Mantle Project: Final Report Version 1.0 Final
Report Contents
Mantle Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 2
Mantle Individual project detail ............................................................................................................ 9
Detailed Roadmap (attached as Excel spreadsheet)
Roadmap risk analysis (attached as Excel spreadsheet)
Report Appendices
Appendix 1 Requirements Principles & Characteristics of MI
Appendix 2 Good Practice Example
Appendix 3 Key Decisions and MI required to support them
Appendix 4 Information and Process
Appendix 5 Information Systems Audit results
Appendix 6 Mantle External perspective
Appendix 7 Mantle Survey of Existing MI Provision
Appendix 8 Mantle Glossary
Appendix 9 Shadow Systems
Appendix 10 Web of Science
Appendix 11 Original Project Executive Summary
Appendix 12 Data sets (Access database)
Andrew Busby
Mantle Project Manager
15th September 2008
Any queries on the final version of this report after 30th September 2008 should be addressed to
the Academic Planning & Performance Office in the first instance (0113 343 1839 or
appo@adm.leeds.ac.uk).
1
Mantle Executive Summary
Introduction
Mantle is a strategy map project under the theme improving our effectiveness and specifically
targets the underlying aim “We have management information that is understood, cascaded
and used to inform decision-making” under E4 Improving core systems and processes.
In summary the project has captured current and management information (MI) future
requirements, compared them to current provision to identify gaps in provision and generated
the essence of this report, options to actually bridge those gaps. These options include
organisation and process as well as technology.
Current and future MI requirements were captured primarily in a bottom-up approach,
supplemented with a small element of specific top-down work on MI requirements falling out
of the Strategy Map measures. The project had strong Faculty representation at all levels
including Steering Group (3 Deans), Working Group (4 Faculty administrators) and Sounding
Board (10 Heads of School or equivalent, 8 Faculty Administrators and 2 Pro-Deans, with all
Faculties covered). All were involved at each stage of the project and over 80% of the options
to bridge the gaps identified in MI provision were also generated via a bottom-up approach.
These options have been drawn together into a group of recommended projects and smaller
initiatives forming a roadmap for 5 years commencing 2008/09.
Vision
A summary vision, generated in work with key stakeholders, of what MI provision should be
in a world class University is “efficient, effective and widely accessible management
information to support decision making in the University.”
In the context of the vision the following aims are key:





Properly governed, organised and co-ordinated; in an organisation of 8000 staff ensuring
MI provision is logically organised with clear responsibilities, especially in the centre; ^
A single method of access, possibly a portal or specific web page, to systems providing MI;
with the acknowledgement that one single monolithic system may be unrealistic but that
multiple systems accessed via the same method would help;
A single repository ^^ holding consistent and integrated data for MI with drill down to
different levels (whole data set) (University of Leeds, Faculty, School, Group, Academic,
Student), acknowledging as above that there may be several different systems that access
this repository. Note not a purely ‘one size fits all’ central solution but equally not a ‘no
size fits all’ fragmented and un-coordinated solution either; ^^^
If possible, flexibility in terms of the functionality available via delivery system(s) that
access the above repository, with provision of regular reports but with in depth data
available where required for interrogation;
Repository should be searchable via plain English queries, holds both MI itself and the
supporting definitions, data responsibilities and descriptions, maintained and edited via a
virtual MI community (both Corporate Services and Faculty) in the University. Includes
2






clear differentiation between centrally (Corporate Service) and locally (Faculty/School)
owned data;
Culture; weave provision into the way the University works (processes), into the way it
trains its staff (e.g. explanation of MI provision at staff inductions) and develop clear
capability with specific individuals who can find their way round the data and systems,
understand the nuances of the data and can provide effective support for senior
management, in particular Deans, in decision making. Ensuring as well that there is an
inherent learning process to improve MI provision on an ongoing basis;
Integration and co-ordination; requests for MI are co-ordinated so that once produced MI
is shared rather than reproduced over and over again in different forms by different areas;
Given time is scarce, but information isn’t, focus on producing MI in smaller quantities but
with a higher degree of quality and relevance. Implicitly, stopping the production of MI in
cases where it is no longer useful, used or relevant in the context of University strategy;
MI that is both widely accessible and accessible in an appropriate manner for different
groups of stakeholders (e.g. a planning specialist will probably need more sophisticated
functionality than a senior officer);
Avoidance of duplicate and parallel systems in the University for producing MI;
MI that is properly linked to and integrated with relevant business processes in the
University.
^ one key finding, both from work with stakeholders in the University and echoed in external
research and benchmarking, is that a significant majority of gaps identified are around the
organisation and processes in MI provision, not in the specifics of technologies and systems.
Gartner (www.gartner.com) research states that it is highly likely (80% probability) that
through 2010 most organisations will spend 70% of the time, energy and money that they
invest in this area in resolving people, process and organisational issues. This is particularly
relevant to gaps identified from a School and Faculty perspective, where the impact of lack of
co-ordination and clear responsibility at University level provision is most felt. Hence a
common thread through Mantle recommendations is a priority to addressing organisation and
process gaps.
^^ a repository in this context is a place, typically a database or databases, to store consistent
sets of data that should be used as the basis for generating MI.
^^^ there is a trade-off in selecting the appropriate option between consistency and flexibility.
A single central repository storing all MI would provide consistency but may limit flexibility.
Several different systems, covering different business functions (finance, HR, marketing etc.),
with a central portal to direct to the appropriate place would offer flexibility but make
consistency more difficult. The choice of solution needs to consider this trade-off and
processes or mechanisms should be sought to compensate for limitations of systems in these
dimensions.
Roadmap Summary
The following diagram summarises the roadmap, its deliverables and the benefits.
Note benefits are typically lagged by one year, reflecting the organisational and cultural
flavour of the projects, and thus benefits shown in the diagram are typically from the previous
years work. The ‘sort governance & organisation of MI provision’ cost in year 1 of the
roadmap is that of a new (central) post over 5 years, distributed as £32k in 2008/09, £57k in
2009/10, £59k in 2010/11, £60k in 2011/12 and £63k in 2012/13.
3
EXAMPLE PRACTICAL
BENEFITS
2008/09
Web page for MI created with links to systems,
MI providers and other useful information such as
provision timetable.
Sort governance &
organisations of MI
provision
£271K
Implement pragmatic
options
Implement options to
improve technology
project delivery
2009/10
Data responsibility,
definitions,
cataloguing project
phase 1
£80K
Cultural change
£55K
Determine MI service
technology
architecture
£52K
Via prototyping those who will use new systems
able to see them early on and refine their
development, rather than taking part in paper
specification exercises.
Clear accountability and responsibility for MI
provision in the University and mechanism for
resolution of issues, i.e.. A point of accountability
to which a School or corporate service can
address requests, issue etc.
Faculties and Schools should no longer be
swamped with uncoordinated and sometimes
inconsistent MI from the centre
2010/11
Data responsibiltiy
definitions
cataloguing project
Phase 2
£85K
Establish MI
provision as regular
service
Technology project?
£156K
1. When student numbers MI for planning
purposes released, the definitions and how it
does/doesn’t relate to Banner data are clear, thus
saving time spent on attempting reconciliations.
2. If requiring a report on Equality & Diversity
student MI can easily search through existing
provision before requesting new report thus
avoiding duplication of effort.
1. Individual IS projects can refer to a clear
technology strategy and have a pre-determined
set of tools to choose from when deciding how to
build systems.
2. From a user perspective fewer systems and
tools to learn how to use.
Review point
Business Intelligence
ready?
Develop MI provision capability, specific people
who can find their way round the data and
systems, understand the nuances of the data and
can provide effective support for senior
management, in particular Deans, in decision
making.
2011/12
Technology project?
£208K
Clear process, route and accountability for a
request for MI to follow incorporating a
reasonable turn around time.
1. Inserting MI on research grant application
success rates by funding body into the business
process of applying for a research grant.
2. Sophisticated modelling of financial effects of
changes in student numbers in future including
sensitivity analysis.
2012/13
Technology project?
£52K
4
Roadmap notes
The pragmatic options in 08/09 are detailed on pages 9-10 of the report and are the low cost,
low effort, short timeframe options to improve existing MI provision.
Business cases and costs shown for the first year have been calculated in detail. Year two
onwards costs and business cases are indicative only and comprise £220k for the
organisational projects and £468k possible technology (already in the IS development 5 year
plan) and require further work. All other initiatives should be feasible within current
resources, though with heavy reliance on the new post recommended for overall direction and
on use of existing staff time.
The detailed roadmap attached as an Excel spreadsheet provides greater detail, including
projects related to Mantle. The most significant ones are Staff data quality, IT delivery, IRIS
(Imperial research information system), Corporate Process Improvement and Research
Support Process.
The roadmap recommended is incremental with each step given a relatively generous
timeframe rather than trying to attempt all projects at once to take a single significant step. In
short, thinking big but only executing step by step with a strong emphasis on taking those
steps first that have potential to achieve maximum benefits for minimum investment.
Given the potentially significant outcomes for University IS (and IT) of the many initiatives
such as the IT delivery project and the possible changes to current corporate technologies (e.g.
SAP & Business Objects) project stakeholders felt it was exceptionally difficult to plan for
specific corporate technology projects other than the one indicated in 09/10. It was difficult
even to determine this starting point.
There is a clear need for a carefully thought out communications strategy running as a thread
through the roadmap to explain developments, with sufficient time built in to execute it
correctly. For example projects recommended by Mantle should be specifically tagged as part
of the Mantle roadmap to illustrate the links to the original project and demonstrate its results
are being acted on.
The prioritisation within particular projects should be as derived during the Mantle
requirements capture; i.e. by strategy map theme:



