computational Science) for his role in the recruitment process.

SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS 3 Information Services 10 Year Strategy

Following an introduction by the Chief Information Officer, presentations on the component parts of the emerging strategy were delivered on: Digital Transformation of Core Services and Systems The Director of Information Services Applications detailed the intention to deliver:

A customer centred ‘digital first’ design in services, processes and systems

Digital literacy for all staff

Digitisation of all paper assets, records and processes. It was noted that a number of core information systems will require replacement over the next ten years, providing an opportunity for a step change in performance. Members discussed:

The expectations of staff for rapid and regular software updates

Using cloud computing for software applications

Paper B

3

Not all processes are expected to become wholly digital (e.g. examinations)

Inclusion within the service excellence programme

The estimated total ten year cost of c. £80M. Learning, Teaching and Student Experience The Director of Learning, Teaching & Web Services detailed the intention to deliver:

Transformed learning and teaching spaces with innovative technologies and design

Scaling up of on-campus, online and distance learning

Digital platforms, analytic dashboards and tools to underpin the practice of teaching, learning, assessment and feedback.

Members discussed student involvement in shaping IS investments, providing student feedback electronically, supporting new digital forms of authorship and learning by students, publicising MOOCs to on-campus students and the importance of rationalising legacy systems to further develop online learning. Digital Research Services The Director of IT Infrastructure detailed the intention to:

Simplify the researcher journey with a ‘Federation of Excellence’

Fill service gaps (e.g. visualisation and data safe havens)

Facilitate external collaborations and joint ventures. Members considered methods of recovering digital research services costs from grants to avoid a ‘grant by grant’ approach for IT research infrastructure, such as the automatic inclusion of IT costs in grant submissions. Library National and International Leadership The Director of Library & University Collections detailed the intention to:

Establish the University as a key international digital library and collection hub, including digitising all collections

Support the move to student-led learning with appropriate campus spaces

Increase external engagement. Members commented on the high popularity of the Library with students, space utilisation and opportunities for displaying collections, including the St Cecilia’s Hall redevelopment. The projected total gross expenditure of approximately £247M over 10 years was discussed, noting that some expenditure in these areas was already taking place and would be subject to planning prioritisation and individual business cases. It was noted that current IT spend at the University is approximately 4% of turnover, below

4

some competitor institutions. Using examples of business cases for Estates projects with estimates of return on investment was encouraged.

ITEMS FOR NOTING OR FORMAL APPROVAL

4 Projects and Ongoing Activities Update Paper C

The Chief Information Officer provided updates on:

Business Intelligence/Management Information programme coordination

Distance Education Initiative

Massive Open Online Courses

Enterprise Architecture

Student Systems Roadmap

Learning Analytics

WorkTribe Research Management (formerly known as RMAS)

EdWeb Content Management System The Committee discussed improvements brought by the new EdWeb system, particularly for occasional users. The positive response from academic leads for the Student Data Dashboards project was noted, with the Committee expressing strong support for the project within the planning round.

5 IT Infrastructure Governance Paper D

Following on from the presentation of the IT Infrastructure Review paper in January 2014, the Committee approved the adoption of the proposed governance process; noting in particular the proposal that the Governance Group be authorised to re-profile the annual budget where required, across years. Re-profiling must be manageable within the approved overall Information Services budget, with appropriate regard for the distinction between capital and revenue.

6 Thesis Digitisation Proposal Paper E

9 The Director of the Library and University Collections introduced a

proposal to digitise the University physical thesis collection (approximately 25,000 theses in total, with 40% already digitised). The appropriate selection of theses for digitisation by contractors and the development of expertise and safeguards was discussed. Information Services was asked to investigate the possibility of accelerating the project within the current academic year through an in-year bid and raising awareness of the project amongst Edinburgh students was also discussed.

10 11 The Committee welcomed the proposal and approved the programme

of work to digitise the University’s thesis collection subject to the approval of the funding request in the planning round.

5

7 University Collections Advisory Committee (UCAC) Terms of Reference

Paper F

The Committee considered a revised terms of reference for the University Collections Advisory Committee, involving expansion of the Committee’s remit to include Special Collections and Archives and a proposed move of convenorship from the Chief Information Officer to an academic chair, to be in attendance at Knowledge Strategy Committee. A more pro-active remit for UCAC was welcomed and possible candidates for the academic chair discussed. The revised terms of reference and changes to the convenorship of UCAC were approved, with the UCAC Convener to attend Knowledge Strategy Committee.

8 Library Collections Facility Paper G

The Committee approved the proposal for the development of a University Collections Facility for the long-term storage and management of rare and unique collections and noted the associated potential funding requirements, with any further funding request to require a full business plan to be submitted to Estates Committee.

9 Committee Reports

IT Committee Report Library Committee Report University Collections Advisory Committee

Paper H1 Paper H2 Paper H3

The Committee noted the key points in the reports.

10 Any Other Business

The Chief Information Officer raised an item in confidence with the Committee, noting that a paper on the matter will be submitted to the next meeting.

11 Date of next meeting

11 March 2016 at 10.00am

6

Electronic Meeting

Concluded on 18 February 2016 1 High Performance Computer system purchase: INDY2

The Committee approved the purchase of a High Performance Computer system (INDY2), part of the joint EPCC and Edinburgh Genomics high performance computer and data storage systems. The Head of the College of Science & Engineering will exercise signing authority for the purchase.


11 March 2016

Student Systems Roadmap Priorities: 2016-19

Description of paper 1. This paper provides Knowledge Strategy Committee with an overview of the high level priorities which will be used to establish the detailed priorities in the Student Systems Roadmap 2016-19. This paper does not provide a review of the effectiveness of the 2013-16 Student Systems Roadmap. Action requested/Recommendation 2. KSC is invited to discuss and endorse the paper. 3. The Student Systems Board provides a regular update to KSC on the progress against the Student Systems Roadmap and key issues impacting the development of these systems. It is important that KSC has the opportunity to discuss, provide a steer and ultimately endorse the high level priorities identified by the Board, the resourcing implications and how the next phase of development sits in the wider context of change underway in the University. Background and context 4. Student Systems add value to the student experience, learning & teaching and operational effectiveness through the development of student & academic processes, digital services, the use of data, partnership working and the support that is provided to applicants, students and staff.

5. The Student Systems Roadmap 2013-16 (https://www.projects.ed.ac.uk/webfm_send/2566), published in October 2013, set out the strategic development of the department and the systems, processes and data it has responsibility for. Initial project priorities have been established for the 16/17 academic year through the Student Systems Board.

