Institution A is a post-92 University with c. 20,000 students across four campuses. It is located in a city of c.150,000 inhabitants. It enjoys one of the best teaching quality ratings in the UK and a strong research record.
Review Process
At Institution A, the review process involved the Director of Information Services proposing an answer to each of the Toolkit questions, and providing a short summary of evidence to support that answer. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor then reviewed the replies and a final version was agreed.
After analysing the results of the self-assessment, a follow-up action plan was drafted by the Director of Information Services and agreed by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. The action plan included a commentary and proposed action on all the questions in the Toolkit where a “no” answer was provided. This draft was discussed at a meeting of the University’s Information Strategy Committee, where the proposed actions were generally supported and advice proffered. As a result, some items arising from the analysis of the results are being identified as being priorities in the new Information Services Strategy which is being developed at the same time; the process for formally agreeing the strategy has also been changed as a result of the analysis. A more formal review process for projects has been agreed and will be introduced shortly. A couple of items that require further consideration will be on the agenda for discussion on forthcoming meetings of the Information Strategy and Learning and Teaching Committees.
Reflections
Overall, this Toolkit has been successfully used by the University and has resulted in a useful reflection with changes identified to strategies, processes and operations. At the time of undertaking the pilot, the University had just changed its committee structure that oversees IT provision and the development of a number of strategies was underway; this fortuitous set of circumstances added to the value of the results from the Toolkit. It should also be noted that the University has a high level of centralisation of its IT services which has made it easier for the data to be assembled to address the questions in the Toolkit and act upon its findings.
The Toolkit was easy to use and the accompanying documentation was helpful. The type and number of questions appear to be about right. It was found to be necessary to clearly define terms such as “senior executive group” and “information systems” in the University’s context to obtain a common understanding of the questions and answers.
The results of the analysis highlighted a small number of areas where it had been known that insufficient attention had been paid in the past and was useful in prompting those issues to be addressed. There were also a couple of areas identified that had not been previously considered and thereby created a debate on whether there were issues to be addressed; in some cases further follow-up was actioned, in others it was agreed not to change the current position. In addition to the actions agreed, using the Toolkit has been beneficial in re-assuring the university community that the management and governance of the university’s information systems is sound.