Firstly, Inspire our students to develop their full potential & enhance our international
performance and standing (themes came out very clearly as the main priority);
Secondly, Financial sustainability, Achieve an influential world-leading research profile
and Valuing and developing all our staff (all three prioritised roughly the same);
Finally, Improving our effectiveness and Enhance Enterprise & Knowledge Transfer (both
came out as low priority).
Other Key Points
Definition of MI; the most difficult aspect of the Mantle project was trying to establish a
generic definition of MI in the context of the University. This did not prove feasible, and
indeed other organisations have had similar difficulties. In pragmatic terms though Mantle
5
recommendations focus on strategic and tactical MI for the purposes of decision support, and
not on MI needed for the day to day operation of the University. This effectively takes direct
reporting from SAP modules (Human Resources, Finance, etc) and Banner out of Mantle
scope, since these reports simply produce operational facts (i.e. data) rather than unique
information designed to provide insight for management specific decision making.
Any links between operational data and MI are likely to be picked up in the ‘data
responsibility, definitions and cataloguing project’ in the roadmap.
Data quality was also out of the scope of the Mantle project, as was specific MI for Corporate
Services. This is because quality is being addressed by other projects and thus to include it in
Mantle would lead to duplication. Given current issues and concerns data quality is however
a key risk to the roadmap as a whole, and Mantle recommended projects will need careful
integration and scheduling with other initiatives such as the staff data quality project.
The external perspective
The project made extensive use of Gartner research and informal discussions with peer
Universities to find examples of good practice in MI provision and this proved useful in
generating the recommendations. The recommended roadmap developed is also echoed by
other studies1
The draft University IT&S risk register has a high impact, high likelihood risk noted of “Lack
of effective, accurate & timely management information to support performance management
and planning.” The risk register may be audited, subject to Finance approval, and Mantle is
already included as the mitigation measure for this risk.
Forthcoming national initiatives on data quality and efficiency are likely to echo Mantle
institutional recommendations at an HE Sector level.
Detailed Report Contents
The first detailed section of the report, the Mantle detailed roadmap, outlines the roadmap in
the context of specific projects and initiatives, their proposed sponsors, and a brief description.
This is attached as an Excel spreadsheet.
The second detailed section, Mantle roadmap risks, outlines the key risks for the roadmap.
This is also attached as an Excel spreadsheet.
The third detailed section, Mantle individual project detail, fleshes out each of the projects and
initiatives in the roadmap and includes where available, an evaluation of different options,
outline business cases and costs. Note: this section of the report is not designed to be read
through in linear fashion but rather dipped into to find further information on specific parts of
the roadmap.
Report Appendices
1
WARD, J. and DANIEL, E. (2005) Benefits Management: Delivering Value from Information Systems and
Information Technology Investments
6
Appendix 1, Requirements Principles & Characteristics of MI, is a set of generic requirements
for MI provision generated by key stakeholders, prioritised and including an assessment
against current provision (red/amber/green).
Appendix 2 is an example of good practice that adheres to most of the principles and
characteristics.
Appendix 3, Key Decisions and MI required to support them, lists the key decisions identified
by stakeholders as vital in managing Schools, Faculties and the broader University, plus the
MI needed to help make those decisions. The MI requirements are available separately in the
form of an Access database.
Appendix 4, Information and Process, is a high level summary showing what is currently
produced at a University level.
Appendix 5, Information Systems Audit results, documents systems and development tools
that could be used in Mantle technology projects. This is a technical appendix intended for
IT&IS specialists.
Appendix 6, Mantle External perspective, contains a summary of useful external research
used, particularly from Gartner, as well as the results of informal benchmarking of provision
compared to other Universities.
Appendix 7, Mantle Survey of Existing MI Provision, is a summary of the results of a survey of
existing MI provision in the University and is provided for information.
Appendix 8, Mantle Glossary provides a guide to any jargon and acronyms used in the report.
Appendix 9, Shadow systems, is a useful précis of a Best Practices report; Strategies for
managing spreadmarts from TDWI (The Data Warehouse Institute).
Appendix 10, Web of Science, details a system identified by Mantle project stakeholders as one
with usability and functionality features which would help to inform new corporate systems
to deliver management information.
Appendix 11, Original Project Executive Summary, is a one page summary of the original
Mantle project plan and is provided for information.
Appendix 12, data sets, is the access database containing the detailed MI requirements
captured during the project.
Next Steps
Following completion of the project in September 2008 this report will progress as follows:



Firstly, the Effectiveness Programme Executive Group (23rd September);
Subsequently Vice Chancellors Executive Group (14th October or 21st October);
Faculty Management Group (6th November);
7

The Information Technology & Systems Steering Group (12th November) and the
Information Systems Steering Group (18th November).
It will then return to the Mantle Steering Group (November 20th), which has agreed (as has the
project Working Group) to continue for one year or until Mantle recommendations on MI
governance are decided on and implemented. Finally, the Effectiveness Programme Executive
will review timescale and resourcing.
Once the next steps are complete a specific communication strategy will be needed to explain
the final decisions on the roadmap to key stakeholder groups and the wider University.
From October 2008 onwards and in parallel with the next steps the Mantle pragmatic options
recommended in the final report will be progressed under the guidance of the individual
Mantle Steering Group members allocated ownership.
8
Mantle Individual project detail
On a project by project basis this section provides further detail. In some cases, especially the IS
projects, this is only a brief outline. Each project is keyed by its Mantle ID number show in the
detailed roadmap.
At the moment there are no specific strategy map measures that Mantle can directly demonstrate a
causal relationship with. It is also recognised that the kind of technology investments in this area
often have benefits that are hard to quantify in advance and that only may be truly measurable some
time after implementation.
For each project or initiative the following information is recorded if available at this point.