6. Established in December 2013, Student Systems operates as a partnership between the University Secretary’s Group (USG) and Information Services Group (ISG). Student Systems provides institutional leadership and direction for the support and development of key student systems including EUCLID, Personal Tutor Tools, Postgraduate Progression Management Database (PPMD), Path (course and programme information), SMART (assessment & exam board tool) and other related systems.

7. Tribal is the external supplier of the SITS system (a modular student records management system) which has been customised internally from its adoption at the University where there has been a case to do so. We signed an extension to our contract with Tribal in 2014 which takes us through to the end of 2018.

8. In addition, Student Systems supports the administration of the student journey and record, including registration, programme and personal detail changes and oversight of final course and award results. The department has responsibility for

B

https://www.projects.ed.ac.uk/webfm_send/2566

2

supporting the use of student data and responsibility for some major statutory returns including HESA Student & Offshore return and the Key Information Set (KIS). The Student Survey Unit joined the department on 1 August 2015.

9. Student Systems provides systems and support to five main groups of stakeholders: applicants, students, administrative staff, academic staff and those who use data from the systems.

10. The work of the department supports key strategic priorities and initiatives and the operational priorities of the users of the systems. The aim is to ensure support and continuous improvement of our processes and live support receives the same attention and focus as new developments and enhancements. High Level Priorities 11. The high level priority areas are outlined in Appendix 1 of the paper, with the table below providing a summary.

1. CRM to support student recruitment & admissions phase of student lifecycle.

2. Enhanced use of student data to support learning & teaching, student experience and

operational effectiveness.

3. Enhanced student digital experience.

4. Student & academic administration – faster delivery to support efficiency and effectiveness

in Schools.

5. Scan external environment for alternative suppliers in medium term (2 years)

12. Following the discussion at the Board, Gavin McLachlan commissioned a short term piece of work which will help us visualise the current and possible Student Digital Experience. This project will report in early April 2016 and will feed directly into the development of the ‘student digital experience’ strand of the roadmap.

13. The Board also recognised the need to build in a more effective approach to benefits realisation following the implementation of projects and will work with other initiatives internally to deliver this. Partnership working 14. The partnership developed and implemented in December 2012 between the IS Applications division and USG has been a critical success factor in the ability of the Student Systems to enhance the services provided to the University.

15. A key assumption made is that this partnership will continue in its current guise for the next period of the roadmap. In addition a number of strands of the roadmap will lead to the need for closer partnership working (not necessarily in the same format) with colleagues in other ‘student facing’ services in USG and Schools, the Learning, Teaching & Web Services division within ISG and the wider data community internally.

3

Business Change 16. The emergence of the Service Excellence Programme within the University and the likely prioritisation of the student lifecycle within this programme will have an impact on the priorities of Student Systems. The Director of Student Systems is working closely with the Service Excellence Programme as it emerges and will be well placed to link this work before it is formalised.

17. The development of the Student Systems roadmap should of course align with the information presented through the Digital Transformation 10 year plan. The work of student systems will link with broader ISG work on analytics, CRM and cross cutting services (document management, architecture, identity management and information security).

18. In addition the emerging principles on digital first service and process design, while not significantly different from what the service aspires to deliver, will provide an opportunity for some leadership and staff development. Resource Implications 19. For the purposes of the development of the roadmap, an assumption has been made that the core resource allocation from both USG and ISG to Student System (in terms of business analysts, testers and developers) will remain stable.

20. It is understood that business cases will need to be developed for any areas of additional investment – such as CRM for student recruitment & admissions. Risk Management 21. The roadmap may fit best under the ‘compliance’ heading of the University Risk Policy and Risk Appetite but with some of the development work and strands of the roadmap closer aligned to ‘Education & Student Experience’. Equality & Diversity 22. Not appropriate at the programme level but there may be particular strands or projects which require an Equality Impact Assessment. Next steps/implications 23. The roadmap will be re-drafted and communicated internally to reflect the priorities for 2016-19, the Student Systems Board will maintain oversight of the medium term priorities and programme of projects will fall under existing programme management arrangements. Consultation 24. The emergence of priorities has been based on conversations with key stakeholders over the past 6-12 months and formal discussion at the Student Systems Board, the IT Committee and Learning & Teaching Committee (on 16 March 2016). Further Information 25. Please contact Barry Neilson, Director of Student Systems ([email protected])

mailto:[email protected]

4

26. Author & Presenter Barry Neilson Director of Student Systems 3 March 2016 Freedom of Information 27. The paper is open.

5

Appendix 1

Student Systems Roadmap 2016-19

High Level Priority Areas

Key Area Summary

Student Digital

Experience

Digital first student lifecycle journey from enquiry through to graduation. Flip the perspective and develop the digital student

experience from the student rather than ‘system/functional’ perspective through delivery of more effective processes and user experience. Open up the student record and appropriate data and analytics to student to support learning and teaching and

the student experience. Opportunity to take some risks with student innovation in this area.

Academic & Student

Support

Evolution of the processes, systems and data that support and enhance colleagues ability to provide support and advice to

students – focussed primarily on Personal Tutors, Student Support Officers, Teaching Administration Office and Course and Programme leaders. Relationship focussed, helping colleagues understand student on an individual level with up to date

information, delivering of appropriate data and analytics to colleagues with prompts to support key actions and support.

Assessment

Deliver the established vision for support for assessment administration including: course selection process that clearly

visualises assessment schedules; clear communication with students through our systems; closer links between the VLE and the Student Record with simple workflows supporting the end-to-end assessment process; robust effective and efficient

administrative processes and systems.

Student recruitment &

admissions

Priority the delivery of CRM support for enquiries and application processes to support student recruitment and conversion

activity. Provide system and processes which enable the consistent provision of accurate course and programme information externally (and internally). Continue to enhance the use of the applicant and student data to support student recruitment

strategy. Deliver a digital first applicant journey.

Corse management and administration

Support the evolving business models within the University and reduce the time lag in doing so – for example increasing study away, collaboration activity, growth in ODL, international partnerships and MOOCS. Continue to shift the focus of the

systems to focus on School administration rather than central requirements – ask Schools for data once and closer integration

between systems supporting student & academic administration.

Continue to meet our external compliance requirements, minimising resource spent while still meeting needs.

