Content

Institution B is one of the newest universities in the UK with about 10,000 FTE students. Six academic Schools are the basis for the teaching and research activity. Research and knowledge transfer is a comparatively small but growing activity. The University’s Strategic Plan states that the institution aims to be “a student-facing, learner-centred institution, regionally engaged and nationally acknowledged”.

The University’s Strategic Plan is supported by a number of sub-strategies, of which the E-Strategy is the most relevant to the topic of this case study.

The University’s E-Strategy vision aspires to develop and deliver:-

• Learning supported by electronic systems which deliver access anywhere, anytime, as required

• Staff involved in learning and teaching supported by desktop and mobile solutions which give them access to the applications, information, and communications required

• The business and administration operation of the University to be user-focused, efficient and effective, on-line, world-wide

• Information and communications provision to support the wider strategy in respect of excellence in learning, teaching and research

• Students and users of services to be attracted to a university which embraces the latest technology and systems in support of all activities

Information Systems (IS) management and governance arrangements at the UniversityThe main provision and support of information systems at the University is the responsibility of the Information Services department. Information Services (INS) was formed in September 2006, from a merger of IT Services (ITS) and Information Resources and Services (IRS) departments. The Director of Information Services was appointed in April 2006, having previously held the post of Director of IRS. The established staff of the Department is approximately 95 FTE staff, with a budget of £4 million. Physical services are located in two campus libraries, and two campus IT Centres. The areas of activity encompassed in the new department include:

• Library operations from two campus libraries

• Open access IT facilities across the two campuses

• Support for media services across the two campuses

• Support for web-based information resources (e-journals and increasingly e-book provision) and services

• Support for university staff desktop and remote access to networked systems and services

• Support for student access to broadband network through student halls of residence, and for wireless networks across the two campuses

• Management and development of the managed learning environment for the university

• Central IT support for management information for financial, personnel and student records functions

• Provision of JANET access through the local Metropolitan Area Network (in partnership with local universities)

• Support for the university’s main web site infrastructure, and support to School and departmental web-based information provision

• Records management for the university

• Leadership of major aspects of the University’s E-Strategy

 

As the department was being formed in the course of 2006, the time during which this case study was being undertaken was a transitional one in terms of ‘local’ management of direct service provision. However, the University’s arrangements in respect of overarching management of the E-Strategy have remained consistent and thus provided a stable context for engagement with the project.

Direct operational input to the achievement of the University’s E-Strategy is also made by the Information and Planning Unit (a sub-unit of the Directorate), by the Director of Learning and Teaching, and by the Staff Development unit within the Department of Human Resources. The six academic Schools have specialist computing where applicable within their own provision.

The University E-Strategy is overseen by the E-Strategy Advisory Group, chaired by the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor. This has a membership drawn from both the operational management areas involved and from ‘user’ representatives from the academic Schools, and other support departments. Detailed work on updating the strategy and advising on allocation of resources is done by a small sub-group (again led by the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor, consisting of the Director of Information Services, the Director of the Information and Planning Unit, and the Director of Learning and Teaching. This sub-group considered the self-assessment Toolkit in the course of June 2006. Each member of the sub-group was briefed on the project, provided with background information and asked to answer the Toolkit questionnaire individually. The group then met to discuss the outcomes and agree a group view.

Review Process

Members of the E-Strategy Sub-group largely felt able to complete the Toolkit questionnaire, with perhaps the expected number of queries over terminology and interpretation. It was agreed for example, that the University’s ‘E-Strategy’ could be regarded as equating to the ‘Information Strategy’ of the Toolkit questions. (At the time of the initial formulation of the E-Strategy, the Group had discussed the terminological issue and settled upon a joint understanding of the scope of the agreed terminology.)

Vision

We were therefore largely able to answer ‘yes’ to the Vision section; that the University has defined its strategy for information systems and IT, that there was a process of systematic review through the E-Strategy Advisory Group, and that these were linked to other University strategies through the overall management of the strategic planning process by the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the University’s Planning and Resources Committee. The Group agreed however that not all of the existing information systems were explicitly covered by the E-Strategy, there being some specifically School-based systems which fell outside the scope of the central management. This provided a useful reminder of the potential need for co-ordination of such activity across the institution.

Alignment

The view on alignment was also largely in the positive, with the exception of Q3 relating to the approval of investments, as again, although the E-Strategy Group made recommendations about investment in the centrally-steered systems, not all investment in systems which happened through the Schools and the devolved budgeting arrangements would necessarily be co-ordinated centrally. 

Assurance

Discussion of this section showed a largely positive view, with the questions provoking some discussion about the true meaning of the word ‘external’, and that review arrangements varied between differing elements of the E-Strategy. An example of clear external audit being applied is the consideration given to the effectiveness of arrangements for the support of e-learning which comes through the academic quality assurance agencies such as Ofsted and the QAA. However, the sub-group acknowledged that some other elements of the strategy are not audited explicitly to the same extent.