Description
Sponsor
Type
Practical example benefit(s)
Objectives
Scope
Pros
Cons
Costs
Risks
Timeframe (with key milestones where available)
Relationship with non Mantle projects
External perspective
9
2. Mantle Pragmatic Options
Implement the low cost, low effort, short timeframe options already approved by the project
Steering Group. Action to build belief that projects that are ‘sons and daughters’ of Mantle will do
something. The do nothing option in this case will result in a reaction to the project of it being a
typical panacea that promises much, but actually delivers little.
Particular attention is drawn to the ‘Web page for MI’ option as a relatively low effort way of
demonstrating progress and maximising the benefits of the good work already being done in several
areas, both centrally and at Faculty level.
Action
Suggested
timeframe
Notes & Queries
Continue on an interim basis the Mantle
groups (Steering, Working, Sounding
Board) beyond end of project and until
formal MI governance established
Continue the small technical group that
worked on the Mantle specific task to
document existing systems and
development tools used in MI provision.
Also, evolve the document further to
includes pros, cons, risks etc.
Oct 08 to
Jul 09
How to resource staff wise?
Oct 08 to
Jul 09
Better collaboration and co-operation
between IT and the business - visits to
understand problems/issues.
Jun 08 to
Jul 09
Fixing gaps when become aware of them
to improve data quality and Human
Resources & Financial Reporting
Jun 08 to
Jul 09
Specific issue: the ISS members
of this group belong to an ISS
team that is ‘self funded’ hence in order for their input to
continue either specific funding
is required or some other
solution determined.
Try to ‘pair’ IS/IT technical
specialist with a particular
business area, e.g. Research,
Human Resources, Finance,
L&T, Student Recruitment, both
centrally and with Faculties
Clarity needed for a practical
action
Produce map or diagram showing use,
impact and of MI, as well as the
responsibilities for it.
Oct 08 to
Jul 09
Review requirements to generate quick
wins with biggest impact
Oct 08 to
Dec 08 (one
already
started)
The refreshed version of
existing provision summary
produced in 2006 in Appendix
4 could be used. Dimensions
such as time and granularity
(e.g. school/faculty level) as
well as links to decision,
strategy map theme and
information system used could
all the usefully added.
Example in L&T area
(programme and module
reviews) to free up academic
time – already work in progress
Suggested
Steering
Group
owner
John Fisher
Tba
Mark
Lloyd
Matthew
Knight &
Phil
MacDonald
Mike
Kennerley
David Belk
(with
Christina
Robinson
and
Andrew
10
McKie)
Question relevancy of MI currently
produced – why is it needed? Relevant
to those offices producing significant MI:
Enterprise & Innovation, Estates,
Finance, Human Resources, Marketing,
Research Support, Academic Operations
(Academic Planning & Performance
Office plus Strategy Project Group),
Research Degrees and Scholarships
Office
Produce calendar of MI provision
Web page for MI (simple, single pages).
Contents: key individuals/offices/contact
points for MI provision, calendar for MI
provision, map/diagram of provision,
explanation of Mantle project
recommendations and outcomes,
glossary of terms. Also need to look
carefully at any other existing
MI/reporting web pages and either
incorporate or link.
Incorporate into the above web pages
links to existing systems that provide MI,
both shadow and corporate, thus while
not being a sophisticated portal, at least
providing a single access route.
Pragmatic systems project to deliver
strategy map measures to Schools and
Faculties
Clear guidelines re definitions/ standards
published re internal/external use of MI
Training/awareness raising/moves to
different offices
Key faculty role with MI responsibility,
with network similar to Faculty Finance
Managers
Even if just for MI specialist use,
establish a common repository for MI
files and documents via existing
infrastructure
More formal group to review all HESA
returns?
Clearer MI provision responsibilities
between Academic Operations and
Marketing
Distribution via Secretariat of the
suggested MI report template developed
Oct 08 to
Jul 09
Oct 08 to
Feb 09
Oct 08 to
Dec 08
How? Radical option – stop
producing regular MI and see
what people miss! The ‘less is
more’ approach.
Potentially include static MI
reports (Excel and/or PDF)
where commonly useful as
well.
David Belk
overall
Relevant
Heads of
Service
Mike
Kennerley
David Belk
Jan 09 to
Jul 09
New recommendation since
pragmatic options signed off
tba
Oct 08 to
Feb 09
New recommendation since
pragmatic options signed off
tba
Oct 08 to
Jul 09
Jun 08 to
Apr 09
Is this too big a task to be a
pragmatic one?
To encourage shared
knowledge and understanding,
in particular within the Services
With regard to the IPE, this is
already work in progress.
tba
Could use Public Folders or
existing server that all can
access?
David Belk
Jun 08 to
Feb 09
Oct 08 to
Dec 08
Oct 08 to
Apr 09
Jun 08 to
Dec 08
Oct 08 to
Dec 08
Matthew
Knight
Mike
Kennerley
David Belk
Already work in progress
Martin
Holmes
This is work in progress
John Fisher
11
via the project
Can anything be done about security
rules which are restricting reporting and
what functionality can be used,
especially re SAP?
Heidi system wider role out, including
data training
Update any relevant entries in Guide to
Services site and Communications team
jargon buster site for Mantle glossary
entries
Continue, and perhaps repeat in other
areas, the kinds of regular consistency
checks undertaken on Banner data
undertaken by APPO.
Oct 08 to
Dec 08
Phil
MacDonald
Oct 08 to
Feb 09
Oct 08 to
Dec 08
David Belk
Oct 08 to
Jul 09
Tba
tba
12
4. Establish proper governance of MI provision
1. Outline of the proposal
This section presents the case for the establishment of proper governance of MI provision in a structure that
would comprise:
1. Executive and strategic support from an allocated VCEG member.
2. A Steering Group core featuring central and faculty representation.
3. A larger MI User Group to act as a sounding board to the Steering Group, with strong faculty
representation.
4. A virtual team of data specialists (Corporate Services and Faculty) and technical specialists (primarily IS)
across the University from which to draw input and advice.
Small special interest groups (SIGs) would be drawn from the above groupings to work on specific projects.
This structure is based on that used during the Mantle project itself; which worked well, in particular the use
of a group as a sounding board to ensure suitable Faculty and School involvement.
2. Option Appraisal
2.i. The governance structure proposed above would have the advantages outlined below.
Assigning executive support for MI provision would be critical to the success of this structure and would
provide
 Guidance, direction and vision for the Steering Group, taking forward major MI initiatives;
 Promotion within the senior executive of MI-related initiatives;
 Sponsorship for strategic MI projects;
 Identifying ways to join up with other projects, e.g. relating to improvement of core systems and
processes;
 The link with key groups such as VCEG and ISSG.
The Steering Group would provide
 United efforts in MI by providing a central coordination point, thus also minimising overlapping and
parallel activity and duplication of MI activity and data;
 Representation of relevant specialist areas;
 Representation from faculties, helping ensure that decisions and actions are not based on central control;
 A clear point of contact for information and forum for proposals;
 A body to lead new projects forward and to rapid transition to ‘business as usual’ and operational
readiness;
 Guidance to faculties on IS governance process and on using resources in developing MI provision;
 Exploitation of expertise already existing within the University;
 A body with responsibility for planning and decision-making, that can advise the executive member;
 A composition that potentially could change in response to changing needs and context.
The MI User group would provide
 The role of a sounding board to test the validity of new ideas;
 A conduit for two-way information flow, feeding issues into the Steering Group from the virtual
community;
 Members would be drawn into special interest groups for specific projects to ensure appropriate user
representation, particularly on any technology projects.
2.ii. Foreseeable risks to the governance structure proposed include
 Lack of time by members, particularly in the Steering Group and User Group to undertake duties and
carry activity forward. There is a related risk of patchy representation from faculties and specialist areas;
13



The setting up of a new group may be perceived as an added layer of bureaucracy to the system;
Costs related to staff time spent on governance activities (see costs and benefits, below);
Duplication with other groups such as Corporate Systems Steering Group (CSSG).
There also remains here the outstanding question of who would coordinate the Steering Group and directly
advise its executive support, mediating between executive and members. This is where option for a
‘management information manager’ post would be particularly useful.
In order to manage the above risks, the measures outlined below are advisable.
 The Steering Group would have clear terms of reference and remit, with transparent processes to show
how decisions will be reached;
 Similarly, the role of the MI User Group would need to be clearly defined and delineated, both for the sake
of efficiency and to encourage membership;
 Keep formal meetings relatively low in number: e.g. Steering Group meets two or three times per year,
concentrating any team effort via special interest groups and use of workshops for specific purposes;
 It would be important to communicate the role of the groups and the added value they would bring in
order to optimise participation.
One additional option would be to make membership of the Steering group and of the User group rolling, so
that time commitments would not necessarily be long-term.
3. Costs and cost benefit analysis
3.i. Financial costs (indirect – staff time)
Steering Group: based on nine people working an average of 0.5 hour per week at an estimated £64 per hour,
the Steering Group would cost £14,976 per year in staff time.
The User Group: based on 20 people working an average of 0.5 hours per week average at £41 per hour would
cost £22,360 per year in staff time.
The virtual team: based on fifteen people working two hours per week on average at £33 per hour would cost
£51,480 per year.
Admin support; 200 hours @ £15 per hour totals £3,000
In total, then, the governance structure would cost a total of £91,816 staff time per year. A small direct cost
would also be incurred for formal meetings and workshops; £1000-£1500 per year.
3.ii. Financial benefits (indirect – staff time)
The proposed structure is likely to realise benefits in efficiencies regarding greater avoidance of duplication of
MI activity and data, due to greater monitoring and overview and sharing of information. There will also be
possible time saved through provision of a single structure that creates a single initial point of contact. These
are, as is usual with these kind of proposals, difficult to quantify directly. The option for the management
information manager post has further detail on potential benefits.
4. The do-nothing option
A continued absence of appropriate and effective governance of MI could lead to a continuation or worsening
of the issues highlighted during the Mantle project initiation phase, viz
 Lack of clear responsibility for overall co-ordination of MI across specific areas (HR, Research, Finance,
L&T, Marketing etc.) leading to
 Problems with the statistical presentation of the University’s position, internally and externally, in
particular with regard to consistency of the picture painted (different areas produce different numbers
using different methods for ostensibly the same purpose);
 Lack of consistent and trusted MI provision meaning there is little incentive for faculties to adopt standard
processes;
 Inconsistent provision of management information as data is processed by disparate teams across the
University using different systems and methods, without central guidance on best practice;
14