6

Key Area Summary

Use of Student Data

Improve the use of ‘student data’ to help Schools enhance the student experience, learning & teaching and operational effectiveness with equal consideration to the content as well as the way the content is presented. Support and lead where

appropriate on the emerging learning & teaching analytics work within the University. Increasing focus on data security, accessibility and understanding of data of primary value to the University. Close engagement with wider data architecture

work and data community in the University as we seek to work across service boundaries.

Technology

Reduce our technical debt, monitor the market and think about opportunities for change in our platform. Increasing focus on

student-centric delivery, mobile and social-enhanced solutions for students and staff, real time analysis of data to support students and staff, student systems role in the interoperability across the education ecosystem, and implementation quicker,

less disruptive and less expensive ultimately.

Leadership & Service

Delivery

Challenge the scope of the roadmap and work with colleagues to flip perspective from ‘system owners’ to deliver services

from student, applicant and staff perspective. Alignment of plans, scope of work, roles and responsibilities to ensure effective use of resources and capabilities.

Lead on and support the delivery of process reviews both system and non-system to enhance operational effectiveness and

efficiency in student & academic administrative areas.

Focus on provision of excellence service to user base through training, support, continuous improvement, projects, user

interface and change initiatives.


11 March 2016

Student Data Dashboards

Description of paper 1. This paper provides Knowledge Strategy Committee with an update on the Student Data Dashboard project. This follows an initial presentation in September 2015.

2. A short demonstration of the dashboard prototype will be presented at this meeting. The Committee may wish to note that in-year funding has been secured to take the project forward during this academic year. Action requested/Recommendation 3. KSC is invited to discuss the paper and comment on the presentation and the related areas identified in the paper – links with the Learning Analytics work and wider Business Intelligence/Management Information (BI/MI) initiatives. Background and context 4. We currently have insufficient data on performance in learning & teaching and are as a result limited in our capacity to identify both high and low performance and pursue the enhancement of performance across the board. This deficit has become all the more significant given the higher level of external scrutiny – and challenging publicity – the university is receiving around its learning and teaching performance.

5. Student Systems (who work in partnership with ISG) are supporting the delivery of three areas of work designed to support Heads of School and others in understanding aspects of performance in relation to Learning & Teaching and the Student Experience.

6. This paper relates to the development of roll out of ‘student data dashboards’, the other two areas of work are the roll out of the EvaSys course evaluation system to all Schools and taught courses; and the ability to report on assessment & feedback turnaround times.

7. A request for in-year resource has been approved, pulling planned work forward from 2016/17 academic year to enable the delivery of a first phase of dashboards to Schools and work on the systems which will support this. Steer & Initial Phase 8. During 2015, Student Systems were given a steer from senior management to:

Develop our use of student data to support ways to enhance learning & teaching, the student experience and operational effectiveness;

Focus activity on what will make a difference at School level – provide support, help develop insights and share practice;

Focus on the accessibility, visualisation and transparency of data, helping to simplify and manage complexity;

Examine the use of dashboards to support these objectives.

C

2

9. Consultation with Heads of Schools, Directors of Professional Services, other colleagues and some external benchmarking took place and a number of areas Schools identified where the enhanced use of data can support their work. The table

below summarises these at a high level.

Understand applications/admissions over a

period of time and to plan for next year

Understand my student cohort(s), their characteristics,

trends, progressions and outcomes.

Learning & Teaching. Survey

data, linked to student record and other sources, some local level internal and external benchmarking. Analytics/Predictive

Standard reports for annual course and programme reviews and TPRs to have one consistent

data set, spend less time looking for data and more using it

Understand my student on an individual level and what is

happening in-year. Analytics/Predictive

Effective/Efficient.

Assessment volumes, class sizes, feedback and mark turnaround, internal and external comparison, contact hours. Analytics/Predictive

10. A number of consistent themes emerged from consultation with external Universities who are further ahead than us in this area, notably:

Accessibility, visualisation, simplicity and recognition enormously helpful in supporting change of approach in academic areas;

Clear link to strategy and key indicators along with consistency of data and consistency of use, focussed at the level of need;

Staff skills, technical capabilities and senior management support enormously important.

Prototypes 11. Prototypes have been developed using the Business Intelligence Tool and Qlikview. The prototypes have been delivered at the Academic Strategy Group, Learning & Teaching Policy Group, Learning & Teaching Committee, Quality Assurance Committee and the BI/MI Programme Board. Consistent, positive engagement and feedback from the academic community.

12. There is a clear demand – accessibility to the information at the level where colleagues can make a difference (course, programme, subject, school); consistency in data used to support key processes. 13. It has been recommended the name of the project changes to ‘Student Data Dashboards’. Options 14. The options in the table below have been considered and it is recommended that we proceed with option 3 – seek to develop dashboards with additional resources and existing corporate technology (Business Intelligence Suite).

3

1. Do Nothing.

2. Seek to develop dashboards with existing resources and corporate technology (BI Suite).

3. Seek to develop dashboards with additional resources and existing corporate technology (BI

Suite).

4. Seek to develop dashboards with additional resources and different technology (Qlikview,

Tableau etc.)

Related areas 15. There is an alignment between this project and the Civitas Learning Analytics project being led by Vice-Principal Professor Jeff Haywood. The most obvious example of this will be through the development of a policy which is going under the draft title of ‘Learning & Teaching Analytics’ which will be presented to KSC in due course. Both these areas of work will be pulling on the same or similar data sources and appropriate governance around access to and use of the data is required.

16. In addition, while developing and delivering the dashboards, the project team will need to be aware of a number of related matters which will help ensure the successful delivery of this project, but also help influence the BI/MI Strategy within the University.

Value

Are we reporting on the data which will help Schools to enhance learning &

teaching and student experience?

Resources

Ensure we have capabilities and capacity to deliver and enhance – people and

systems.

Alignment

Plan, scope and clarify roles and responsibilities. Aligning central team(s),

college and schools – one point of distribution and avoid duplication.

Trust

Data definitions agreed and accepted by community, consistency in use, one source. Data fitting in with operational structures (e.g. subject group)

Culture

Moving to greater active engagement and use by a wider group of colleagues, ease of access, visualisation, transparency.

Ethics and

security

Clarity on the use of data, access and security, avoiding unintentional

consequences.

Resource implications

17. The in-year resource will support the delivery of:

A set of student data dashboards, rolled out to colleagues in Schools to support activities relating to enhancing learning & teaching and student experience;

A more efficient and effective way of accessing the data (one source supplied from the central team delivered to academic community);

4

Support for key academic processes including quality assurance, access to survey data, understanding student cohort outcomes and progression;

Identify and deliver on appropriate technical developments to fit short and medium term requirements.

