Approved
Chair Bryn Morris (OBM)
Present
Apologies
Secretary
Marc Albano (MA), Jo Andrews (JA), Jo Davies (JD), Maria Fasli (MF), Emma Griffin
(EG), Bernarde Hyde (BH), Vanessa Potter (VP), Tracy Robinson (TR), Sonia Virdee
(SV)
Nathan Bolton (NB), Richard Murphy (RM), Richard Stock (RS), Jane Wright (JW)
Anda Šadinova (AŠ)
Agreed
Noted
The minutes from the 27 June 2012 were approved as a correct record of the meeting
The Staff Timetable project was ‘live’
Noted
Agreed
The project had been approved by the USG
The project should be entered in the University’s project portfolio
Noted
Agreed
Project currently was without a project manager; however the new Information
Manager would undertake the project management, once in post.
Project currently was behind the schedule established in the project proposal. After the project manager was in place the timetable needed to be reworked with input from RM regarding the capacity in ISS.
Phase 1 of the project would be completed by March 2013 with the input from a
Business Analyst, provided there was capacity in ISS.
A review would take place after completing Phase 1 and the viability and priority of
Phase 2 over other initiatives would be decided in January.
Noted The project offered a mechanism to recognise professional development for those staff that teach. Project had generated interest and applications for a pilot group had already been received.
Page 1 of 4

Agreed
The project expected to have 50 participants in the first year in addition to the pilot group, if participation was voluntary.
The project milestones were on track.
There were important opportunities to connect the CADENZA project to other projects in the University (e.g. iHR).
The project should be entere d in the University’s project portfolio
Noted The delivery date of the project had been pushed back due to unforeseen complexities of the project; however the achievement of the project’s objectives were broadly on track.
After the resolution of the project’s technical elements the outputs would be rolled out to a wider University audience.
Further meetings were taking place with users to help shape reporting priorities and to focus the work of the project manager.
The STARS project had identified and involved benefit owners at the beginning of the project in order to give the project manager the correct steer as to the priorities.
However there was now work to be done in quality assuring the data and checking the underlying assumptions.
A question was raised regarding the access to the data created by the project.
The group was impressed an encouraged by the outputs of the project and the work of the project manager. Access would initially be restricted to a small group of expert users.
Noted
Agreed
Noted
MA introduced the post-implementation review of the iTrent project (Phase 1).
The iTrent system phase 1 went live on time and on budget; however there were issues with the system, that had taken 1 year to resolve, as well as issues with the contract signed with the provider.
The specifications for the phase 2 of the project would depend on the provider’s demonstration in October 2012 of modules to come (Recruitment, Learning and
Development, Health and Safety).
MA would report to PCG regarding the specifications and proposal for phase 2 after the October 2012 meeting with the providers.
There were sufficient staff resources to support the iTrent and Agresso systems within the Finance team; however more resources were needed for change management, as it was agreed that the implementation process could not be solely systems driven.
These issues should be picked up on in the phase 2 PID.
Page 2 of 4

Agreed The benefits of the project needed to be communicated better and more widely.
There were a number of lessons learned from the phase 1 of the iTrent project that needed to be communicated to Professional Services sections and other projects (e.g. regarding procuremen t, etc). This would form the beginning of a ‘good practice’ repository regarding project management.
Noted
Agreed
Noted
Agreed
JD introduced the PCG communication plan. The communications plan would help to establish consistent communications around the aims and purpose of the PCG.
Several changes needed to be made to the key messages in the communications plan:
 PCG had members from across the University
 PCG oversees projects across the University
A network of project managers across the University would be established, and project management training would most likely be offered through Learning and Development.
The website, published materials and permissions were discussed.
The link with Capital Projects on the web was discussed.
The webpage should be linked to the Professional Services Review webpage
The webpage was fit for purpose and should grow as a repository of project information
Further communications should indicate that if projects were missing or needed updating on the website colleagues should contact AS.
Agreed
Noted
The high-level project portfolio RAG summary was fit for purpose.
The PCG was dependant on CBSS regarding information about status of various projects.
Administrative Review of the Essex Business School was a new project that should be brought to the PCG.
Noted
Agreed
Minor amendments were made to the project closure report
Project closure report was deemed fit for purpose and was approved
In order to further develop the project management document suite, a template of a project plan was needed. The drafting of one would involve project managers across the University in order to create the most efficient and user friendly template.
Page 3 of 4

Noted Project plan template could include a guide that would facilitate estimating of staff costs for a project
Noted JD presented an update on the progress of the preparations for the all staff survey that would be carried out in the Autumn term 2012.
Preparations for the survey were proceeding successfully. Trade Unions had been involved in the preparation process and ISER had helped with the survey design.
The wider communications surrounding the 2012 survey would include a section on what had been achieved since the 2009 all staff survey.
Managers in Departments and Professional Services sections should communicate to their staff regarding the availability of the survey and encourage them to participate.
Questions regarding the ownership of the staff survey were raised.
It was suggested that the survey results should be benchmarked against the sector.
Noted The Professional Services Review final report had been considered by the
Professional Services group and would be viewed by the USG on 1 October 2012.
After USG had seen the final report, the findings would be disseminated wider to managers across the University. BM would discuss the findings in the next all staff meeting.
Noted The head of Strategic Projects and Change had been recruited and would commence in late November.
Debbie Brooke had taken up the post of Project Manager in the Strategic Planning and
Change Section and would be the project manager for the Admissions Projects.
Noted Next PCG meeting was scheduled for 25 October 2012
Noted TR would not be able to attend following two PCG meetings due to teaching arrangements.
Anda Šadinova
Strategic Planning and Change Section
8 October 2012
Page 4 of 4