Lack of guidance, leading to confusion and false expectations about what they can provide;
Uncoordinated activity leading to MI silos;
Shortage of champions and leaders in the ‘business’ side of the University for technology projects;
Consistent failure to deliver benefits from investment in technology and infrastructure;
No organisational path through which attention can be drawn to any significant data quality issues.
5. External Perspective
Review of MI provision at peer institutions shows that two of the six universities, both Russell Group, have
recently recruited MI management posts, one of which also has established a virtual BICC (Business
Intelligence Competency Centre) of analysts and data specialists/administrators, the other of which has a
Business Systems Steering Group with overall MI provision governance responsibility, featuring membership
very similar to the current Mantle Steering Group.
According to Gartner, it is 70% probable that organisations that define governance (project or otherwise) on a
single department (e.g. Finance, HR, Marketing or IT) basis in this area will only achieve 10-20% of the
potential business value from their investments. Looking back over the past 5-10 years, with the benefit of
hindsight of course, it is clear that previous Leeds University projects have repeatedly demonstrated this to be
the case.
Gartner also observes that lack of a clear system for the coordination of provision has led in many
organisations to disconnected activity and ultimately to silos that use different technologies and processes.
They emphasise the importance of a BICC as a way to organise practitioners that
 Is a cross-organizational group with wide representation across an organisation;
 Has membership that represents all relevant key areas of business;
 Is a conduit for two-way information exchange and a collation point for ideas as, a means for highlighting
and helping to resolve issue;
 Is a means for helping an organisation to define its strategy;
 Forges useful links with other competency centres.
According to Gartner, the factors for a successful BICC are
 A clearly defined sense of priority and purpose; according to Gartner the BICC should define the scope of
the projects that it can support initially, otherwise it can become a dumping ground for MI and BI issues
and problems;
 An ongoing monitoring and revisiting of priorities and objectives;
 A composition and membership that may change in response to a changing context.
6. A visual representation of the proposed structure
15
VCEG Member (MI responsibility)
Steering Group
Management
Information Manager
Admin support
MI User Group
Virtual Team
16
6. ‘Management information manager’ post
1. Outline of the Proposal
Presented below are two options for provision of central coordination of MI by
a. establishing a single MI Manager (MIM) post, supported by a small Virtual Team of specialists. There are
significant overlaps with the case made for Proper Governance of MI
b. using existing staff resources, from one specific office, to have responsibility rather than a new post.
1.i. A new single University post would act as a focal point to co-ordinate provision and to facilitate
improvement and development in MI. The post-holder would require broad knowledge across several key
business areas. The MIM role would






Be linked closely to performance management;
Hold responsibility and accountability for data, quality assurance and responsibility for ensuring data
definitions and report catalogues are up to date;
Provide a single focal point for co-ordination of MI, promote leadership and good practice and be
responsive to local initiatives;
Be one of authority and influence, leading on change;
Address competing business objectives, prioritising projects and activities;
Instigate and provide central coordination for MI projects.
A limited Virtual Team of specialists would support the MIM, selected to reflect the diverse nature of business
areas across the University. Each team member would require in-depth knowledge of different specific areas.
As with the MIM role, the positions would be related to performance management, with responsibility and
accountability for data and data quality with respect to their specific, specialist areas. Typically the most
suitable members of the virtual team are those who senior officers ask first when requesting key MI for their
respective areas (HR, Finance etc.).
There is an outstanding issue regarding where a MIM post would be located. It would be likely to be best
placed to avoid being in a single business function, to avoid silo risks, and thus the recommendation would be
as part of Academic Operations, specifically APPO, taking into consideration the close links with strategy,
performance and planning. In the other Universities in the benchmarking of MI provision exercise this kind of
post was located in the Planning office in all cases bar one (see External Perspective below).
1.ii. The option of using staff in existing offices to co-ordinate provision and facilitate improvement and
development in MI would require a team of coordinators to work at a given percentage of their capacity and in
one particular office. Staff would be selected on the basis of knowledge of key business areas and MI-related
matters. Identified staff would perform the function outlined above (under 1.i., the MIM role), undertaking the
same roles of accountability for data, central point for coordination, change leadership and project
coordination.
2. Option Appraisal
2.i. A single MIM post would give the advantages of





Data responsibility, accountable and transparent to all relevant stakeholders;
Gaining a holistic overview of MI activity and data;
Unification of effort, able to develop systems and limit fragmentation;
Providing a locus for disseminating good practice amongst both centrally and between Schools and
Faculties, as well as discouraging siloed activity;
Providing a means for two-way information exchange bottom-up and top down;
17








