Approved
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
PROJECT COORDINATION GROUP
18 September 2013
(14.00 – 16.00)
MINUTES
Chair
Bryn Morris (OBM)
Present
Marc Albano (MA), Emma Hardy (EH), Richard Harrison (RH), Bernarde Hyde (BH),
Zoe Manning (ZM) (by conference phone), Richard Murphy (RM), Anda Sadinova
(AS) (replacing Vanessa Potter), Richard Stock (RS), Sonia Virdee (SV)
Secretary
Clare Hornsby (CH)
1
Apologies
Noted
2
The 2013-14 Terms of Reference for the Project Co-ordination Group (PCG)
were noted.
191/13
Minutes of the last meeting, 11 July 2013 (PCG/13/42)
Agreed
4
190/13
Terms of Reference (PCG/13/41)
Noted
3
Jo Andrews (JA), Vanessa Potter (VP), Tracy Robinson (TR), Jane Wright (JW)
The minutes from the 11 July 2013 meeting of PCG were approved as a correct
record of the meeting.
192/13
Matters arising from the minutes
a)
Action log (PCG/13/43)
Noted
That the time scale for all pending actions had been revised or were scheduled
to be discussed during the meeting.
193/13
1. Approval, management and governance of projects
Noted
At the September 2013 PSG away day it had been agreed that the Head of
Learning and Development would develop a competency framework applicable
to all professional services staff.
194/13
Agreed
The status of action 55/13 should be changed to ‘completed’.
195/13
Action: CH
b)
Progress report on the review for the web content management system (PCG/13/44)
Noted
A brief summary of the project’s background was provided. It was confirmed that
the original financial and staff resource allocated to the project was no longer
available.
196/13
Although still a priority, a request was made for the status of the project to be
revised from ‘approved’ to ‘mandated’.
197/13
An ‘off the shelf’ web content management system would be purchased and a
consultant should see the project through until the start of the tender process.
The consultant would not be able to bid for the tender.
198/13
3
Agreed
The project status should be changed from ‘approved’ to ‘mandated.’
199/13
Action: CH
A full project proposal should be developed and submitted to the December
2013 meeting of CBSSG and the January 2014 meeting of PCG for
consideration for approval for implementation.
200/13
Action: RM
5 ISS update on projects and related developments (PCG/13/45)
a) Resource availability and impact on existing projects
Noted
Agreed
A brief overview of the paper was provided. Work was underway to develop
recruitment packs and resolve outstanding issues relating to the payment of
agency services.
201/13
A procurement process and framework for pursuing non-standard methods of
recruitment should be developed, however its absence should not prevent the
recruitment of staff in this instance. Reduced staffing levels had adversely
affected ISS’s ability to deliver against expectations.
202/13
The vacant MIS posts should be advertised by Friday 20 September 2013.
203/13
Action: RM
b) An action plan for the utilisation of UNIFACE
Noted
UNIFACE continued to be a current programming language (for example it
underpinned the University’s HR system, and Tribal’s SITS system). It was not
used to develop electronic student files and would not be used for future
projects.
204/13
Agreed
An options appraisal which considered systems architecture and the student
records systems should be submitted for consideration at the January 2014
meeting of PCG.
205/13
Action: RM
c) Revised management response to the SUMS review of MIS
Noted
Work to implement the recommendations made by SUMS following the review of
MIS working practices was on hold. Staff departures had reduced capacity within
MIS to take forward the recommendations.
206/13
Agreed
An updated management response to the SUMS review should be submitted for
consideration at the January 2014 meeting of PCG.
207/13
Action: RM
6 An update on the development of an institutional business process review capacity
(PCG/13/46)
Noted
Agreed
It was noted that the Library had not wanted to engage with business process
reviews. All other departments within Professional Services would be
represented at the training and the Faculty Managers would also attend.
208/13
Processes relating to committee servicing, staff starters and leavers, and payroll
processes were suggested as possible areas which could benefit from being
reviewed.
209/13
Departments/ service areas would not have to engage with business process
reviews unless a process review touched upon their area of work.
