Approved
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
PROJECT COORDINATION GROUP
14 March 2013
(14.00 – 16.00)
MINUTES
Chair
Bryn Morris (OBM)
Present
Marc Albano (MA), Jo Andrews (JA), Jo Davies (JD), Emma Griffin (EG), Richard
Harrison (RH), Bernarde Hyde (BH), Zoe Manning (ZM), John Fell (JF) standing in for
Richard Murphy (RM), Richard Stock (RS), Joanne Tallentire (JT) standing in for
Vanessa Potter (VP)
Secretary
Anda Šadinova (AŠ)
1. Apologies
Nathan Bolton (NB), Maria Fasli (MF), Vanessa Potter (VP), Tracy Robinson (TR),
Richard Murphy (RM), Jane Wright (JW), Sonia Virdee (SV)
2. Minutes of the last meeting, 24 January 2013 and matters arising (PCG/13/11)
Noted
A clarification was made to the item 8 in ‘matters arising’. Staff Timetable project –
Technical solution was currently under consideration.
36/13
Agreed
The minutes from the 24 January 2013 were approved as a correct record of the
meeting.
37/13
Noted
Matters Arising:
38/13
1. A draft of a scalable University approach to business process review was
item 5 on the agenda.
2. The four projects endorsed by the ASSG had been added to the
University’s project portfolio.
3. Issues regarding policy changes instigated by the 1257 - Attendance
Monitoring project had been submitted to the USG for agreement and
would come to the 16 May PCG meeting for resource allocation and
scheduling.
4. 1212 - Languages for All Programme enhancement project had been
added to the University’s project portfolio.
5. CBSS paper regarding the resource availability to carry out all approved
project was item 6 on the agenda.
6. The proposed revised approach to the approval, management and
governance of projects was item 4 on the agenda.
7. e-Procurement and iHR Phase 2 projects had been added to the
University’s project portfolio.
8. Flexible Study Project had been added to the University’s project
portfolio.
9. CBSS paper regarding the resource availability to carry out all approved
project was item 6 on the agenda.
10. Short narrative had been added to the project portfolio RAG updates.
1
3. Report from SUMS Review of MIS working practices (PCG/13/12)
Noted
BH introduced the SUMS Review of MIS outcomes and presented the executive
summary of the review, and explained the reasons behind the initiation of the
review.
39/13
BH stressed that it was essential that a University wide IT Strategy was
articulated, similarly additional investment to increase ISS delivery capacity
needed to be considered.
40/13
Issues regarding the MIS staffing were discussed, including skills levels required
and reasons for the difficulties in acquiring suitable candidates for vacancies.
41/13
The review suggested the need for increased project management skills across
the ISS and particularly in the MIS team, and more capacity to carry out business
analysis was needed. It was also stressed that when University projects were
costed, the MIS resource costs needed to be taken into account.
42/13
The group stressed that it was not only important to understand the full costs of
projects, but also those of enhancements to the existing systems. CBSS would
revise its terms of reference which in future would include the overview of
enhancements.
43/13
Agreed
The project had been very useful and the final report was thorough and essential
in understanding actions to be taken forward.
44/13
Noted
JF reported on the changes already made to the MIS team as a result of the
SUMS review, and assured the group that all the changes would be introduced
within 1 – 2 months.
45/13
A question was raised regarding the processes for commissioning SUMS
facilitated reviews and the ways actions coming out of those were taken forward.
46/13
There should be a benefits analysis at the University wide level to understand
which areas would benefit most from a SUMS review. The initiation of SUMS
reviews would continue to rest with the Registrar. Final reports and
recommendations resulting from SUMS and other external reviews would be
overseen by the PCG. If the area reviewed was not relevant to the ToR of the
PCG it would refer it to the appropriate body. Otherwise, PCG would seek
management response to the recommendations and would oversee the resulting
projects.
47/13
In case of the SUMS review of the MIS working practices, RM needed to develop
the management response to the actions recommended in the report and submit
a change project plan for the implementation of the relevant actions to the PCG
for approval and scheduling.
48/13
Agreed
4.
Approval, management and governance of projects – proposed revised approach
(PCG/13/13)
Noted
RH introduced the paper outlining the revised approach. He underlined that the
new approach was designed to build on the progress and success of the last two
years in the area of project governance.
49/13
The report identified a number of key issues relating to the University’s current
process for approving, managing and overseeing projects, and proposed
revisions to the University’s current processes and structures for project
management in order to increase their effectiveness.
50/13
2
The group needed to clarify the levels of authority and responsibility across the
University when approving and endorsing projects.
51/13
It was essential to make sure that the PCG and its subgroups worked at the
appropriate levels:
 Subgroups (CBSS, ASSG) engaging in the detailed and essential work in
understanding the cost/benefit analysis, resource requirements and the
feasibility of the projects
 PCG focusing on the strategic themes and direction of travel of the
University’s project portfolio.
