Approved
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
PROJECT COORDINATION GROUP
23 January 2014
(2pm – 4pm)
MINUTES
Chair
Bryn Morris (OBM)
Present
Marc Albano (MA), Jo Andrews (JA), Nicola East (NE), John Fell (JF), Emma Hardy (EH),
Richard Harrison (RH), Bernarde Hyde (BH), Peter Luther (PL), Richard Murphy (RM), Richard
Stock (RS), Sonia Virdee (SV), Jane Wright (JW)
Secretary
Clare Hornsby (CH)
1
Apologies
Noted
2
1/14
2/14
Minutes of the last meeting, 5 December 2013 (PCG/14/01)
Noted
3
Tracy Robinson (TR), Zoe Manning (ZM)
John Fell was welcomed to the meeting.
The minutes from the previous meeting were approved.
3/14
Matters arising from the minutes
a) Action log (PCG/14/02)
Noted
The matters arising from the 5 December 2013 meeting of PCG were approved as
correct and progress was noted.
4/14
b) Membership portal (verbal update)
Noted
The term ‘Membership portal’ would only be used internally and non-standard entry
points would be considered within the scope of the project, as requested by PCG at
its December 2013 meeting.
5/14
The new portal would push dynamic social media content and other relevant
information to prospective students applying to the University for 2015-16 entry. The
existing portal would be available for use as a contingency measure.
6/14
The portal was not connected to the application process.
7/14
c) Communicating project success (PCG/14/03)
Agreed
The example communication plans, and proposed approach for the promotion of
project successes, were approved.
8/14
4 SUMS review
a) Revised management response to the SUMS review of MIS working practices (PCG/14/20)
Noted
Paper PCG/14/20 had been circulated to members of PCG after the distribution of the
agenda, but in advance of the meeting. This paper replaced the verbal update noted
on the agenda.
9/14
Action undertaken in response to SUMS’ recommendations was varied. Despite two
vacant positions recently being filled, recruitment continued to be problematic. There
were concerns that without the full complement of staff, significant progress could not
be made.
10/14
3
Agreed
The importance was emphasised of progressing the development of indicative
allocations of MIS resources to routine maintenance, enhancements and projects, in
order to inform the PCG and its sub-groups in making decisions on the medium and
long-term development of the Strategic Projects Portfolio.
11/14
New ways of working had been introduced to increase productivity as an interim
measure, prior to MIS being restructured.
12/14
It was not immediately evident from the report where progress had been made, and
where action was still required.
13/14
Appendix A should be updated to include an additional column for the purpose of
displaying a RAG rating. Green should be used to indicate the completion of an
action; amber to indicate that an action had been initiated but was incomplete; and
red to indicate where work had not yet commenced.
14/14
SUMS would assign a day’s resource to help MIS identify priorities.
15/14
Action: BH
A revised version of Appendix A should be submitted to the March 2014 meeting of
PCG for consideration.
16/14
Action: RM
A full project report providing up-to-date RAG ratings and highlighting any
recommendations that it was proposed would no longer be taken forward, together
with the rationale for any such recommendations, should be submitted to the July
2014 meeting of PCG.
17/14
Action: RM
An approach to the reporting of available and committed enhancement and project
resources should be established and submitted to a future meeting of PCG for
consideration for approval.
18/14
Action: JF/ RH/ RM/ RS
b) Review of MIS development tools (PCG/14/04)
Noted
Agreed
The costs outlined in the options appraisal would need to be adjusted according to
the level of activity required. It would be expensive to replace the systems developed
using the UNIFACE toolset, and a significant amount of resource would be required
to bring about and embed the necessary cultural changes resulting from such a
replacement. Capital investment priorities would need to be considered, and the
appetite for significant cultural change determined.
19/14
The difficulties in drawing simplistic comparisons for costs, resources and time
between the University and other institutions were noted. In-house systems and off
the shelf systems both offered potential benefits and raised potential issues, although
the nature and impact of these varied between the two approaches.