210/13
Faculty Managers should be contacted to determine if additional members of
211/13
4
staff could be identified to attend the half day business process review training.
Action: CH
Recommendations A-G as set out in paragraph 7 of the paper were approved.
212/13
Heads of Professional Services would be contacted to discuss opportunities to
undertake small scale process reviews during the 2013-14 academic year.
213/13
Action: RH
A report would be submitted to the October 2013 meeting of PCG detailing the
outcome of discussions with Heads of Professional Services
214/13
Action: RH
7 Project Managers’ Network
Noted
The Project Managers’ Network had been very successful during the 2012-13
academic year. An overview of the frequency, length and planned content of
meetings to be held during the 2013-14 academic year was provided.
215/13
Agreed
The group should be re-titled as the Change Network, and consider issues such
as cultural change, change management and communication in addition to
acting as a network for project managers. When considering future agenda
items consideration should be given to how the work of the Group supported the
University’s strategic aims.
216/13
8 2013-14 SUMS reviews
Noted
Agreed
A list of potential SUMS reviews for the 2013-14 academic year would be
available for consideration and approval at the October 2013 meeting of PCG.
The Head of Strategic Projects and Change would contact the Academic
Registrar to discuss a review of the shape of the academic year.
217/13
During the 2012-13 academic year, the University had drawn down 65 days of
SUMS consulting time against a normal entitlement of 40 days. This would be
considered when the compiling the final list of projects to be taken forward
during 2013-14. Additional consulting days could be purchased if this was
required.
218/13
The University had been invited to participate in a professional service
benchmarking exercise commissioned by Goldsmiths University. Confirmation of
interest was required from Registry and Finance.
219/13
A report outlining the projects to be undertaken by SUMS during the 2013-14
academic year should be submitted to the October 2013 meeting of PCG.
220/13
Action: RH
9 SUMS review of JACS codes (PCG/13/22)
Noted
A brief introduction and summary of the paper was provided. As a result of the
project, Academic Departments were now better informed about matters relating
to the allocation of JACS codes, better engaged with the process and the
professional services teams involved.
221/13
Mainstream consideration of JACS codes would be embedded within the
University’s culture through the production of guidance documents and support
from SPCS, CER and the Academic Section. Departmental judgement should be
exercised with regards to the allocation of JACS codes and support from
relevant professional services should minimise drift.
222/13
Staff undertaking periodic reviews required training and guidance to ensure they
had sufficient knowledge and understanding of JACS codes. The use and
223/13
5
allocation of JACS codes should be reviewed again in three years.
Agreed
In addition to considering JACS codes within periodic reviews, there would be
value in the University undertaking a light-touch institutional review of the use of
JACS codes again in three years to ensure that the institutional guidance
remained current and that this was being implemented effectively.
224/13
The review did not include the revision or analysis of the JACS codes used by
partner organisations; this had been considered when the project was originally
scoped. Greater understanding of JACS codes within partner institutions had
been achieved, and steps such as giving partners access to guidance
documentation on JACS codes would help to further this.
225/13
The recommendations outlined in the SUMS report and management response
were considered appropriate.
226/13
Partner institutions should be invited to attend any future training sessions
relating to the allocation of JACS codes, and published guidance would be
shared with them.
227/13
Action: Chris Woods (CW)
The training and/or guidance documentation given to periodic review teams
should be revised to ensure that these teams would be in a position to discharge
their new responsibility in relation to JACS codes.
228/13
Action: CW/Claire Nixon (CN)
The allocation of JACS codes to undergraduate courses should be considered
again in three years in order to identify and correct any divergence from
published guidance documents.
229/13
Action: SV
The project closure report should be submitted to earliest appropriate meeting of
PCG for consideration.
230/13
Action: CW
10 Progress report on the Strategic Projects Portfolio (SPP) (PCG/13/48)
Noted
Agreed
The format of the report was different from earlier editions as primary
responsibility for monitoring projects now resided with ASSG and CBSSG.
Future SPP reports would follow this format and would be received at every
meeting of PCG.
