Approved
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
PROJECT COORDINATION GROUP
6 December 2012
(14.00 – 16.00)
MINUTES
Chair
Bryn Morris (OBM)
Present
Marc Albano (MA), Jo Andrews (JA), Jo Davies (JD), Maria Fasli (MF), Emma Griffin
(EG), Tim Gutsell (TG) standing in for Vanessa Potter (VP), Bernarde Hyde (BH), Zoe
Manning (ZM), Richard Stock (RS), Sonia Virdee (SV)
By invitation
Richard Harrison (RH)
Secretary
Anda Šadinova (AŠ)
Apologies
Richard Murphy (RM), Nathan Bolton (NB), Vanessa Potter (VP), Tracy Robinson
(TR), Jane Wright (JW)
2. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING, 31 OCTOBER 2012 AND MATTERS
ARISING
Noted
Minor corrections to the minutes were made:
 Internal communications between the 3 campuses was not a stand-alone
project but remained a priority
Agreed
The minutes from the 31 October 2012 were approved as a correct record of the
meeting.
3. PROJECT PROPOSALS VIA CBSS – 15 OCTOBER 2012 MEETING
Agreed
That the item should be withdrawn due to the cancellation of the last CBSS meeting.
Projects had not been considered by the group.
The next CBSS meeting was scheduled after the 24 January 2013 PCG meeting;
however a subgroup of the CBSS would look at the projects and would submit a
prioritised list to the January PCG meeting.
The subgroup would also map the available ISS/MIS resources on the current and
proposed projects.
Noted
The PCG was reliant on the CBSS for the initial filtering and resource appraisal for the
projects with significant IT/Systems components. The issues regarding the meeting
frequency of the CBSS had to be resolved.
The project proposals submitted were not completed correctly and fully. RS would
communicate to project managers through the CBSS the expectations that the project
proposals should be completed thoroughly before submitting.
A question regarding the urgency of any of the projects on the list was raised. ENROL
1
Languages for All project was recognised as urgent. It would be looked at in more
detail by the subgroup of the CBSS.
It was suggested that the enrolment in other non-credit bearing courses could be
included in the scope of the project (e.g. employability related activities).
Agreed
The expansion of the projects scope would be considered while recognising the limited
resources available and that the Languages for All enrolment had to be delivered by
Summer 2013.
Noted
More work needed to be done regarding the distinction of major and minor projects as
well as ‘business as usual’ tasks. MIS Review project would clarify this issue to some
extent.
4. PROJECT PROPOSALS DIRECT TO PCG
 e-Procurement Science Warehouse Pilot
Noted
MA introduced the project to the Group. The project’s purpose was reported to be
threefold:
 to ensure compliance with the University’s financial regulations
 to provide better experience for the users of the system and to enable
informed buying decisions
 to control the list of suppliers in the system
A question was raised regarding the projects main purpose. It was suggested that the
purpose of helping University staff to purchase necessary items as easily, rapidly and
cheaply as possible should be stressed as essential.
A question regarding the IT/web implications of the project was raised. The Group was
assured that the project would not require significant internal IT/web support as the
system would be hosted externally and would automatically link to Agresso.
A question as to whether the e-Procurement system would function successfully for
academics who were engaged in various research projects was raised.
Agreed
The pilot of e-Procurement project was approved subject to the following
enhancements to the project proposal:
 Identified project manager for the e-Procurement project
 Explicit success criteria for the pilot project.
The pilot project was to be concluded in November 2013. The ISS resource
requirement was minimal.
 iHR Phase 2
Noted
MA introduced the project to the Group indicating that the Phase 1 of the project was
now complete and there was a stable base to build Phase 2.
A question was raised as to the possibility of capping the Midlands consultancy fee at
£150k as indicated in the project proposal. MA would explore this possibility.
Agreed
Staff management information was an essential selling point of the iHR system,
therefore it needed to figure more explicitly in the project proposal, for example, as
2
part of the main subprojects of the iHR Phase 2.
Noted
It needed to be considered whether the project could be linked to the Staff Satisfaction
Survey.
Whether the Learning and Development module could be looked at in parallel with
others in order to plan functionality etc, but made available to staff in line with the rollout proposed.
A question regarding the roll-out phasing and extent of the iHR modules was raised.
Agreed
The iHR Phase 2 project was approved subject to following changes:



Agreed
The project needed to be redistributed as discreet phases rather than a single
continuum. E-payslips, Employee Self Service and Health and Safety modules
would be rolled-out first throughout the University community by the end of the
academic year.
There needed to be an identified project manager with experience in change
management, supported by colleagues from internal communications.
The iHR System needed to be accessible from the Staff Portal.