18. Resource and support implications beyond this financial year are being considered.

Risk Management 19. This work falls under the ‘Education & Student Experience’ heading on the University of Edinburgh Risk Policy and Risk Appetite. There will be issues in relation to ethics and privacy which, depending on how the project develops, will need to be considered in due course

Equality & Diversity 20. An Equality Impact Assessment will be considered by the project team.

Next steps/implications

21. Project Board and team will be established to deliver the project.

Consultation

22. The prototypes have been delivered at the Academic Strategy Group, Learning & Teaching Policy Group, Learning & Teaching Committee, Quality Assurance Committee and the MIBI Programme Board.

Further information 23. Please contact Barry Neilson, Director of Student Systems ([email protected])

24. Author & Presenter Barry Neilson Director of Student Systems

3 March 2016

Freedom of Information 25. The paper is open.

mailto:[email protected]


11 March 2016

EDINA and the Digital Curation Centre – Initial Approach

Description of paper 1. This paper provides an initial briefing on the approach being adopted for future funding opportunities for EDINA (a UK data centre based at the University of Edinburgh) and the Digital Curation Centre (DCC). Action requested/Recommendation 2. This paper is for information. The Committee is invited to comment, and to advise the Chief Information Officer, on the initial approach. Paragraphs 3 – 9 have been removed as exempt from release due to FOI. Risk Management 10. The business plans for EDINA and the DCC involve significant shifts in activity and income sources over the next 5 years, and like all projections involve a degree of uncertainty. The risks can be mitigated via control points at suitable intervals. 11. The University risks losing the opportunity to gain leverage from the world leading position that has been established in areas that serve the University’s strategic objectives, internationally and across the UK, including social engagement. Prioritisation and alignment of these capabilities against the University strategy is key. 12. The University’s future strategy for an integrated and comprehensive Digital Research Service relies upon critical components from EDINA and the DCC. Equality & Diversity 13. There are no equality and diversity implications noted. Paragraph 14 has been removed as exempt from release due to FOI. Consultation 15. This paper was first presented to Central Management Group on 1 March 2016. Further information. 16. Author Gavin McLachlan Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University 3 March 2016

Presenter Gavin McLachlan Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University

Freedom of Information 17. The paper is closed.

D


11 March 2016

Learning Analytics Project – Progress Report Description of paper 1. The paper provides an update on the learning analytics project. Action requested/Recommendation 2. Knowledge Strategy Committee is invited to note and comment on progress. Background and context 3. A proposal for a modest-scale learning analytics (LA) project focused only on our online Masters programmes and courses, was supported by Principal’s Strategy Group in October 2015. The rationale of selecting only the online Masters programmes was these provide a readily identifiable and isolated pilot group that is large enough for the pilot scheme to work within. This is also a data rich environment and one where the student expectations for immediate digital information like analytics is already high. Finally, this group represents the largest growth area of postgraduates within the University and it is critical that the University provides a very high quality and world leading service in the highly competitive world of Distance Masters courses. Paragraphs 4 – 9 have been removed as exempt from release due to FOI.

Resource implications 10. N/A Risk Management 11. A risk register has been produced by the governance group and is available upon request. Equality & Diversity 12. N/A Next steps/implications 13. As set out within the main text of the paper.

Consultation 14. N/A

Further information 15. Author and Presenter Vice-Principal Professor Jeff Haywood 3 March 2016 Freedom of Information 16. The paper is closed.

E


11 March 2016

Projects and Ongoing Activities Update

Description of paper 1. An update on various University-wide projects that fall within the remit of KSC.

Action requested/Recommendation 2. The Knowledge Strategy Committee is requested to note this update on ongoing activities.

Background and Context 3. At each meeting of KSC an update is provided on projects falling within the remit of KSC which do not fall into any additional agenda items.

Discussion

Information Security Audit (Gavin McLachlan, CIO) 4. A full paper was presented at KSC, Central Management Group, Risk Management Committee, and Audit & Risk Committee. The new Chief Information Security Officer, Alistair Fenemore, has been appointed and started on 1 February 2016. He will be working towards an action plan to address the findings from the information security audit. Enterprise Architecture (Dave Berry, Enterprise Architecture) 5. Context:

The purpose of Enterprise Architecture (EA) is to optimise IT and business processes across the University into an integrated whole that is responsive to change and supports the University strategy.

6. Work strand 1 – Developing the architecture function

The consultation with enterprise architecture teams at other institutions has continued with visits to three USA universities: the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Michigan, and Miami University (in Ohio). Our hosts shared their experience of developing an enterprise architecture, to benefit students and staff by providing more efficient and effective services. Issues covered included how to help units develop their IT strategies, approaches for project and technology governance, applications of particular architecture techniques, and how to reduce redundancy in service provision.

The EA team continue to establish relationships within the University. The recent focus has been to consolidate arrangements with IS (including the new Chief Information Security Officer), with Student Systems, with schools and colleges, and with the Data Governance Group. The priority for the next period will be to engage other support areas, especially those engaged in Digital Transformation projects.

A key remaining task for the EA team is to create the first instance of the architecture repository. This will hold artefacts such as data models, application program interface (API) descriptions, process flow diagrams,

F

2

policies and standards, as they are developed by ongoing projects. It will include catalogues of applications, interfaces, data descriptions and other artefacts so that projects can find IT functionality that they can reuse.

7. Work strand 2 – Delivering business outcomes:

The current technical focus is on Business Intelligence/Management Intelligence (BI/MI) data. The EA team are working with the BI/MI programme co-ordinator and service owner to address current limitations of the University’s BI/MI data architecture. One such limitation is that it is difficult to join together information from various sources in order to evidence behaviours and activity across the university – an example being attributing space costs to specific schools or support units. Another limitation is that the existing data sets are often poorly documented and inflexible, which has led to a range of ad-hoc workarounds. A further limitation is that the technical data models used to store our BI/MI data do not cope well with historical report requests when organisational and other structures change over time.

We are also working with the BI/MI programme and the Data Governance Group to develop a catalogue of “golden copy” data sets, a common template for data definitions, and on responses to the Higher Education Statics Agency (HESA) data futures initiative.

The EA team are providing input to several other projects, including student data dashboards, Estates strategic reporting, and the integration of Virtual Learning Environments with the student record.