20/14
Uncertainties associated with changes to the HE environment made it difficult to
determine which of the options set out in the report would be most appropriate.
21/14
A revised proposal should be submitted to a future meeting of PCG by the Director of
ISS and Head of MIS (input from the ICT Steering Group and CBSSG would also be
welcomed), which addressed the following question:
22/14
If the University is to realise its ambitions of establishing itself within the top 25 of UK
universities, and increase student numbers by 50%, what approach to student facing
systems would best:

enable the University to be agile, efficient and responsive to opportunities within a
free student market;

facilitate strong correspondence with students and deploy impactful points of
contact;

provide a reasonable level of assurance that the organisation could maintain a
robust system;
4

be affordable, sustainable and enable the management of risk.
Action: RM/ JF
c) Review of IT financial management, purchasing and deployment (PCG/14/05)
Agreed
The Terms of Reference were approved, noting that the proposed reporting date of
January 2014 was no longer appropriate and that this report would be delivered in
Spring 2014.
23/14
5 HEFCE Postgraduate Support Scheme (PSS) (PCG/14/06)
Noted
Agreed
The bid submitted to HEFCE proposed that the PSS Steering Group report to PCG,
in its capacity as a sub-group of USG. It was suggested that the Education
Committee should receive periodic updates on the Scheme for information only.
24/14
Although the bid did not reference research led teaching, this would be kept in mind
during the development of future proposals.
25/14
The full project plan should be submitted to the March 2014 meeting of PCG for
information.
26/14
Action: RH
The reporting arrangements proposed in PCG/14/06 were approved.
27/14
6 An update on the use of Smartsheet (PCG/14/07)
Noted
Smartsheet was a helpful project management tool, although accessibility issues
needed to be addressed.
28/14
Agreed
To approve the continued use of Smartsheet, but that a liberal approach to the use of
Smartsheet should be adopted as it would not be appropriate to introduce sanctions
for those who did not use Smartsheet to manage their projects where appropriate
alternative approaches were being utilised.
29/14
7 Progress report on the Strategic Projects Portfolio (SPP) (PCG/14/08)
Noted
Agreed
The statuses of projects 1214, 1215, 1217, 1219 and 1270 were noted.
30/14
Since the December 2013 meeting of CBSSG, mitigating action had been taken to
improve the status of project 1215. An updated progress report was expected to be
received at the January 2014 meeting CBSSG, for referral to the March meeting of
PCG.
31/14
Although the overall status of project 1217 was reported as green, this was queried
by the Group, in light of a revised completion date proposed in Annex 3. The green
status reflected the successful technical implementation of the eProcurement
software, however work to embed the cultural change within the organisation was still
required.
32/14
The revised completion dates for projects 1215 and 1217 were approved.
33/14
8 Student Services Hub progress report (PCG/14/09)
Noted
The overall project status was green for the current period.
34/14
9 Requests for project mandate
a) The criteria for determining a projects priority ranking (PCG/14/10)
Noted
The criteria for determining a projects priority ranking were noted.
5
35/14
b) Big data dashboard (PCG/14/11)
Noted
Agreed
The mandate request had been considered at the January 2014 meeting of ASSG to
help inform its development. The Group raised concerns regarding the working title of
the project and had recommended that it only be used internally. During discussions
at ASSG, it was noted that Library records would not be made available to tutors
without the express permission of individual students.
36/14
PCG confirmed that the University would not require student consent in order to
share student data with tutors. It was imperative that staff had access to information
that would help them support students to maximise their potential.
37/14
The project objectives were similar to those of existing and forthcoming projects such
as the attendance monitoring and the HEAR projects. It was noted that many of the
project objectives could be delivered through other mechanisms.
38/14
The project mandate was rejected.
c) Cashless payments (PCG/14/12)
Noted
Agreed
Concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of claims set out in the paper regarding
the impact the project would have on student recruitment and retention.
39/14
Cashless payment options were available at other institutions and therefore PCG
agreed that the project would prevent loss rather than deliver a significant competitive
advantage to the University.