A single unified view across all MI-related elements, not just technical, but all areas relating to operational
and strategic management;
For the size of the organisation, having no single point of co-ordination does not appear advisable.
Clear champion and guide for technology projects;
Facilitating liaison between those with MI responsibilities throughout the University would inform MI
provision for decision making over time and improve knowledge of MI gaps;
Provides a critical link between IT/IS specialists working in this area and the business;
Helps with the consolidation of information requirements and requests to minimise duplication;
Helps establish consistency of reports and data definitions;
Single focal point for the management of the Mantle roadmap (i.e. programme management).
There are, however, potential drawbacks to the single post option, which would need to be addressed, as
outlined below.
 It could prove challenging to recruit a person with broad knowledge across all areas, even accepting that
the MIM cannot have specialist expertise in each relevant field;
 Little value will be added by the post where organisation of provision is already relatively well defined
(e.g. Finance);
 While filling a needs gap, the post would not be a cheap option. The value for money the post would offer
would therefore need to be evident in order to justify the expense amongst the competing priorities for
funding;
 There is also a risk of a centrally positioned post being seen as an added bureaucratic tier, instated to
regulate activity;
 Care will be needed to find the appropriate balance of duties between Faculty responsibility and a central
responsibility;
 The central positioning of the post could create a challenge for comprehensive overview, risking loss of a
sense for the diversity of needs across the institution;
 Finally, it may take time for the post-holder to find a widely accepted place in what many perceive to be a
very strong silo culture.
To mitigate some of the above concerns, the role would have to emphasize a supportive, non-bureaucratic
approach, responsive and easily accessible, coordinating rather than controlling or policing activity and with a
“right touch” approach to monitoring and standardisation. Executive support from a relevant VCEG member
would also help to forward initiatives undertaken by the post.
Other possible drawbacks would be moderated through the nature and support of the Virtual Team, i.e.
members
 With data responsibility in each area, able to feed across specialist knowledge, propose specific solutions
and share good practice;
 With credibility and acceptance amongst the relevant practitioner groups. Engaging team members from
amongst current staff would exploit existing expertise;
 From different parts of the University would also aid de-centralisation, helping ensure a balanced
representation.
There are some potential difficulties with the alternative of using existing staff resources.
 As mentioned in the case made for Proper Governance of MI, working at a percentage of time can lead to
divided loyalties and time pressures;
 There would be financial costs involved;
 Just as the MIM post would need support from the Virtual Team, so the team would need a central point
of facilitation, to move effort forward, gain an overview of activity across all areas and unify efforts.
Detailed role development (HERA) would also be required before the post could be finally approved and this
would help assess the value of the role. It is worth noting, however, that staff resource would be needed to
carry forward MI developments from a business perspective, suggesting there isn’t a no-cost option if MI
coordination is to be tackled.
18
2.ii. Using existing staff resources to provide central coordination of MI would have the benefits of
 Providing a cheaper option than recruitment of a new post plus virtual team;
 Exploiting the considerable skills and knowledge, specialist and local, already in place;
 Creating opportunities for staff development through broadened responsibilities.
Nevertheless, the option would bring the disadvantages of
 Being costly over a protracted period. Although a cheaper solution than new recruitment plus virtual
team, it may not bring value for money equal to a single, dedicated post;
 Putting an unreasonable strain on staff through a combination of work intensification, fragmentation of
roles and time constraint.
There is also an outstanding question of where the relevant staff would be based. If they were to be in separate
locations, there would be added challenges for these people to work as a coherent team and focal point for coordination. If the team were to be in the same central office, the benefits of representation from across the
University, which a Virtual Team would offer, would be lost.
3. Cost and cost benefits
3.i. Financial costs of new recruitment
Single new post: assuming a post at grade 8, spine point 43 (i.e. at a salary of £41,545 p.a.), the total costs over a
five-year period for a single, dedicated MI post would be £270,894, including employers pension and NI,
increments plus inflation. An external recruitment would also need time to adjust to the local culture and its
systems.
3.ii. Financial benefits of new recruitment
Cost benefits may be realised over time from the monitoring and avoidance of duplication of efforts and from
the identification, dissemination and adoption of better practice. Part of the case for a new post would be
savings in staff time resulting avoiding the implications of the do nothing option (outlined below).
Consultation with the project Sounding Board and Working Group indicated that savings of 15-30 minutes per
week for a Head of School (or similar) were feasible, with overall savings of 0.3 to 0.5 FTE per year for the
larger/diverse Faculties. A unitary Faculty would typically only save 0.05 FTE per year. This would provide
significantly more time to focus on effective use of information to make the right decisions and hence improve
delivery of strategy.
In addition there are the other potential benefits; i.e. avoiding replicating the failure of technology projects to
result in widespread benefits, technologies purchased and not used. Again this is hard to estimate but could
easily exceed £100k in one off software purchase and development costs alone.
3.iii. Financial costs of using existing staff
Based on six people at £33 per hour working on MI coordination for 6 hours per week per person, using
existing staff would cost £61,776 p.a., i.e. £308,880 over a five-year period. It was felt the benefits would be 2030% lower.
3.iv. Financial benefits of using existing staff
Using existing staff would have likely, if modest, cost benefits in terms of saving on recruitment and on any
training required to use Leeds systems. There would also be some savings on space and equipment.
4. The do-nothing option
The potential impacts of not creating a post with specific responsibilities for MI, supported by a Virtual team
are seen as:

A lack of accountability for MI;
19









A lack of coordination in un-harmonized, often overlapping, activity that can result inaccurate or
contradictory management information for describing performance;
A perpetuation of fragmented activity due to lack of central unifying factor, leading to continuing
diversification of practice;
Successful activities that go unreported or unrecognised, with failure to repeat the benefits elsewhere in
the University;
A progressive lack of strategic approach to management information;
A risk of technical solutions being prioritised over the management of coordination of systems and people;
Continuation of existing and even creation of new silos of technologies, skills and processes in the
University;
Even where provision is relatively well defined, such as Finance, there can still be anomalies (e.g. MI Fee
income is calculated in APPO, not Finance);
In future, as with other public bodies such as local government, external regulation and performance
measurement, may be imposed externally and by not taking action now the University will not be well
placed to react if this becomes a reality;
Continued use of shadow systems with the implicit costs and effort involved.
5. External Perspective
Benchmark investigation into MI management at six peer institutions has found that two Russell Group
universities have co-ordination of institutional MI via a single responsible person, one a Head of Business
Information and Performance since December 2007 and the other a Head of Business Intelligence since January
2008. Both these posts were located in the Planning office. Also one of the 1994 Group institutions had both a
Head of Business Intelligence specifically for Finance, plus a broader Head of Management Information within
Planning for the rest of the business areas.
It was also particularly noticeable in benchmarking against peers that the centre at Leeds was definitely the
least co-coordinated/guided/steered and by far the worse in terms of ‘silos’; all the other institutions had a
strong overarching Registrar or similar post. This adds particular weight to the need for a focal point for MI
provision work undertaken.
From a Gartner best practice perspective this kind of post is key to maximising the chances of success of
initiatives in this area, be they organisation or technology focussed. Gartner research states that it is highly
likely (80% probability) that through 2010 most organisations will spend 70% of the time, energy and money
that they invest in MI and BI in resolving people, process and organisational issues.
6. New post costing (source: SiriusWeb)
20
8/43 (before pay in line with lowest 9) with pay award of 5% for 1st October 2008 plus 2.5% increase in USS
contributions assumed.
Costing type
Standard Costing
Institution
Leeds
Staff category
New Academic/Academic Related Staff Scales
Salary scale
Grade 8
Spinal point:
Spine Point 43
Salary
£ 41,545.00
London allowance
£ 0.00
FTE
100%
Additional allowances
£ 0.00
Pension
USS
Start Date
01/01/2009
End Date
31/07/2013
Pay Award Date
01/10/2008
Financial year
Percentage Threshold
7.5
0
Increment Date
01/08/2009
Promotion date
N/A
New scale
N/A
New point
N/A
New salary
N/A
Calculation method
Standard (include increments+inflation)
Use discretionary points No,
Financial year end
July
Cost percentage
100%
Pay Award Date
01/08/2009 onwards
Percentage Threshold
3.5
0
Salary Cost
Pension Cost
NI Cost
Total
Aug 2008 To Jul 2009
£ 26052
£ 3647
£ 2166
£ 31865
Aug 2009 To Jul 2010
£ 46224
£ 6471
£ 3912
£ 56608
Aug 2010 To Jul 2011
£ 47842
£ 6698
£ 4120
£ 58659
Aug 2011 To Jul 2012
£ 49516
£ 6932
£ 4334
£ 60782
Aug 2012 To Jul 2013
£ 51249
£ 7175
£ 4556
£ 62980
Overall Total:
£ 270894
21
8. Prototyping and rapid application development
The ‘do nothing’ option for this part of the roadmap is effectively the same as the generic one described at the
start of this section of the report; i.e. the less than satisfactory situation with regard to MI provision.
Description

Use different methods to develop information systems (IS) – given the nature of MI better to develop
iteratively than in one single step.
Sponsor

Mark Lloyd (this Mantle option matches up with a work stream in the ISS Process Improvement
Programme).
Type

Other.
Practical example benefit(s)

Those who will use new systems able to see and use it very early on and refine its development, rather
than it being a paper specification exercise only.
Objectives



Embed the following specific principles into the execution of projects that deliver corporate IS for MI
provision purposes;
Develop and introduce new, iterative development methods. Develop prototype systems rapidly and
quickly, show to people, collect feedback and amend, going through several iterations before finishing.
Often referred to as ‘Rapid Application Development’, or ‘Agile Development’;
More radically, provide an overall framework with numerous smaller stages that evidence project
progress within a clear timeframe and a resource based approach; i.e. project is given a fixed time/financial
framework and finishes when this is used up, regardless of whether requirements complete or not. This
approach works by treating MI as a scarce resource, with limited availability, and thus focuses on real
priorities and avoids the typical ‘never ending project’.
Scope

Project management and execution of IS projects.
Pros


Maximises chances of projects delivering usable systems;
Thus maximises chances of realising true benefits from the project.
Cons


Additional effort required to implement these principles in a project if doing it properly;
Downside of rapid development - premature implementation of half finished systems by those closely
involved in building it because it is seemingly finished from their perspective.
Costs
22


Cost implications of greater staff resource, specific to each project circumstances;
No significant specific cost to this as an initiative other than staff time.
Risks

Does the University have the funding to implement this?
Timeframe (with key milestones where available)

2008/09.
Relationship with non Mantle projects




Changing the IS model;
IT Delivery project;
ISS Process Improvement Programme;
Corporate Process Improvement project.
External perspective