Project Proposals submitted to the PCG needed to be sharper documents outlining
benefits, their realisation, timelines and resources needed. They should not come to
PCG when already decided.
Project Proposals needed to focus on benefit realisation. There needed to be baseline
data where possible in order for it to have comparison to decide regarding benefits.
5. PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTS
Noted
All ‘live’ projects identified at the 31 October 2012 PCG meeting that had not reported
regularly previously were asked to send a project progress report.
A question regarding adding additional scope to the project was raised, who can
authorise such additions and when are they appropriate.
Agreed
Flexible Study project – RS would communicate to the project that a new project
proposal should be submitted to the CBSS that demonstrated the intention to broaden
the original scope of the Modular Study project.
Noted
A question was raised regarding projects that needed to be discontinued
Agreed
Staff Timetable project – unless there was a non-labour intensive solution to staff
timetable and Microsoft Outlook calendar integration, the phase 2 of the project should
be discontinued.
Noted
Agreed
Admissions related projects – were mission critical; however the projects had no
resources allocated to them, neither IT nor CER.
Project proposals needed to be rewritten with appropriate level of specificity regarding
 What needed to be done and when, in order for the benefits to be realised
 Specific resources needed for the projects IT and other.
3
Noted
Student Support Client Update – overall progress was ‘red’. The project had issues
regarding ISS resourcing.
Agreed
RS would discuss the issues regarding the project progress and what phase 2 of the
project entailed with the project manager and a paper on mitigation plan and
consequences of not completing the project would be submitted to the 24 January
2013 PCG meeting.
Noted
Common risks indicated in the project reports included:
 Additional requirements added to the projects in the delivery phase
 Tasks taking longer than anticipated to carry out due to various reasons
 Single points of failure
 Resource conflicts with other work/projects
 Absence of project manager/no ‘formal’ project team
 Securing sufficient IT resource/availability of internal resource to carry out
projects
Agreed
The Project Progress Report would be expanded to give project managers the
opportunity to indicate whether the project’s remit indicated in the original proposal
continued to be valid.
6. PROGRESS OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW
Noted
USG had endorsed the priorities set out in the Professional Services Review. Many of
the priorities mentioned in the report already had ongoing work underway.
A project proposal was underway to acquire and implement web content management
system.
8. NEXT STEPS
Noted
The next meeting of the Project Coordination Group will take place on the 24 January
2013, 14.00 – 16.00 in the V-C’s Boardroom.
9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Noted
The first meeting of the Project Manager Network has been set for the 19 December
2012.
Agreed
AS would forward details regarding the meeting to the members of the PCG.
Actions
1. RS (with RM and JF) to look at the CBSS projects and submit a prioritised list to the
By 24.01.13
January PCG meeting together with mapping of the available ISS/MIS resources on
the current and proposed projects.
2. RS to communicate to project managers through the CBSS the expectations that the
project proposals should be completed thoroughly before submitting.
ASAP
3. CBSS to consider the expansion of the L4A ENROL project scope while recognising
the limited resources available and the essential deadlines for L4A.
By 24.01.13
4. MA to amend the e-Procurement project proposal to include: identified project
manager and explicit success criteria for the pilot project.
By 24.01.13
4
5. MA to explore the possibility of capping the Midlands consultancy fee at £150k as
indicated in the project proposal.
ASAP
6. MA to amend the iHR Phase 2 project proposal including:
 Redistribution of the project in discreet phases rather than a single continuum. Epayslips, Employee Self Service and Health and Safety modules to be rolled-out
first throughout the University community by the end of the academic year.
 Identified project manager with experience in change management and support by
colleagues from internal communications.
By 24.01.13
7. RS to communicate to the Flexible Study project to submit to the CBSS a new project
proposal demonstrating the intention to broaden the original scope of the Modular
Study project.
ASAP
8. RS to communicate to the Staff Timetable project that unless there was a non-labour
intensive solution to staff timetable and Microsoft Outlook calendar integration, the
phase 2 of the project should be discontinued.
ASAP
9. AS to communicate to Joanne Tallentire that the Admissions related project
proposals needed to be rewritten with appropriate level of specificity regarding:
 What needed to be done and when in order for the benefits to be realised
 Specific resources needed for the projects IT and other.
ASAP
10. RS to discuss the issues regarding the Student Support Client update project
progress and what phase 2 of the project entailed with project manager and a paper
on mitigation plan and consequences of not completing the project would be
submitted to the 24 January 2013 PCG meeting.
By 24.12.13
11. AS to forward details regarding the Project Manager Network meeting (19 December
2012) to the members of the PCG.
ASAP
12. AS to amend the Project Progress Report template to give project managers the
opportunity to indicate whether the project’s remit indicated in the original proposal
continued to be valid.
ASAP
5