Architecture will be a key contribution to Digital Transformation. Business Intelligence / Management Information (Craig Middlemass, BI/MI Coordinator) 8. Coordination of the University’s response to HESA Data Futures continues. HESA have now released two versions of their proposed data model. Interpreting this for staff and presenting it along with an update on HEIDI plus has been well received. We are on track for submitting feedback on 29 February 2016 and are signed up for subsequent workshops with HESA. It is important that we continue to engage with HESA Data Futures as the potential impact is sizable should a data model that does not reflect our structure be agreed. 9. The Data Governance Group have met as a whole again. The meeting mainly consisted of briefings on how the world has changed in the last six months with the emergence of Enterprise Architecture, HESA Data Futures, the upcoming Data Protection Regulations and the prospect of a large Digital Transformation Programme. The Data Governance Group now realise the importance of their role in moving forward the University’s approach to data management. The group have asked to meet more frequently in order to engage with these initiatives. 10. The Programme Coordinator continues to push the development of a BI Architecture strategy and roadmap. Applications Development and Support Teams are now engaged with the project and in general agreement with the direction of travel for future BI developments.

3

11. Student Systems have secured funding to proceed with their prototype dashboard. Discussions will be taking place over the coming month to determine how best to invest this money to make a fully operational dashboard. 12. Early work on the learning and development strategy has proceeded well. We are now collecting real life examples of people that fall into the various roles associated with BI. These will be used to make it easier to understand what people’s capabilities can and should be for the role they are in or aspire to. So far feedback on the approach has been positive. 13. Community meetings continue to be well attended and a new community has just been established for sharing knowledge on SQL (a programming language) reporting. Distance Education Initiative (DEI) (Amy Woodgate, Project Manager – DEI) 14. The status of final phase DEI funding remains unchanged. Allocation of additional resource for new programme development (up to £500k) is still to be confirmed but should be known imminently. 15. There has been a slight change to the programmes being considered: MSc Disaster Management (new, GeoSciences); MSc Sustainable Business; MSc Cultural Relations; Continuing Professional Development modules in Robotics. An online English Language proficiency course will also be created, building on the 2015 pilot with the School of Law. 16. The International Office has convened a high-level strategy group to coordinate the University's response to the humanitarian crisis. Online learning, especially our credit-bearing master courses have featured highly on this agenda and a paper was presented which pulled all Online Distance Learning (ODL) activity into a coherent package to aid communication and identify gaps. Amy Woodgate will work with the International Office to formulate a strategy utilising existing capacity. 17. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (Amy Woodgate, Project Manager – MOOCs) The University has a portfolio of 32 courses across three platforms, with a further 11 courses in discussion for 2016-17 delivery. There is a further queue of 43 new course ideas proposed, with new submissions received weekly and enthusiasm for building new courses rapidly increasing. 18. In excess of 2.2 million sign ups have been generated on our MOOCs to date, with 1.43 million active learners and 115,000 course certificates distributed. Edinburgh MOOC video content has received more than 13.2 million views since 2013. 19. The MOOC Strategy is currently in development, led by Jeff Haywood and Melissa Highton, and aims to be published before the end of April. The impact of MOOCs beyond the delivery of the courses themselves is clear – success stories such as Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences evidence these can be

4

useful stepping stones for internal capacity building within schools to embrace fully online practice. Creating courses as part of a portfolio of academic progression, e.g. MOOCs to ODL Masters, is likely to feature as a core part of the strategy. 20. Further collaborations are also being explored with the World Bank, British Council, and Visit Scotland, all as a result of successes within MOOC delivery to date. WorkTribe Research Management (formerly known as RMAS) (Simon Marsden, Director of IS Applications) 21. Work on delivering the new WorkTribe Research Management service has progressed well. We have evaluated the pilot service and concluded that we are able to move to full launch to all remaining schools in w/c 18 April 2016. There are still some tasks to do but the necessary ones can all be achieved in time for go live. All three pilot service schools – Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine (CMVM), Informatics (CSE) and Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences (CHSS) confirmed that they would not wish to go back to the ‘old’ service. 22. All outstanding technical issues which could have resulted in the service not being ready have been resolved. Work is now concentrating on preparing the schools who are not using the service for the change to the new service. A flexible service model which allows different levels of engagement for the schools according to their need and capability has been developed. Workshop training for the schools is due to start on 29 February. 23. There is one policy issue outstanding which is being addressed by the team and which requires approval by the Central Management Group. The policy has to balance the need for access to salary cost information for individuals in order to cost some proposals where named individuals are required on the proposal with data protection requirements. A policy has been agreed with the University’s Data Protection Officer that will be presented to CMG. The policy limits the access to individual salary cost information to those staff who require it. Authorisation to this role will be controlled by the Head of School. Only a small (handful) of staff in each School are expected to need this level of access. However, we can still widely devolve the ability to cost proposals using generic salary costs based on the grade/point required for each person on the grant. This is anonymous data and so does not have the same data protection concerns. Resource implications 24. There is no additional resource implication not considered within the project remits of the projects listed in this paper.

Risk Management 25. There are no additional risks not considered within the project remits of the projects listed in this paper.

Equality & Diversity 26. There are no additional equality and diversity impacts not considered within the

5

project remits of the projects listed in this paper. Next steps/implications 27. There will be a further update on these activities taken to the next meeting of Knowledge Strategy Committee.

Consultation 28. Knowledge Strategy Committee is the location for any discussions based on this paper – it has not been circulated to any other Committee.

Further information 29. Further information is available from Claire Maguire, Information Services 30. Author Presenter Clair Maguire Gavin McLachlan Information Services CIO and Librarian to the University

Freedom of Information 31. This paper is open.


11 March 2016

Information Services – Key Performance Indicators

Description of paper 1. This paper presents a set of the key performance indicators (KPIs) identified by Information Services as part of the Draft 2016-2019 Information Services Plan; and some recent benchmarking analysis performed on Library and IT spend. Action requested/Recommendation 2. The Committee is invited to note the paper. Background and context 3. As part of the Draft Information Services Plan for 2016-2019, we identified a set of key performance indicators that underpin our core operations. Additionally, we have undertaken some benchmarking in the areas of Library and IT spend.

Discussion 4. The operational KPIs ensure the day to day operations are maintained at an acceptable level. The combination of both these sets of performance indicators will illustrate how Information Services delivers on the core services, as well as the strategic transformations set out in the four strategies. These cover five primary areas: Quality; Learning and Teaching; Staffing and space utilisation; Public engagement; and national and international Digital Research Services. The indicators are set out in Table 1 below.