This approach has been found in both Gartner case studies, particularly given the rapidly changing nature
of MI requirements, and in informal benchmarking against peer institutions where an iterative approach
proved highly effective.
23
10. Ensure any IS projects are properly resourced
The ‘do nothing’ option for this part of the roadmap is effectively the same as the generic one described at the
start of this section of the report; i.e. the less than satisfactory situation with regard to MI provision.
Description

Basics like specific agreement of staff time commitment (both technical and non technical), use of carefully
targeted external consultancy and/or internal resource.
Sponsor

Mark Lloyd.
Type

Other.
Practical example benefit(s)

More reliable project delivery; specific increase in % of projects on time/scope/budget.
Objectives





Embed the following specific principles into the execution of projects that deliver corporate IS for MI
provision purposes;
Always have sign off on commitment to free up time, both IS and business. If possible ring fence – each
project has one IS and one business person, both virtually full time;
Ensure equal IS/Business (corporate services and faculty) staff resource, with focus achieved via
secondment where necessary;
Use external consultancy or even outsourcing or off shoring;
Use MBA (Master of Business Administration ) or School of Computing students.
Scope

Project management and execution of IS projects.
Pros


Maximises chances of projects being delivered on time/budget/planned scope;
Thus maximises chances of realising true benefits from the project.
Cons

Additional effort required to implement these principles in a project (particularly through need to ‘back
fill’ business posts to cover secondments) if doing it properly.
Costs

Cost implications of greater staff resource, specific to each project circumstances.
Risks
24

Does the University have the funding to implement this?
Timeframe (with key milestones where available)

2008/09.
Relationship with non Mantle projects



Changing the IS model;
IT Delivery project;
Corporate Process Improvement project.
External perspective

Informal benchmarking of MI provision and systems development in other institutions found the above
principles, when implemented, produced excellent results in terms of project delivery.
25
12. Ensure what IS projects deliver actually meets user requirements
The ‘do nothing’ option for this part of the roadmap is effectively the same as the generic one described at the
start of this section of the report; i.e. the less than satisfactory situation with regard to MI provision.
Description

Use Mantle requirements as a foundation, ensure proper faculty involvement (User Group and Special
Interest Groups) and build better post project training and support.
Sponsor

Mark Lloyd.
Type

Other.
Practical example benefit(s)

Systems that built that actually prove useful and helpful for people in undertaking their work.
Objectives














Embed the following specific principles into the execution of projects that deliver corporate IS for MI
provision purposes;
Establish network or community groups within the University MI providers community. Specialist
Interest Groups/User Group/Sounding Board;
Stick to the clear strategic decisions identified in the original Mantle project;
Compare and map project outcomes to other University projects to give a context;
Treat MI projects as more than just pure IS – are business projects as well. Business (i.e. customer) project
managers used where appropriate;
Greater openness with data – wider access, less ‘restricted’ – through wide variety of routes;
Training and ongoing support; all projects provide high degree. Include ‘data/information’ training.
Ensure project has a senior academic ‘champion’;
Training programme for MI specialists;
Strict sign off points by the appropriate representatives of those who will use the system the project is
building (dependent on project size, formal User Group or Senior User only);
Better and clearer understanding of the approach used in IS projects, particularly in Schools and Faculties;
For larger projects, try virtual team but real location, i.e. have data (business) and technical (IS) specialists
located together in the same office if only on a temporary basis;
Flexibility in approach to shadow systems in the context of corporate IS – many of these systems meet
accurately meet user requirements as they are built by the users themselves. Trying to combine the best of
both corporate IS and shadow IS strongly recommended to maximise chances of systems being built that
meet requirements;
Recognition that what suits the Centre does not suit Faculties and indeed one solution does not fit every
Faculty either.
Scope

Project management and execution of IS projects.
Pros
26


Maximises chances of systems being built that actually help and support decision making and MI
production;
Thus maximises chances of realising true benefits from the project.
Cons


Additional effort required to implement these principles in a project (higher project management
overhead) if doing it properly;
Invariably does make a project longer timeframe wise.
Costs

Cost implications of longer timeframe.
Risks

Can be seen as overly bureaucratic.
Timeframe (with key milestones where available)

2008/09.
Relationship with non Mantle projects



Changing the IS model;
IT Delivery project;
Corporate Process Improvement project.
External perspective


Gartner case studies indicate IT/IS department flexibility, an openness to different approaches, not
wedded to a particular technology to be used for all work, or a rigid system architecture that must be
adhered to, can significantly improve the chances of project success;
Web of science was quoted as a very ‘user friendly’ system that provided complex software functionality
in a straight forward manner. A study of Web of Science was undertaken as part of the project and is
included as Appendix 10.
27
14. Mantle IS Project(s) Planning (recurrent)
As the work below is effectively compulsory for corporate IS projects it has to be undertaken in order to
progress any Mantle corporate technology projects.
Description

Undertaking the work necessary to develop the initial Project Mandate, and subsequent Project
Brief/Business case that needs to be approved by Information Systems Steering Group as per current IS
Governance.
Sponsor

tba
Type

Other.
Practical example benefit(s)

IS Projects start in a timely manner and adequate preparation/planning to maximise chances of successful
delivery.
Objectives

Generate project mandate and subsequently project brief to see approval and funding for the specific IS
projects on a year by year basis.
Scope

Project mandate and project brief.
Pros


In order to gain funding approval this course has to be followed for corporate IS projects.
Preparation and planning work that goes into this exercise should help maximise chances of the success
for the project itself.
Cons

The effort required for this should not be underestimated.
Costs

Unless external consultancy is used, costs should only be internal staff time. Usually the business owner
for the project with additional help from an IS project manager if allocated.
Risks

Long lead time between start of project planning and beginning of execution.
Timeframe (with key milestones where available)
28

2008/09 onwards. Project mandates usually Autumn-Winter of the financial year before the project is due
to commence, project briefs (i.e. business cases) in spring.
Relationship with non Mantle projects

None.
29
16. Create clear data responsibilities, data definitions, quality assurance accountability
and catalogue of existing reports
1. Outline of Proposal
This section sets out a case for taking forward three complementary projects to
1. create clear data responsibilities and quality assurance accountabilities
2. compile clear agreed data definitions
3. catalogue existing management information reports.
1.i. Creating clear data responsibility and accountability would entail
 Identification of relevant staff to act as the trusted authority and repository for organisational data, for
each data set;
 Identification of data stewards for each system that is to be maintained, existing expert users to act as first
lines of enquiry and hold responsibility for maintaining and changing the relevant data set;
 The development of procedures to ensure that all relevant systems are updated;
 Agreed, standard methods used for distribution and reporting;
 Well-defined processes on who will have access to which data.
The emphasis of the project would be on consistency of databases, on data quality assurance rather than on
exerting strict control over data. Rather than centralisation of MI, the University would own the data while
individual areas would have responsibility for utilising it.
1.ii. Composing standard data definitions would entail




Compiling and agreeing a single University ‘data dictionary’ of technical definitions;
Establishing clear ownership of these definitions;
Ensuring definitions are kept updated, through established ownership;
Ensuring these definitions are disseminated and easily accessible as appropriate.
1.iii. Establishing a list of MI reports already produced would involve



Making an inventory of existing reports, their location, etc.;
Ensuring the list is made available alongside proper access levels, e.g. classified ‘public’, ‘private’ and
‘open’, with flexibility for ad hoc decisions;
Maintaining and updating the list, with responsibility for this assigned.
2. Option Appraisal
2.i. Establishing single points of responsibility for data sets would help to ensure







A scheme of quality assurance to assure a consistency of data;
Reduction in use of data shadow systems, duplication and inconsistencies through greater reliance on
centrally-held data sets;
A response to lack of confidence in and confusion over data;
Improvement and increased confidence in operational reporting to support more effective strategic focus
and planning;
Existing, selected systems could be used, more effectively thus reducing training needs;
Determining who has access to what for each data set gives a sound basis for the design of security models
in information systems that are invariably critical to their successful implementation;
Finally, this work would dovetail well with other work on data quality already initiated such as the staff
data quality project.
30
Risks to the option of single points of responsibility for data sets are that