52/13
There was a need to create a broader capacity for project management across
the University as practice of working.
53/13
Questions were raised regarding the feasibility of and approach to the
implementation of some of the recommendations in the paper, particularly those
relating to paragraph 10 – more effective embedding of project management
across a wider range of activity.
54/13
BM would discuss the options for the implication of the paragraph 10 with Sue
Endean
55/13
The paper was excellent and the group agreed with the outlined approach. The
group agreed with the recommendations of the paper.
56/13
Noted
There were still outstanding issues to resolve:
 Report mechanisms to USG
 PCG budget
57/13
Agreed
Paper should be presented at the Professional Services Group.
58/13
Agreed
5.
Establishing an institutional capacity and approach for business process review
(PCG/13/14)
Noted
Agreed
6.
RH introduced the paper. The purpose of the report was to propose a coordinated approach to developing an institutional capacity in the area of business
process reviews. There needed to be a general capacity across the Professional
Services and some specialist capacity for complex and large business reviews.
59/13
The group noted that the same staff capacity issues applied as outlined in minute
54/13.
60/13
Issues regarding staff training resource implication and the importance of
sequencing in the context of the development of the University’s Strategic Plan
were highlighted.
61/13
Recommendation set out in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the paper.
62/13
Paper should be presented at the Professional Services Group.
63/13
Resource availability and project prioritisation (PCG/13/15)
Noted
The summary narrative of the project portfolio was helpful.
64/13
3
Agreed
Noted
7.
8.
65/13
PCG approved the changes to the project portfolio proposed by the CBSS.
Including:
 1244 – Campus Wide Access Control – there had been no policy decision
regarding the introduction of a campus wide access control, therefore the
project should be removed from the project portfolio.
 1245 – Changing Room Numbering – project should be removed from the
project portfolio.
66/13
Going forward there needed to be clearer indication from ISS regarding the
resource availability to carry out projects (e.g. low/medium/high confidence
levels/resource estimation)
67/13
It was proposed that under the new governance arrangements, if projects in the
‘proposed’ category do not come forward with a business case in an agreed time
frame, they should be removed from the project portfolio.
68/13
RS and JF introduced the Student Services Centre – Additional Resource
Planning Notification. The intention of the paper was to flag the issue of additional
resource requirements, with a more detailed project proposal to be submitted to
PCG in May.
69/13
Project Proposals (PCG/13/16)
Noted
1260 – Languages for All – project was an overarching proposal for the
Languages for All activity.
70/13
Agreed
Project was approved and would be submitted to CBSS for overview.
71/13
1261 – Review for Web Content Management System – Project approved. Project
manager to enquire whether the ‘invitation for consultancy to appointment of
consultants’ phase of the project could be shortened.
72/13
Noted
1254 – Scholarships and Bursaries management project – JT introduced the
project highlighting that the need for the project was recommended in the SUMS
review of Tuition Fee Budgeting.
73/13
Agreed
That the project was institutionally significant and therefore had the PCG mandate
and would go back to CBSS for business analysis resource allocation.
74/13
1262 – Technology Upgrade to the Essex Student Portal – project approved
75/13
Next Steps
Noted
9.
CBSS had reviewed the project portfolio and as a result had proposed to remove
4 projects from the project portfolio and had revised statuses of others.
The next meeting of the PCG would take place on the 16 May 2013, 14.00 –
16.00 in the Vice-Chancellor’s boardroom.
76/13
Any Other Business
Noted
There was no other business.
77/13
4
Actions
1. Final reports and recommendations resulting from SUMS and other external reviews
would be overseen by the PCG.
2. RM - to develop the management response to the actions recommended in the SUMS
Review of MIS working practices and submit a change project plan for the
implementation of the relevant actions to the PCG for approval and scheduling.
3. BM - to discuss the options for the implication of the paragraph 10 in Approval,
management and governance of projects – proposed revised approach (PCG/13/13)
with Sue Endean.
4. RH - Approval, management and governance of projects – proposed revised approach
(PCG/13/13) to be presented at the Professional Services Group.
5. RH - Establishing an institutional capacity and approach for business process review
(PCG/13/14) to be presented at the Professional Services Group.
6. RH - 1244 – Campus Wide Access Control and 1245 – Changing Room Numbering to
be removed from the Project Portfolio. Changes endorsed by the 26 February 2013
CBSS and approved by 14 March 2013 PCH to be implemented in the Project
Portfolio.
7. RH - 1260 – Languages for All; 1261 – Review for Web Content Management System;
1262 – Technology Upgrade to the Essex Student Portal; 1254 – Scholarships and
Bursaries management project to be included in the Project Portfolio.
Anda Šadinova
Strategic Planning and Change Section
15 March 2013
5