40/14
Mobile phone cashless payment technology was already available, and should be
considered for implementation at the University, to future proof the cashless payment
service.
41/14
The project was mandated. The full project proposal should include realistic project
benefits and should confirm whether the service would be made available to staff.
42/14
d) CV builder (PCG/14/13)
Noted
Agreed
The mandate request had been considered at the January 2014 meeting of ASSG to
help inform its development.
43/14
The quality of student CVs would not be improved as a result of the implementation
of a CV builder tool alone. There needed to be a mechanism in place that would
ensure students received feedback regarding the quality of their CV. It was
suggested that this support could be provided by departments.
44/14
Concerns were raised regarding the amount of resource required from the Learning
Technology Team. It was suggested that resource estimates may increase during the
course of developing a full project proposal.
45/14
The project was mandated with a 2-2 rating.
46/14
Opportunities to make the CV builder available to graduates for a defined period of
time should be considered.
47/14
PCG’s feedback should be reflected in the full project proposal.
48/14
e) Improving the provision of reading lists (PCG/14/14)
Noted
Agreed
The mandate request had been considered at the January 2014 meeting of ASSG to
help inform its development. The Group suggested that reading lists should
differentiate between those books that needed to be purchased and those that could
be borrowed from the library.
49/14
The project would have a positive impact on student conversion and retention.
50/14
The project was mandated with a 3-2 rating.
51/14
6
f) Purchase and implementation of ‘SOTER’ software (PCG/14/15)
Noted
Agreed
A project mandate request had been considered at the December 2013 meeting of
PCG. The mandate had been referred back to the Project Manager for information
relating to the volume of activity the project would support; confirmation of the cost of
the software and budget source; and further details regarding interfacing potential
with existing corporate systems.
52/14
The additional information had been included in the revised project mandate request.
53/14
The project was mandated with a 2-2 rating.
54/14
g) Development of the Essex Sport website (PCG/14/19)
Noted
Agreed
The mandate request was circulated to members of PCG as a late addition to the
agenda.
55/14
Concerns were raised about the accuracy of claims set out in the paper regarding the
proposed impact of the project, as access to sporting facilities was not recognised as
a student recruitment game changer.
56/14
The development of the Essex Sport website would not require PCG approval. The
Project Manager should contact WEDM to discuss the scope of the website redesign
and timetable for delivery.
57/14
If during discussions with WEDM a tightly scoped project was identified that met the
criteria for requiring PCG approval, a revised mandate request could be submitted to
a future meeting of PCG for consideration.
58/14
10 Projects for approval for implementation
a) Review for the web content management system (verbal update)
Noted
Consideration of this matter would be deferred until the March 2014 meeting of PCG
due to time constraints.
59/14
Agreed
A full project proposal should be submitted for the Group’s consideration.
60/14
Action: RM
b) Start your journey: skills resources for applicants to Essex (PCG/14/16)
Noted
Agreed
This project was mandated by Chair’s action in December 2013. The recruitment
cycle had driven the project timetable which was notably tight.
61/14
£30,000 was required to enable the development of Moodle content. This was not
available within the Learning and Development revenue budget.
62/14
The project timetable did not include milestones for reporting project progress or
closure.
63/14
The project was approved for implementation.
64/14
The required financial resource should be secured from the Registrar and Secretary’s
budget.
65/14
Action: OBM
A project progress or closure report should be submitted as appropriate to ASSG in
April 2014.
66/14
Action: JA
11 Reports on completed projects
Noted
Consideration of the closure reports for projects 1202 and 1264 would be deferred
until the March 2014 meeting of PCG due to time constraints.
7
67/14
12 Forthcoming projects
Noted
Consideration of this matter would be deferred until the March 2014 meeting of PCG
due to time constraints.
68/14
13 Any Other Business
Noted
There was no other business.
69/14
14 Date of Next Meeting
Noted
13 March 2014, 2pm to 4pm in the Vice-Chancellors Boardroom.
Clare Hornsby
Project Officer
Strategic Planning and Change Section
January 2014
8
70/14