Responsibility for data sets may already be clear in some cases (e.g. Finance) but not in others (e.g.
students data), where data falls amongst different areas;
Faculties and schools feeling attached to their own systems; centralisation of data may need to acquire
trust and acceptance;
Faculties and schools may, in turn, feel they are not being trusted to keep reliable data;
There are costs attached to establishing new procedures (see Costs and Benefits);
It is difficult to establish what level to go down to within the University, i.e. what is the cut off point in
data responsibility between the centre, faculties, and individual schools in some cases.
In order to mitigate these risks, the measures outlined below are advisable.
 A communication plan highlighting advantages of central data as a response to data confusion and in
support of strategic and operational planning;
 Clear communication on who is responsible for which data and how to obtain the relevant data, tied in
with training and awareness-raising about MI.
2.ii. Compiling clear data definitions would co-exist with single sources of data as a fundamental enabler for
efficient and effective management information. The following benefits could be derived:






Where there is a single point of responsibility for data, definitions would be easier to produce;
Where data falls amongst different areas, the relevant stakeholders may need to agree on definitions;
In addition, the time to produce MI should be significantly reduced as definitions for what parameters and
formula to use will usually already be pre-determined;
It is clear what MI is being produced and how it is derived, thus saving unnecessary double checking of
numbers against other sources;
Better informed decision making;
Improving the quality of MI produced and levels of trust in it.
2.iii. Establishing a list of MI reports already produced would also help to determine any gaps in management
information that need to be closed. Data stewards would also be custodians of the relevant reports to ensure a
single channel of access. This options brings several advantages:




The time taken to produce MI should also be in many cases reduced as anecdotally stakeholders felt that
much MI production in the University is duplicated, both vertically (centre cf. faculties) and horizontally
(between different faculties);
Time released could usefully be focussed on decision making and data quality for example;
Sharing of knowledge across the University about MI that is available;
Easily available and searchable repository of existing reports generated.
2.i.v. There are outstanding issues to be addressed on how
 The above projects would be taken forward; an informal approach, relying on existing teams to ensure
action is carried forward, rather than large and potentially lengthy projects, was considered preferable by
stakeholders;
 The activities would be resourced on a business as usual basis once created.
3. Cost and cost benefits
3.i. Financial costs
Calculating specific costs for projects that ensure central data responsibility is beyond the scope of this report;
a separate business case would need to be developed at a future date. However, it is clear the activity
proposed would incur costs for running the projects and, to a lesser degree, maintaining them once
deliverables are moved into business as usual. A placeholder estimate of £80k in the first year and £85k in the
31
second year is included in the roadmap.
3.ii. Financial benefits
Establishing authoritative, restricted ownership of data would mean data are produced centrally and
consistently only once, thus reducing time and money on duplicated efforts and on finding data, checking data
sets and deciding which data to trust.
4. The do-nothing option
The risks associated with a lack of clear responsibility for specific data sets are





An ongoing multiplicity of information systems, unlinked and often overlapping, leading to confusion and
duplication of effort and costs;
Inconsistent data sets, risking inconsistency of provision of management information;
Management information provision that is often inconsistent, with information is neither efficiently nor
effectively collated, analysed and reported on;
Lack of trust in management information provision;
Unclear routes for queries about management information, sometimes causing contradictory and/or
confusing responses.
5. External Perspective
Benchmark investigation into MI provision at peer institutions did not yield specific information on data
responsibility; however, one of the Russell Group universities is undertaking significant work in this area in
support of Business Intelligence projects.
Gartner observe the importance of precise data by which accurately to measure performance against objectives
at all levels of an organization, supporting the idea that an effective service level for providing data is vital.
Gartner also recommend in many cases starting these kind of projects in top down fashion; in the Universities
case this would mean starting with the responsibility, definition and existing reporting of the strategy map
measures and probably the MI immediately below each measure that has a direct causal relationship with it.
32
18. 09/10 Technology Project; Determine technology architecture to service University of
Leeds Management Information provision
Description

Undertake the work necessary to determine in technology terms what the University’s architecture should
be, what tools it should be using for what.
Sponsor

tba
Type

IS.
Practical example benefit(s)


Individual IS projects can refer to a clear technology strategy and have a pre-determined set of tools to
choose from when deciding how to build systems;
From a user perspective, fewer systems and tools to learn how to use.
Objectives

Evaluate and select an appropriate set of technologies suitable for the service required.
Scope

Corporate IS.
Pros


Needed to establish clear technology direction and strategy;
Should in the long run save money by minimising duplication and achieving benefits of scale (discounts
on larger technology licensing).
Cons



Care needed not to blight short term IS projects;
May not be able to generate an architecture that is realistic for what University can afford;
Heavily reliant on the results of related projects to provide a firm foundation for its execution.
Costs

Approximately £52k. Possible use of external expertise and consultancy.
Risks


Lack of Faculty and school buy in to choices made unless proper consultation exercised.
External market developments (e.g. SAP / Business Objects) effectively beyond projects control.
Timeframe (with key milestones where available)
33

2009/10; precise timeframe would need determining as part of planning.
Relationship with non Mantle projects







Changing the IS model;
IT delivery project;
Staff Portal Feasibility;
Staff Data Quality;
Imperial Research Information System;
Other shadow systems developments;
Corporate Process Improvement project.
34
20. Cultural change
1. Outline of the proposal
A case is presented below for cultural change through the propagation of MI training and development at all
staff levels in parallel with promotion of closer working between ‘producers’ and ‘users’ of MI.
In summary, this is aimed at moving away from a culture of inordinately long debates on the validity and
quality of particular pieces of MI, often intensified by arguments over different numbers produced by different
areas both of which regard them as the ‘truth’, to one of trust and clear accountability and knowledge of MI,
how it is produced, defined etc.
The proposal has two main, related aims
a. Primarily, it aims to incorporate MI provision into the training, professional development and skill sets of
University staff through









Analysis of training needs;
Delivery of “pre-service” training by focusing on MI provision in staff induction (by the SDDU) and staff
development programmes for new and recently-appointed staff;
New management information post could play a key role in ‘pre-service’ training;
Delivery of “in-service” training for identified key staff groups, especially Faculty administrators;
Offering support for leaders and managers in use and application of data in strategic planning processes,
e.g. scenario planning, monitoring the operational environment, considering the strategic implications of
decisions;
Exploiting more effectively resources via training to raise awareness of what is
already available at the University in terms of MI systems and support and to
disseminate time information to staff on key organisational changes;
It needs to include organisational issues, use of data / information, relationships between data providers,
relationships with information users, relationships between central and other systems / users as well as
culture and training of inputers regarding data accuracy;
Encouraging a culture of co-ordination, both within Faculties, between the Centre and Faculties, and for
the University as a whole;
Integration of MI into the Staff Review and Development Scheme.
The nature of the training proposed will be beyond information systems to emphasise the relevance of data in
tactical and strategic decision making.
b. Secondly, to bring producers and users of MI closer together through top-down and bottom-up
collaboration, aided by
 Identifying Faculty experts or champions;
 Closing any ‘expertise gaps’ and information gaps between central and faculty staff by increasing faculty
representation on relevant committees, steering groups, working parties and other strategic forums,
thereby ensuring that initiatives are not entirely led from the Centre.
2. Option Appraisal
2.i. Benefits of the propagation of MI training and awareness raising include



Enhanced skills in MI systems and, crucially, awareness of their role and value, e.g. as part of the IPE
process;
Optimised use of existing systems before any new system development may be considered;
Practical support being offered to faculties rather than a simple issuing of requirements or perceived
adding of further layers of bureaucracy;
35




Minimisation of ‘under the bus syndrome’, i.e. of recruitment gaps left by individuals with sole
responsibility for a particular area of work upon their leaving or being promoted to another function;
Contribution of training needs analysis to an overall baseline picture of MI at the University;
Improve morale and staff well being by empowering staff;
Support better understanding of MI and confidence in it.
While training alone will not ensure standardisation of MI practices across the University, it will nevertheless
enable staff to make more informed and better choices based on greater knowledge, information and
experience provided.
2.ii. Benefits of more collaborative working between ‘producers’ and ‘users’ of MI include