G

2

Table 1: Information Service Group Operational KPIs Library Benchmarks 5. Presented below are some recent Library Benchmarks supplied through SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries). This demonstrates the cost effectiveness of the Library service compared against the volume of the service.

KPI 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Target

Target

date Comments

Quality

NSS score: IT resources 90% 91% 91% 93% 2020

NSS score: Library resources 89% 90% 91% 93% 2020

ESES: IT resources 87% 87% 85%

ESES: Library resources 89% 89% 88% 93% 2020

ESES: Course reading list resources from - - 73%

PRES: There is adequate provision of

computing resources & Facilities 77%

-

80% 90% 2019

PRES: There is adequate provision of library

facilities 83%

-

86%

PRES: The library's electronic collections are

sufficent for my needs 75%

-

77%

PRES: The library's print collections are

sufficent for my needs 64%

-

68%

PTES: Library resources/ services good

enough for my needs

-

85% 85%

PTES: I have been able to access general IT

resources

-

89% 87%

PTES: Library electronic commection

sufficient for my needs

-

85% 82%

PTES: Library print resources are sufficient

for my needs

-

72% 73%

Total University IT spend as a % of turnover

(Net income) 3.67% 3.85% 4.00% 2018 4.5% is 2014 Education sector avg

Learning and Teaching 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Number of Online Graduate Programmes 64 67 75 2020

Schools with online, distance learning PG

courses 10 17 16 22 2018

Number of MOOCs 23 28 50 2020

Number of graduate students studying

online distance 2,400 2,167 2,610 10,000 2025

More courses were offered in 2013/14 hence

the drop in numbers 2014/15

Number of online UG courses 0 0 0 20 2025

Percentage of centrally managed Teaching

Spaces digitally enabled. 65% 70% 100% 2018

Number of Virtual Learning environments 15 15 11 2 2026

Percentage of students accessing feedback

online 60% 70% 100% 2018

Staffing and space utilisation 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

FTE 570 656 631 MVM Staff transferred in 14/15

Space utilised 58,806 57,859 57,859

m2 for staff FTE (ISG) 103.2 88.2 91.7

Public Engagemenet 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

External visitors to shows, conference,

public events 22,282 30,000 2018

National and international Digital Research

services 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

MANTRA RDM - new unique learners 9,928 12,438 13,656 20,000 2,019

External income for Digital Research

Services

ISG Operational Key Performance Indicators

3

IT benchmarking 7. Presented below are some recent benchmarks comparing the University of Edinburgh with UCL, a similar large research intensive university. A common benchmark, total IT spend as a % of annual turnover, is compared against UCL as well as the Educational sector average (obtained from Gartner research)

4

Table 2: Comparison of IT expenditure

Resource implications 8. There are no direct resource issues associated with the KPIs or benchmarking. Risk Management 9. There are no direct risk management issues associated with the reporting of the KPIS.

Equality & Diversity 10. The KPIs do not impact directly on equality and diversity matters Further information 11. Author Presenter Jo Craiglee Gavin McLachlan

Head of Knowledge Management CIO and University Librarian Information Services 25 February 2016

Freedom of Information 12. The paper is open.

Central IT spend benchmark (UOE, UCL and

Education sector average)

FY 13/14

Edinburgh

(budget) FY 13/14 UCL

% variance

Edinburgh

budget vs

UCL

FY 14/15

Edinburgh

(budget) FY 14/15 UCL

% variance

Edinburgh

budget vs UCL

Total Central IT spend - recurrent and capital (no

Library material, Library or Library desk) £20,774,340 £36,239,000 42.67% £24,843,854 £38,239,000 35.03%

Less: Recharges to Colleges & Support Groups £3,808,000 £0 £5,746,401 £0

Central spend per student £627 £1,256 50.03% £705 £999 29.46%

Central spend per staff member £2,286 £3,407 32.92% £2,637 £3,595 26.65%

Central spend per staff + student £492 £918 46.35% £556 £782 28.87%

Cetral spend as a % of annual turnover 2.65% 3.46% 3.03% 3.25%

Departmental IT Staffing* (excluding recharges) £8,029,152 £7,743,000 £6,662,400 £8,722,000 IOE merger

Total IT spend across University £28,803,492 £43,982,000 £31,506,254 £46,961,000

% of IT spend that is central 72.12% 82.40% 78.85% 81.43%

Total IT spend per student £869.93 £1,524.03 42.92% £893.67 £1,226.81 27.16%

Total spend per staff member £3,169.05 £4,135.20 23.36% £3,344.26 £4,415.29 24.26%

Total spend per staff + student £682.56 £1,113.61 38.71% £705.22 £960.05 26.54%

Total spend as a % of annual turnover 3.67% 4.20% 3.85% 3.99%

Education sector average total IT spend as a %

turnover (source Gartner 2014) 4.70% 4.70% 4.70% 4.70%

Metrics

Total annual turnover (Net income) £784,000,000 £1,047,153,000 25.13% £819,000,000 £1,177,500,000 30.45%

Total staff (FTE) 9,089 10,636 9,421 10,636

Total UG students 21,773 23,095 24,664

Total PG students 11,337 12,160 13,615

Total students 33,110 28,859 35,255 38,279 IOE merger

Total staff + students 42,199 39,495 44,676 48,915

(Note: Library spend and Library materials is not

included)


11 March 2016

Revised Guidelines and Delegated Authority Schedule for approval of IT and library spends in excess of £200k

Description of paper 1. This paper presents the draft guidelines for Colleges and Support Groups regarding the approval process for IT and library expenditures in excess of £200,000. This revision is necessary to bring the guidelines into step with the changes to the University’s Delegated Authority Schedule (DAS). The paper also presents the amended KSC Delegated Authority Schedule (Appendix 1), which updates the Schedule in line with the 2015 University DAS. Action requested/Recommendation 2. Knowledge Strategy Committee is invited to approve the revised Guidelines. Background and context 3. It remains the case that the process for approving IT and library spends in excess of £200,000 is not well understood by Colleges and Support Groups. Whilst the DAS sets out the levels of authorisation, and the delegated signatories, it does not set out the process by which authorisation is achieved. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide clarity on the process and its operation.

