Approved
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
PROJECT COORDINATION GROUP
13 March 2014
(2pm – 4pm)
MINUTES
Chair
Bryn Morris (OBM)
Present
Marc Albano (MA), Nicola East (NE), John Fell (JF), Emma Hardy (EH), Richard Harrison (RH),
Bernarde Hyde (BH), Peter Luther (PL), Zoe Manning (ZM), Richard Murphy (RM),
Richard Stock (RS), Sonia Virdee (SV), Jane Wright (JW)
Secretary
Clare Hornsby (CH)
1
Apologies
Noted
2
71/14
Minutes of the last meeting, 23 January 2014 (PCG/14/21)
Noted
3
Jo Andrews (JA), Tracy Robinson (TR)
The minutes were approved as a correct record of the meeting.
72/14
Matters arising from the minutes (PCG/14/22)
Noted
The matters arising from the January meeting of PCG were approved as correct, and
progress was noted.
73/14
4 A revised management response to the SUMS review of MIS working practices – annex A
(PCG/14/23)
Noted
Agreed
Paper PCG/14/23 had been circulated to members of PCG after the distribution of the
agenda, but in advance of the meeting. RAG ratings denoting progress and priority
rankings against each of SUMS’ recommendations had been incorporated into Annex
A, as requested at the January 2014 meeting of PCG.
74/14
Section planning arrangements and the development of the Information Supporting
Strategy would dictate the rate at which progress was made in a number of areas.
75/14
The MIS team was expected to have a full complement of staff by the end of April.
Team structures would be evaluated during the 2013-14 summer term to ensure they
were appropriate in light of the University’s current position, which may have changed
since the SUMS review was carried out.
76/14
A strategic project funding model had been successfully applied on a number of
occasions. It was therefore suggested that progress against action 18 should be
amended from amber to green.
77/14
A review of progress should be submitted to the July 2014 meeting of PCG, as
agreed at the Group’s January meeting.
78/14
Action: RM
5 An update on the development of the University’s Lean review capacity and activity
(PCG/14/24)
Noted
PCG approved the University’s approach to the development of a Lean review
capacity in July 2013 and this paper outlined progress which had been made to date.
A further report would be submitted to the July 2014 meeting of PCG detailing
benefits delivered as a result of lean reviews undertaken during the 2013-14
academic year, and making proposals on the further development of the University’s
approach to Lean review in 2014-15.
1
79/14
Agreed
An approach was suggested that would see the Lean Hub facilitate lean reviews to
support the delivery of strategically important projects as identified by PCG; review
departmental and professional services processes identified as part of the annual
planning process; and undertake a number of reviews for one or two sections within
Professional Services on an annual cycle. It was proposed that this approach would
be implemented from the 2014-15 academic year, in order to embed lean principles
and a culture of continuous improvement throughout the organisation.
80/14
It had been difficult to attract new members to the Change Network sessions because
of existing work commitments and competing priorities. It was hoped that
engagement with the network could be improved through greater internal promotion
of the network to the wider University community, through staff participation in lean
reviews and attendance at training sessions delivered by the Change Team.
81/14
Overall good progress had been made and PCG were supportive of the Lean Hub’s
approach for 2014-15 as detailed in minute 80/14.
82/14
A report detailing the benefits delivered by the Lean Hub’s 2013-14 programme, and
proposing the Hub’s work programme for 2014-15, should be submitted to the July
2013 meeting of PCG.
83/14
Action: Debbie Brooke (DB)
The theme of continuous improvement should be incorporated in the overarching
plan for Professional Services. The annual planning process should also be used to
identify processes and projects that could benefit from a lean review.
84/14
Action: OBM/SV/RH
6 Progress report on the Strategic Projects Portfolio (SPP) (PCG/14/25)
Noted
A number of projects had been mandated for more than six months without a full
project proposal having been submitted to PCG or its subgroups.
85/14
It was suggested that projects should only be mandated for a period of 12 months,
after which time, project managers should (a) advise PCG that the project is no
longer required; or (b) request that the deadline for the submission of a full project
proposal be extended; or (c) submit a full project proposal for PCG’s consideration.
86/14
The progress of projects 1206, 1211, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1219, 1229, 1247, 1263,
1265, 1268 and 1270 was noted.
87/14
1206 – MIS to CMIS (timetabling data)
88/14
The project was originally scheduled for completion in February 2013 however due to
staff performance issues within MIS the project had not been completed. The current
system would only be effective whilst the current Systems Administration Manager
was in post and therefore it was essential that the project was implemented fully. A
revised project timetable was set out in Annex 3.