Provision of two-way information and the basis for future MI forums;
Promotion of non-silo thinking through interaction, which will, in turn, encourage greater standardisation
of approach, preparing the ground for future developments in MI;
Greater time efficiency gained from joint representation and shared decisions, e.g. on consultation and
communication processes;
Establishing MI champions in faculties will also provide readily identifiable points of contact, both from the
point of view of the centre and for staff in faculties.
In addition, the above measures will support culture change in developing greater buy-in to MI in the faculties
by involving them in decision-making and enhancing ownership of new developments and making local
expertise available to leaders and managers to support their work
2.iii. Potential risks surrounding the propagation of MI training and more collaborative working between MI
producers and users are related to
 The limit to the degree of tailoring of training that can be made in meeting the needs of different staff
groups. Training will need to be broadly generic in nature in order to be cost-effective;
 Staff resistance, perhaps borne of fear of more burdensome workloads connected to familiarisation with
new and / or a greater number of systems;
 Faculties feeling unable to prioritise resources, e.g. for establishing MI champions;
 A perceived attempt to enforce new systems by the Centre;
 It takes time to effect – it may be 2-3 years before the benefits are fully realised;
 The cost of training (see Costs and Cost Benefits).
2.iv. The measures outlined below are advisable in order to minimise the above risks.
 Expectations will have to be managed around the degree to which training can be tailored, through
carefully communicating training outcomes and highlighting clearly the purpose of training;
 Needs analysis will help ensure training meets staff needs and allow needs-based prioritisation. One
option is to take an iterative approach, phasing in training group by group with opportunity for review
and adjustment;
 Securing a senior academic champion in each Faculty will be important at the outset, to help obtain buy-in;
 Taking a supportive, facilitative rather than controlling approach is recommended, e.g. by presenting
users with options and allowing them to take responsibility for informed choices, in order to progress
empowerment, ownership and buy-in amongst users.
3. Costs and cost benefit analysis
3.i. Financial costs
Further work would be required to establish the specific costs for this Mantle option; an interim estimate,
based on costs used by existing training providers in the University is £500 per course per day to deliver
training and £250 per day in course development. Some parts of the training, e.g. pre service in staff
36
inductions should not incur significant extra cost. In summary, figure about £55k approximately for a
reasonably sized training programme.
3.ii. Financial benefits
There is a potential, if hard to specify, cost benefit related to raising awareness and making greater use of
currently available systems rather than buying or spending time creating new solutions. Similarly, a focus on
readiness before investment, e.g. devoting time to training staff, will minimise risks and help ensure adoption
of any new systems that may ultimately be purchased.
4. The do-nothing option
A continued lack of training and awareness of options available in MI and an ongoing lack of joined-up
working could lead to an exacerbation the issues outlined below
 MI expertise that is patchy, leading to inefficiencies in data collation, analysis and reporting;
 Different systems and methods used across the University, with sub-optimal choices being made in MI,
probably based in part upon lack of awareness of the options available. Such varied practices may
continue to diverge if users are left unaware of practical alternatives;
 A lack of understanding of current IS options and capabilities, giving rise to confusion and false
expectations about what they can provide;
 Underutilisation of some existing information systems;
 A mistrust of new concepts and a perception of MI as an added layer of bureaucracy rather than as a
strategic planning tool.
Lack of collaboration between Centre and Faculties could also aggravate an apparent silo mentality among
faculties and departments and a lack of trust by faculties of the Centre concerning MI.
5. External Perspective
Benchmark research indicated lessons to be learnt from one large Russell Group university in particular, one
which places a strong emphasis on training, culture and process to maximise the benefits of MI that is already
provided. The institution has benefited from taking a facilitative approach rather than enforcing strict control
over MI processes, maintaining a devolved structure and discouraging a centralising approach. The same
institution has been very effective in working with faculties on MI issues, establishing an MI champion or
expert in each to act as first point of support as well as a steward to the data itself.
Support for cross-organisational involvement on MI matters to help drive culture change can also be found in
Gartner papers. Gartner also notes that a significantly greater proportion of time will be spent on training
users, adopting good practice and promoting cross-organisational user groups compared with time spent on
technology. Furthermore, they underline the risk involved in introducing new information systems before
such organisational and managerial considerations as training.
Gartner also observe many organisations lose enormous amounts of money as significant numbers of staff
spend too much time accessing, formatting and presenting data, not to mention debating its validity. Cultural
change is one way of addressing this, in particular training. In particular, organisations often spend significant
amounts on sophisticated data warehousing and business intelligence technology projects that, without
sufficient skilled data analysts or other MI literate staff, are not used to anywhere near their full potential.
37
22. 10/11 Technology Project(s)
Dependent on the outcome of the 09/10 architecture project.
38
24. MI provision as an ongoing regular service
1. Outline of the Proposal
A case is made below for MI provision to become an ongoing regular service, established and properly
resourced, with requirements evolving rapidly over time rather than being treated as a series of stop-start
projects. More specifically:



If the first two years of the roadmap are successfully completed and the benefits realised, MI provision
should be at a point where it can become business as usual;
This does not imply that no further projects are needed, rather that they will be smaller, far more
specifically targeted and shorter;
Development should be rolling in nature, with MI treated as a scarce resource and new initiatives strictly
time controlled and restricted. For example, allocate 10 weeks to new MI for L&T, capture requirements
and prioritise, develop as far as possible in the time allowed and according to the priorities determined,
then stop when reach the end of the 10 weeks regardless of the point reached.
2. Rationale
All activity has to move from being a project (i.e. carried out over a finite period, leading to specified change,
requiring dedicated resources and funding), to ‘business as usual’ (i.e. new processes are normalized and
systems move to sustainable operations). This denotes a consolidation and maturing of an activity as it embeds
into the management and working of the University.
In the case of MI provision, requirements are constantly and rapidly changing, meaning the time taken to start
and stop a project can produce major difficulties. Development is therefore restricted in terms of time and
resources, requiring strictly controlled timeframes and a quick transition of initiatives to business as usual.
Indeed, there may be areas which could be provided as immediate services rather than setting up projects, to
offer appropriate responsiveness to needs. In many cases, such services could make use of resources and local
knowledge already available.
For example, early normalization of MI provision is crucial at the University given the local strategic context.
Work undertaken to ensure planning and strategy processes is well defined and stable to run as a business-asusual processes. There remains, however, a requirement for established, appropriate, effective and efficient
management information provision in support of this area.
The advantages of this approach are as follows:




It enables the continual monitoring of MI provision;
Establishes MI provision as a core professional on-going service, rather than as ad hoc intensive projects;
Strengthening MI provision for decision making helps support strategic objectives;
Maximise use of existing technology investments by developing core expertise.
3. Success Factors
The primary caveat for MI provision to be offered as a responsive service is to ensure sufficient resources
available to provide a level of service that quickly meets needs. Other requirements are
 The need for a carefully developed framework to establish control over activity and ensure it is correctly
resourced;
 Decisions to be taken over who facilitates or oversees normalised MI activity;
 The need for a culture that is open to fast change.
39
26. Review Point
Description

Is the University ready to move on to more sophisticated practices with regard to Business Intelligence
and scenario modelling to help gain competitive advantage?
Sponsor

Management Information Manager post recommended.
Type

Strategy map.
Practical example benefit(s)


Inserting MI on research grant application success rates by funding body into the business process of
applying for a research grant;
Sophisticated modelling of financial effects of changes in student numbers in future including sensitivity
analysis.
Objectives

Given this is two years in the future it is sensible to define them in the light of developments during those
two years.
Scope

Given this is two years in the future it is sensible to define the detail closer to start time.
Pros



Takes stock of where University has reached and reviews final two years of the roadmap;
Sets scene for University to make mature use of MI for sophisticated planning, scenario evaluation,
sensitivity analysis and as part of regular business processes;
Good practice.
Cons


Time taken to undertake review, particularly if using consultation, may hold up further work;
Given to a degree this work is already undertaken via shadow systems, is the business case for redeveloping at a corporate IS level valid?
Costs

Unless external consultancy is used, costs should only be internal staff time. Detailed costing closer to the
time.
Risks

Define closer to the time.
Timeframe (with key milestones where available)
40

2010/11. Precise timeframe to be defined closer to the time.
Relationship with non Mantle projects

Current non Mantle projects listed should have completed by then however a specific task to re-evaluate
with whatever other projects are current or planned is recommended.
41
28. 11/12 Technology Project(s)
Dependent on the outcome of the 09/10 architecture project.
42
30. 12/13 Technology Project(s)
Dependent on the outcome of the 09/10 architecture project.
43