4. Knowledge Strategy Committee has oversight of the entire information space, and as such is best placed to review major investments in both IT and library. There has been some concern expressed regarding the inclusion within this remit of IT associated with research projects or other externally funded programmes. 5. It is not Knowledge Strategy Committee’s purpose to comment upon proposed research activity, but rather to have oversight of the University’s major investment undertakings in information technology. This enables the University to achieve optimum leverage and benefit from its investments. An example would be the investment of £2M in research computing infrastructure, combining university investment with external funding awarded to the Institute for Genetics and Molecular Medicine (IGMM) by MRC. The combined infrastructure will be managed by Information Services and this will facilitate any unused IGMM capacity to be available for wider University researcher use.

Discussion 6. Since January 2011, Colleges and Support Groups have been required to refer all IT and library related spends in excess of £200,000 to Knowledge Strategy Committee for authorisation, irrespective of their source of funding. The process described herein has been in operation since the implementation, in 2011, of the Knowledge Strategy Committee DAS. 7. Following the publication of the Scottish Higher Education Governance Code and an internal review of the University’s committee structure, Knowledge Strategy

H

2

Committee was reconfigured and the DAS updated accordingly. During the review, it was clear that the authorisation process via Knowledge Strategy Committee was not understood and, in many instances, the Committee was bypassed, with authorisations being referred straight to Court. Guidelines 8. Any IT or library related spend whose value, including VAT, exceeds £200,000 must be approved by Knowledge Strategy Committee, irrespective of the source of funding. 9. Following the implementation of the KSC DAS in 2011, Information Services worked with Procurement to agree a process for the authorisation of expenditures in excess of £200k. These draft guidelines are premised on that agreed process. 10. It is recognised that, with the exception of Information Services Group, the main area of spend, covered by these guidelines, will be that of IT. All IT spends (proposed or actual) that exceed £200k (including VAT) require to be notified to Knowledge Strategy Committee for authorisation. 11. The process for authorisation of such spends is as follows:

All Investments a. Prior to the commencement of any procurement process, Knowledge Strategy

Committee must be notified of the intention to undertake a major investment in the area of IT or library.

i. In the case of IT infrastructure, this should have been agreed as part of the IT Infrastructure Roadmap;

ii. For research project funded IT, an indication of the proposed investment should be notified to Knowledge Strategy Committee prior to submission of the grant application;

iii. For library subscriptions, a list of subscriptions >£200k due in any given year should be notified to Knowledge Strategy Committee at the beginning of each financial year.

b. Notifications should be submitted to the Head of Court Services, for inclusion on the Knowledge Strategy Committee agenda. Exceptionally, where the notification requires to be considered outwith the normal meeting cycle, the matter will be dealt with electronically.

c. Where the investment proposal is greater than £2M, Knowledge Strategy Committee will recommend the proposal to Court for approval.

Externally funded investments d. When external funding has been secured, from a Research Council or other

funding body/commercial entity, the notification to Knowledge Strategy Committee should be updated accordingly. If the award differs in any way from the original investment proposal, this will need to be drawn to the Committee’s attention..

e. If the investment is >£200k but less than £2M, procurement sign off will be undertaken by the appropriate Head of College or Support Group (as per the University’s DAS). If the investment is >£2M, the proposal will require Court approval. In these instances, the Head of Court Services, who will ensure the progression of the proposal from Knowledge Strategy Committee to Court.

3

Internally funded investments

f. If the investment is >£200k but less than £2M, procurement sign off will be undertaken by the appropriate Head College or Support Group (as per the University’s DAS).

g. If the investment is >£2M, the proposal will require Court approval. In these instances, the Head of Court Services will ensure the progression of the proposal from Knowledge Strategy Committee to Court.

Resource implications 12. These guidelines are aimed at ensuring that the University investments in IT and library are compliant with the requirements of the University’s Delegated Authority Schedule as it applies to Knowledge Strategy Committee. Risk Management 13. It is intended that the implementation of the guidelines will provide the opportunity for scrutiny of major IT and library investments at a strategic level. This will reduce the risk of the potential for duplicate investments, particularly in emerging areas of technological advancement.

Equality & Diversity 14. The guidelines do not impact directly on equality and diversity matters. Each investment proposal will address equality and diversity issues during the procurement process. Next steps/implications 15. Following approval from Knowledge Strategy Committee, the revised Guidelines will be circulated to Central Management Group for dissemination to budget holders within each Support Group and College. Further information 16. Author Presenter

Jo Craiglee Jo Craiglee Head of Knowledge Management Information Services 25 February 2016

Freedom of Information 17. This paper is open.

Appendix 1

1

Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold

Formatted: Right


Delegated Authorisation Authority Schedule Background

At its meeting of 7 December 2015At its December 2010 meeting, the University Court of the University of Edinburgh accepted a newapproved changes to the Delegated Authorisation Authority Schedule (DAS) superseding the 2010 version.authorising the The delegation of authority to Knowledge Strategy Committee (referred to as the “Delegated Authority”) to commit the University to contractual or quasi-contractual arrangements in relation to IT and library transactions and major non-estates related projects, remains in place. As per the 2010 ScheduleAs a result, all university IT and library transactions and major non-estates related projects require to be approved by the Knowledge Strategy Committee (KSC). In order to achieve this, and create a process of operation that does not impede day to day effectiveness, a sub scheme of delegation and additional signatories for Colleges and Support Groups was created. Given the increase in authorisation levels following the 2015 Schedule, a number of changes are required to the Knowledge Strategy Committee DAS., it is necessary to provide sub-schemes of delegation and additional signatories for Colleges and Support Groups. The following sub-scheme of delegation revises the 2010 version. The following sub-scheme of delegation revises the original DAS in keeping with the changes to Knowledge Strategy Committee, in accordance with the University’s response to the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance. Revised DAS including Sub-Schemes of Delegation, Knowledge Strategy Committee The revised DAS has three categories of contractual or quasi-contractual arrangements related to the Information Services Group and the Knowledge Strategy Committee: IT and library transactions *Goods, services and minor projects Major non-estates related projects * This category does not have implications for the KSC and is therefore not reported in this paper. Colleges and Support Groups will have their own sub schemes of delegation in place to cover these activities.

IT and Library transactions, and major non-estates related project categories are detailed in this paper, showing the revised DAS (including signatories) and the proposed schemes of sub-delegation (including signatories). All spend will be in line with University of Edinburgh procurement procedures. Additionally IS, in conjunction with the Procurement Office and College Accountants, will monitor IT and Library spends across the University both within and across financial years.