Resources

Although the E-Strategy does consider any additional staffing requirements of specific projects (for example, for the implementation of the new Student Records System, an active project at the time of writing), there is currently no mechanism for a more holistic review of staff resources required to progress the strategy as a whole. Discussion led to a view that while risk management in connection with IS activity is considered as part of the overall Risk Management activity for the institution (several of the key risks involve elements of the E-Strategy) this has not hitherto involved consideration of the risks of reliance upon key individuals at the university level, although it does form part of the local management arrangements in, for example, the Information Services department. Addressing deficiencies in respect of staff skills sets and knowledge are explicitly part of the E-Strategy itself, but this was couched principally in terms of staff skills needs as users of information systems rather than considering the needs of those providing and operating the systems and services.

Technology

Discussion on this section revealed differences of approach and context. For the major elements of the university’s management information systems, for example, there has been a clear link to hardware and software provision planning. There has also been a move in recent years towards a ‘rolling programme’ of investment in updating desktop systems but a central approach to this has not been universally accepted throughout the institution - some of the Schools prefer a different approach. The refreshing of the network and cabling infrastructure is also partial – good at the level of connections to the local MAN but less good in relation to networking buildings and ensuring speeds of connectivity suitable for purposes such as supporting e-learning.

Finance

The University keeps a very watchful eye on finances. However, the devolved budgeting arrangements militate against holistic review of both initial investment and also retrospective review of benefit. The institution tracks reasonably well what is spent and gets very good value for money in procurement, but there is less emphasis, except in relation to specific large-scale projects, on systematically reviewing whether the expected benefits have materialised.

Structure

Discussion on this aspect showed that the University does not have an overt formal approach to the alignment of structure with strategy, but the fact that a converged Information Services department had been formed was indeed the result of a senior management-led consideration of this very issue. The absence of a documented overall policy explaining rights and responsibilities was noted. However, the group questioned whether such an approach was useful in the context of the institution at the present time. 

Policies

The University has maintained a consistent effort in recent years to ensure that its approach to policy formulation and approval is fit for purpose. There is awareness however that there is a distinction to be made between formulating policies and everyone in the institution being aware of, and consistently applying them. Subsequent to this discussion, an internal audit report revealed a need to revisit some policy statements governing access to and use of IS systems.

Decision making

The consideration of decision making showed a large degree of consonance with the implied best practice in the questions, with the exception of the aspect concerning identification of obsolete services and systems to be discontinued. The context of the University’s history and financial resources often led to the continuance of arrangements with outdated operating systems and ‘legacy’ systems in particular niche applications.

Systems

Like most institutions, the University considers itself on a path towards integration of systems and IS services, rather than having achieved such integration. 

Projects

Discussion in the sub-group led to the consensus that project management in the institution is well-established and rigorous. There may be a need to apply a project management approach more systematically to the smaller projects and not just the most financially significant ones.

 

Service delivery

Arrangements for gathering and using user feedback on services are considered to be well established and effective.

 

Reflections

The systematic approach to consideration of the issues involved in IS governance and management brought to bear by the self-assessment tool was felt to be valuable and to have been helpful in identifying some areas in which improvement to approaches was desirable. Whilst there was the expected debate in some points about what was ‘meant by’ certain terminology, the very presence of that debate was useful in highlighting different perspectives.

 

 

Areas for potential attention identified as a result of the self-assessment

• Devolved provision: the need for co-ordination of such provision and related activity across the institution as part of the E-Strategy.

• Differential audit arrangements: not all the elements of the strategy are audited explicitly.

• The lack of a holistic view of staffing resources required to progress the strategy as a whole.

• The University is not explicit in considering the risks of reliance upon key individuals.

• Staff development needs of those providing and operating the systems and services are not considered as part of the E-Strategy, but are considered within operational plans of the contributing departments.

• The University has a ‘rolling programme’ of investment in updating desktop systems but this has not been universally accepted throughout the institution, leading to variation in provision for staff access to desktop systems.

• The degree to which the E-Strategy incorporates an explicit funded plan for refreshing the network and cabling infrastructure may require further consideration.

• Some enhancement of the processes of review of investment, especially in terms of retrospective review of benefit could be a useful addition.

• The University does not have an overt formal approach to the issue of striking an appropriate balance between devolved, decentralised approaches and a more centralised approach to IS systems and management.

• There is a lack of a mechanism to ensure that gaps in policies governing access to and use of IS systems are systematically addressed.

• The University could do more to address the risk of overlong continuation of arrangements in respect of outdated operating systems and ‘legacy’ systems in particular niche applications

Action Plan implementation progress

As the timing of this self-assessment has coincided with the major structural change of a shift to a merged ‘Library’ and ‘IT’ department it has not been possible to make as much progress on the action plan as intended at the start of the process. The University intends to revisit the potential action areas as part of the next review of the operational plan for the E-Strategy and take steps accordingly, after identifying priority areas among those listed above.

 

Conclusion

The case study has demonstrated that the self-assessment Toolkit is able to ‘surface’ underlying issues in relation to IS governance and management in a way that is amenable to identification of potential action areas. It is perhaps inevitable, given the dynamism inherent in the uptake of technology and its incorporation into strategic planning, that the ability of the institution to fully complete the assessment process by moving to the action plan stage is inhibited by major organisational changes already in train in respect of the topic areas under consideration. Nevertheless the University feels that the analysis thus far has been of great interest and usefulness, and will be able to inform subsequent actions to good effect.