1211 – Flexible Study
89/14
Although significant progress had been made in relation to strand one of the project,
the schedule had slipped and it had been necessary for the Project Manager to
propose a new timetable; this was set out in annex three.
A revised project timetable for strand two of the project would be submitted for
consideration at the May meeting of PCG.
90/14
1215 – Agresso upgrade/ tuition fee budgeting
91/14
The overall project status was amber-red. It was confirmed that the new Agresso
software could not be upgraded at a modular level. The project was beginning to
progress well.
Good progress had been made in relation to the tuition fee budgeting strand of this
project however it would not be possible to build a new budgeting system until the
University had determined the financial model it wished to operate under.
2
92/14
A revised project timetable would be submitted to CBSSG before being referred to
PCG for consideration for approval.
93/14
1216 – iHR
94/14
Following the circulation of paper PCG/14/25, the project group met and agreed that
the project timetable would be revised further. A revised project timetable would
therefore be submitted to CBSSG before being referred to PCG for consideration for
approval.
1219- Corporate SharePoint Upgrade
95/14
ISS were increasingly confident that the upgrade would be completed by the end of
April 2014. There was no need for additional resource.
Agreed
The revised project and reporting milestones for projects 1206, 1216, 1219, 1221,
and 1229 were approved.
96/14
A revised timetable for project 1215 should be submitted to the April meeting of
CBSSG for consideration, prior to referral to the May meeting of PCG.
97/14
Action: MA
A revised timetable for project 1216 should be submitted to the April meeting of
CBSSG for consideration, prior to referral to the May meeting of PCG.
98/14
Action: MA
The Project Management Framework should be amended to include the restrictions
on the period between a Project Mandate being granted and a full project proposal
coming forward, as set out in Minute 87/14 above.
99/14
Action: CH
7 Requests for project mandate
a) The criteria for determining a projects priority ranking (PCG/14/26)
Noted
The criteria for determining a projects priority ranking were noted.
100/14
b) Higher Education Achievement Record (HEAR) (PCG/14/27)
Noted
Agreed
The University’s Education Strategy included a commitment to implement the HEAR.
USG had approved the single supplier approach outlined in the mandate document.
101/14
Project management and project officer resource was required in order to
successfully deliver this project. £30,000 had been identified in the E&CC operations
budget and a request for additional resourcing had been submitted as part of the
current planning round.
102/14
Grade point averages were outside the scope of the project.
103/14
That the project be mandated with a 3-3 priority ranking.
104/14
c) Making Electronic Feedback Effective II (MEFE) (PCG/14/28)
Noted
The project would be monitored by ASSG if mandated by PCG. MEFE I had
improved the quality of assessment and feedback significantly, and this project
sought to deliver further improvements. The timetable for the delivery of the project
was not clear from the mandate proposal.
105/14
A number of projects requiring Learning Technology Team (LTT) resource had been
brought forward and this was highlighted as an issue. It was currently expected that
LTT resource would be reduced from 5 FTE to 3 FTE by the end of the 2013-14
academic year.
106/14
3
Agreed
It may be necessary to prioritise projects in the LTT portfolio in response to changing
levels of resource. It was suggested that MEFE II was of greater strategic importance
compared to the CV builder project which was mandated at the January 2014
meeting of PCG. Where re-prioritisation was required at a later date, the authority to
authorise such a re-prioritisation lay with PCG.
107/14
Additional resources had been requested by ISS as part of the current planning round
in order to extend the contract of the MEFE I software developer which was due to
expire July 2014. There was a risk that the contract could be terminated earlier by the
developer if suitable alternative employment was found. If secured, this resource
could be used to deliver the MEFE I and MEFE II projects.
108/14
That the project be mandated with a 3-3 priority ranking.
109/14
The full project proposal should include a well-defined project timetable with
adequate provision for the training and engagement of staff. A student representative
should be included as a member of the project team.
110/14
d) Student Tracking of Access Retention and Success (STARS) (PCG/14/29)
Noted
Agreed
The closure of the STARS phase one project had been contentious because not all of
the project aims had been delivered. The scope of the phase two project included the
delivery of the outstanding project aims. Stakeholder feedback had been a key driver
in the development of STARS phase two.
111/14
The project would impact on student recruitment, retention and attainment in addition
to supporting the implementation of the Education Strategy. Equality and diversity
would also be supported by the delivery of this project.
112/14
The provision of more granular data would not absolve academic departments and
professional services from the need to exercise judgement and make decisions.
Access to granular data could potentially narrow rather than widen participation, and
it would not enable the University to make sufficiently better decisions.