1.0 IT and library transactions

1.1 Acquisition of IT hardware/software and library materials

2

1.1.1 with a value of £200k or lessand up to £2 million

Delegated Authority


Signatory Head of Information Services

Scheme of sub-delegation

Authority for acquisitions up to and including £200k 2 million (incl. VAT where appropriate) is delegated to:

Heads of College

Heads of Support Group

Other signatories

Heads of College and Heads of Support Group will put in place sub-delegation schemes for their own areas.

1.1.2 with a value of more than £200k and less than £500k

Delegated Authority



Other signatories

In the absence of the Head of Information Services, Knowledge Strategy Committee delegates authority to the following individuals who are authorised to sign:

Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning If the above individuals are not available, the Principal; Director of Corporate Services; Director of Finance; University Secretary; and Deputy Secretaries, are all authorised to sign.

1.1.3 with a value more than £500k and less than £2 million

Delegated Authority



Other signatories

In the absence of the Head of Information Services, Knowledge Strategy Committee delegates authority to the following individuals who are authorised to sign:

Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning If the above individuals are not available, the Principal; Director of Corporate Services; Director of Finance; University Secretary; and Deputy Secretaries, are all authorised to sign.

1.1.42 with a value of more than £2 million authority rests with Court

3

If a decision/approval is required outwith the Court meeting cycle, there is a mechanism whereby the Court Secretariat can communicate with the Court, if required. Refer these matters to the Court Secretariat.

2.0 Major non-estates related projects

Major non-estates-related projects are major replacement and development projects concerned primarily with the university’s IT infrastructure. Recent examples include EUCLID; the University Website Redevelopment Project; and the Shared Academic Timetabling Project. There are two aspects to this category: the “award” of contract and “payment”. Both aspects involve a commitment on behalf of the University. It is proposed that there be slightly different sub-delegations and signatories for these two aspects. The following table shows the levels of contract commitments and proposed schemes of sub-delegation. Note: These proposals do not alter extant procedures related to signing and sealing of University documents, as appropriate, on behalf of the University Court.

2.1 Award of and payments for all goods, services and/or works contracts for major non-estates related projects.

2.1.1 Award of Contract, for transactions up to and including £200k 2 million (including VAT where appropriate)

Delegated Authority


Signatory

Head of Information Services


Authority is delegated to:

Heads of College


Other signatories

Heads of College and Heads of Support Group will put in place a sub-delegation scheme for their own area.

2.1.2 Payments arising from awards of contract up to and including £200k 2 million (including VAT where appropriate)

Delegated Authority


Signatory




Heads of College


4

Other signatories

Heads of College and Heads of Support Group will put in place a sub-delegation scheme for their own area.

2.1.3 Award of Contract, for transactions of over £200k and up to £500k (including VAT where appropriate)

Delegated Authority


Signatory




Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning

Other signatories

In the absence of the Head of Information Services, Knowledge Strategy Committee delegates authority to the following individuals who are all authorised to sign:

The Principal; Director of Corporate Services; University Secretary; and Deputy Secretaries.

2.1.4 Payments arising from awards of contract over £200k and up to £500k (including VAT where appropriate)

Delegated Authority


Signatory





Other signatories

In the absence of the above individuals, Knowledge Strategy Committee delegates authority to the following who are all authorised to sign:

The Principal; Director of Corporate Services; University Secretary; and Deputy Secretaries.

2.1.5 Award of contract for transactions over £500k and up to and including £2 million

Delegated Authority


Signatory




Information Services Group to progress and conclude these matters where decisions are required outwith the KSC meeting cycle.

5

2.1.6 Payments arising from awards of contracts over £500k and up to and including £2 million (including VAT where appropriate)

Delegated Authority


Signatory





Director of Corporate Services

Secretary to the University

2.1.73

Transactions over £2 million – authority rests with Court


If a decision/approval is required outwith the Court meeting cycle there is a mechanism whereby the Court Secretariat can communicate with the Court, if required. Refer these matters to the Court Secretariat.

22 October 201403 March 2016


11 March 2016

Assistant Principal Digital Education – Role Description

Description of paper 1. The paper provides the role description for the post of Assistant Principal Digital Education.

Action requested/Recommendation 2. Knowledge Strategy Committee is invited to note the role description for the Assistant Principal Digital Education post. Paragraphs 3 – 8 have been removed as exempt from release due to FOI. Risk Management 9. The post is needed in order to maintain our position of leadership in digital education in what is now a highly competitive field. Equality & Diversity 10. Full consideration of Equality and Diversity issues has been undertaken by those involved in these discussions. Next steps/implications 11. To move to advertisement and recruitment to the post, with a report on progress to the next meeting of Court. Consultation 12. Principal, Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University, Vice-Principal Digital Education. Further information 13. Author Senior Vice-Principal Professor Charlie Jeffery

Presenter Senior Vice-Principal Professor Charlie Jeffery

7 March 2016 Freedom of Information 14. This paper is closed until the job description has been published.

I


11 March 2016

IT Committee Report Committee Name 1. IT Committee. Date of Meeting 2. 15 February 2016. Action Required 3. KSC is asked to note the key points. Paragraphs 4 – 21 have been removed as exempt from release due to FOI. Full minute 22. Full open papers and minutes are available online at: http://www.itc.isg.ed.ac.uk/ Equality & Diversity 23. No specific diversity issues were raised by the Committee. Further information 24. Author Presenter Simon Marsden Gavin McLachlan Information Services CIO and Librarian to the University February 2016 Freedom of Information 25. The paper is closed.

J1

http://www.itc.isg.ed.ac.uk/


11 March 2016

Library Committee Report Committee Name 1. Library Committee. Date of Meeting 2. 10 February 2016. Action Required 3. KSC is invited to note the key points. Paragraphs 4 – 33 have been removed as exempt from release due to FOI. Full minute: 34. Full open papers and minutes are available online at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/about/organisation/library-and-collections/strategy-planning/library-committee. Equality & Diversity 35. No specific diversity issues were raised by the Committee. Further information 36. Further information is available from Convener: Mr Gavin McLachlan Stand-in Convener: Mr Jeremy Upton, Director of Library and University Collections Secretary: Mrs Louise Tierney, Library and University Collections 19 February 2016 Freedom of Information 37. This paper is closed.

J2

http://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/about/organisation/library-and-collections/strategy-planning/library-committee

http://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/about/organisation/library-and-collections/strategy-planning/library-committee

Knowledge Strategy Committee Raeburn Room, Old College ... · 3/11/2016 · Knowledge Strategy Committee Raeburn Room, Old College Friday 11 March 2016, 10am AGENDA 1 Minute A To

Documents