231/13
Following the circulation of PCG papers, reporting milestones for projects 1203,
1214 and 1261 were established; the reporting milestones for projects 1219,
1221 and 1262 were outstanding. PCG would consider whether these projects
should continue to be categorised as live, or should be changed to cancelled, if
the reporting milestones were not confirmed by its October 2013 meeting.
232/13
The Director of ISS confirmed that projects 1219 and 1221 would be managed
by John Fell until an alternative project manager could be appointed.
233/13
The revised project completion dates outlined in paragraph 7 of the report were
noted.
234/13
Although it was recognised that SUMS reviews were different from other
projects, it was agreed that they should remain within the SPP.
235/13
Completed, cancelled and rejected projects would not be included in future
editions of the SPP report.
236/13
The new manager of projects 1219 and 1221 should be confirmed by Friday 27
September 2013.
237/13
Action: RM
6
The terms of reference and Project Management Framework would be included
as agenda items at the next meeting of ASSG, to ensure full understanding of
the Group’s role and responsibilities as a sub-group of PCG.
238/13
Action: CH/JW
The Group agreed that all projects set out in Annex 4 were monitored by the
most appropriate group or sub-group.
239/13
Reporting milestones for projects 1219, 1221 and 1262 should be confirmed to
the Change Team in advance of the October 2013 meeting of PCG.
240/13
Action: RM/JF
11 Outstanding Project Approval Issues
a) Invigilator Timetables (PCG/13/49)
Noted
Agreed
A brief introduction to the paper was provided. It was confirmed that the project
would need to be delivered within the next three years as part of the academic
plan.
241/13
PCG agreed that the project was important and had the potential to deliver
significant service improvements, but felt that there was not sufficient staff
resource available to deliver this project during the 2013-14 academic year.
242/13
The project should be removed from the SPP.
243/13
Action: CH
A mandate request could be submitted to PCG for consideration in Autumn
2014.
244/13
SUMS would make some preliminary enquiries to determine which systems are
used by other HEIs.
245/13
12 Requests for Project Mandate
a) KPI Reporting (Phase 2) (PCG/13/50)
Noted
Agreed
The costs shown in the paper were estimates; it was thought that the project
could be delivered for around £200,000 half of which would be spent on
consultancy fees.
246/13
Concerns were expressed regarding the project’s proposed timescale as there
did not appear to be enough time to assess and fully realise the benefits of the
first phase of the project (including how the data provided via the new system
informed decision-making, as well as just the delivery of data through the
system) or to consider feedback from system users.
247/13
An options appraisal relating to how KPI information can best be delivered
should considered. It was anticipated that this would cost around £20,000 to
determine the scope of the project and identify required improvements, but it
was not clear whether the resource for this work was available or if a request for
additional resource would need to be made.
248/13
The project mandate form was referred back to the Project Manager for further
development and resubmission to the October 2013 meeting of PCG. The
revised document should be narrower in scope and address the timing concerns
raised by members of PCG.
249/13
Action: KL
7
13 Projects for Approval for Implementation
a) Opportunity and Client Management System
Noted
Agreed
The paper was not available for consideration for approval for implementation
however a brief update was provided by the chair of CBSSG.
250/13
CBSSG considered the paper electronically in September 2013, however some
resourcing issues were identified and required further clarification. A revised
paper was scheduled to be considered at the September 2013 meeting of
CBSSG.
251/13
PCG were advised that the project required the procurement of an ‘off the shelf’
system and the resulting procurement processes meant that the window for
approving the project for implementation was relatively short.
252/13
Following consideration at the September meeting of CBSSG, the paper should
be circulated electronically to members of PCG for consideration for approval for
implementation.
253/13
Action: CH
14 Any Other Business
Noted
There was no other business.
254/13
15 Date of Next Meeting
24 October 2013, 14:00 to 16:00 in 4N.6.9 (Estates Management Meeting
Room) (Colchester) and GB.2.31/R2.76 (Southend)
Clare Hornsby
Project Officer
Strategic Planning and Change Section
20 September 2013
8
255/13