113/14
It was suggested that increased engagement with STARS data could drive customer
demand for a phase two project sponsored by CER.
114/14
Linking CRM enquiries and outreach activities with student applications was
considered difficult. It was suggested that without this element of the project, the
remaining work could be undertaken as an enhancement or business as usual
activities.
115/14
The mandate was rejected.
116/14
The CRM element of the project should not be taken forward at this time. The link
agreement should be taken forward by CER, and the additional functionality delivered
by SPCS in combination with ISS.
117/14
e) Research Management and Administration System (RMAS) (PCG/14/30)
8
Noted
The project required capital funding and therefore the mandate would be considered
by Capital Planning Group (CPG) before being referred to USG for consideration for
approval.
118/14
Agreed
That the project be mandated with a 3-2 priority rating.
119/14
Projects for approval for implementation
a) Improving the provision of reading lists (PCG/14/31)
Noted
The purchase and implementation costs were relatively low, however there was a
high annual service subscription cost. It was envisaged that the set up and first year
costs would be drawn from the ISS budget.
4
120/14
Agreed
The project was expected to deliver benefits for both students and staff. If the system
allowed students to rate reading materials this would be considered an additional
benefit.
121/14
The ISS budget should be checked to ensure that the required financial resource was
available.
122/14
Action: RM
Subject to confirmation of the availability of the required financial resource, the
project was approved for implementation.
123/14
b) Occupational Health IT system (PCG/14/32)
Noted
The driver for the purchase of the software was HHS service provision requirements,
although other benefits were noted.
124/14
Agreed
That the project be approved for implementation subject to HHS paying for the
purchase and implementation of the software.
125/14
c) Purchase and implementation of SOTER software (PCG/14/33)
Noted
The project proposal had been considered by CBSSG and it had been confirmed that
the resources were in place.
126/14
Agreed
That the project be approved for implementation.
127/14
d) Review for the web content management system (verbal update)
Noted
Following discussions with CER, the project was being reframed as a web presence
project in anticipation of a mandate request being submitted to CPG for consideration
for endorsement. This would be an important project for the University as the website
was a key student recruitment tool.
128/14
Agreed
That a mandate request would be submitted to the next meeting of CPG.
129/14
Action: RM
The status of this project in the SPP should be amended from ‘mandated’ to
‘cancelled.’
130/14
Action: CH
9
Reports on completed projects
Noted
Agreed
The high quality of the closure reports for projects 1202; 1203; 1226 and 1264 was
noted, and the successful delivery of projects was recognised and should be
promoted within the University.
131/14
At the February meeting of CBSSG, it had been suggested that there would be value
in project managers submitting a post-implementation report which captured the
benefits realised and lessons learned in the six to twelve months after the project
closure report was considered by PCG and its sub-groups.
132/14
Staff were beginning to engage with the project closure report process and it was
suggested that this should be embedded before additional requests were made of
project managers, given the many demands already being placed on colleagues as a
result of the significant change programme that was being implemented across the
University as a result of the new Strategic Plan.
133/14
PCG could request post-implementation reports from project managers on an
individual basis. This would not be incorporated into the Project Management
Framework as a standard component for each project approved and monitored by
PCG.
134/14
5
Letters to project managers should be drafted on behalf of the Registrar and
Secretary to recognise the successful delivery of strategically important projects.
135/14
Action: CH
10
HEFCE Postgraduate Support Scheme (PSS) (PCG/14/36)
Noted
11
The PSS project plan was noted. The Head of Strategic Projects and Change would
welcome any comments outside of the meeting.
136/14
Forthcoming projects
Noted
A mandate request for a research data project may be submitted to a future meeting
of PCG. Work to scope the project had not yet begun.
137/14
Agreed
The Chair of CBSSG would relay knowledge of any forthcoming projects at future
meetings of PCG as a matter of standard practice.
138/14
Action: RS
Forthcoming projects should be identified from professional service plans, and the
education and research actions plans. A list of potential and forthcoming projects
should be submitted to a future meeting of PCG for consideration by the Group.
139/14
Action: RH/SV
12
Any Other Business
Noted
13
The Chair thanked the Head of Strategic Projects and Change for the contribution he
had made to the University over the last 18 months, and in particular, for facilitating
the University’s substantial developments in relation to project management, PCG
and its subgroups.
140/14
Date of Next Meeting
Noted
15 May 2014, 2pm to 4pm in the Vice-Chancellors Boardroom.
Clare Hornsby
Project Officer
Strategic Planning and Change Section
March 2014
6
141/14