Strategic Planning and Change
Project Plan
For
Delivering more with less
Document Control
Project Title:
Delivering More with Less
Project Manager:
Iain Springate
Date:
September 2010
Version
Date
Author(s)
Notes on Revisions
Draft 1
23/09/10
Iain Springate
Draft plan for Board Meeting
Final
11/10/10
Iain Springate
Agreed Plan amended following Board comments
2 of 36
Table of Contents
1.
PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 4
2.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 4
3.
PROJECT PLAN ............................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
4.
RISKS, CONSTRAINTS AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................... 15
4.1
4.2
5.
FINANCE ................................................................................................................................. 16
STAFFING RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 17
MANAGING THE PROJECT ........................................................................................................ 18
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
7.
RISKS ..................................................................................................................................... 15
CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................................................................... 16
RESOURCE FOR THE PROJECT ............................................................................................... 16
5.1
5.2
6.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................. 6
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................ 7
DATA ANALYSIS AND WRITING OF LEARNING RESOURCES ........................................................... 10
DISSEMINATION ....................................................................................................................... 10
PROJECT REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 12
TIMESCALES AND MILESTONES................................................................................................. 13
MONITORING PROJECT PROGRESS ........................................................................................... 18
MONITORING PROJECT QUALITY ............................................................................................... 18
COMMUNICATION ..................................................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX ONE: INSTITUTION-SPECIFIC PROJECTS ............................................................ 20
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CREATIVE ARTS ........................................................................................ 20
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER ........................................................................................................... 24
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FALMOUTH ............................................................................................ 28
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX........................................................................................................... 34
3 of 36
1.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The ‘Delivering More with Less’ project is responding to the current (and ongoing)
climate of constrained resources in HE, arising as a result of the wider economic
problems faced in the UK and abroad. In the recent past, HE managers have
generally been able to draw on additional resources to drive up quality, or deliver
additional services. However, resources are increasingly constrained, and managers
need to be able to operate effectively in this new context to ensure that institutions
remain competitive. This means that managers need to be able to deliver more with
less by: prioritising and weeding out unproductive activities; seeking out and
implementing efficiencies in the processes they oversee; and, being more creative
with the resources available to them. A key issue for managers whilst dealing with
these challenges will be to ensure that any cost reductions align with the strategic
aims of their institution going forward, rather than making changes that reduce cost in
the short-term, but have a negative impact on activities in the future.
Whilst the difficult economic climate is only now having an impact on HE, other
sectors (e.g. private sector) have felt the impact prior to this, and so have been
putting in places measures to address the situation by becoming more efficient.
Some within the HE sector have also begun to address these issues, recognising
that the impact would trickle down and have an impact on them eventually.
In this new context, managers in HE need resources to enable them to develop the
skills and attitudes needed to operate effectively in this context, as well as knowledge
of practical steps they can take to deliver more with less. There is value in learning
from successful practice in HE, as well from the practice of those in other sectors that
have successfully delivered more with less. A scope of the literature suggests there
is evidence that different sectors have addressed this challenge effectively, and that
there is are potential lessons to learn in the areas of organisational culture, systems
and structures.
In response to this, the ‘Delivering More with Less’ project seeks to develop a
learning resource for managers in HE to aid them in dealing with this new context,
drawing on practice both from HE, and further afield.
2.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
‘Delivering More with Less’ is led by the University of Exeter in partnership with the
University of the Creative Arts, University College Falmouth and the University of
Sussex. HEFCE has provided £275k of funding from the Leading Transformational
Change element of the Leadership, Governance and Management Fund, which aids
transformation activities in HE in response to the current economic situation. The
partners are providing match funding.
The project will develop resources to help managers acquire the skills, attitudes and
knowledge necessary to deliver more with less, specifically by:


Generating an evidence-based set of ideas about how managers can deliver
more with less
Developing learning resources based on the evidence that are directly
applicable to managers in HE
4 of 36

Disseminating the resources throughout the project widely via a project
website, and dissemination events.
The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the project are outlined below.
KPI
Institutional
Project Success
Measure
Project assessed by individual HEI
to be successful
Evidence-based
learning
resources
Generate an evidence-based set of
ideas of how to successfully deliver
more with less
Write learning
resources for
managers in HE
Dissemination
Key lessons learnt from specific
projects and across projects well
disseminated
Quality
Learning
Resource
3.
of
Utility of the learning resource
produced gives support to sector in
addressing economic challenges
Cost
Total project cost on/within budget
Timeliness
Project Milestones
Project completion on time
Evidence
 Quantitative
measures
meet
projected levels
 Qualitative
evidence
supports
conclusions of success
 Completion of literature review
 Completion of interviews
 Completion of four trial projects
 Completion of collation and analysis
of data
 Creation of learning resources
 Good levels of attendance and
satisfaction recorded from interim
and final dissemination events
 Significant traffic to project website
 Positive feedback to the project team
and/or HEFCE LGM team from
individuals/HEIs in the sector
 Positive feedback from partner
organisations e.g. BUFDG
 Reference and use of tools in
conferences, workshops etc.
 Positive feedback to the project team
and/or HEFCE LGM team and/or
HEFCE regional teams on use made
by HEIs for tackling economic
challenges.
 No project overspend
 No significant underspend (i.e. at
least 95% of budget used)
 All milestones met
 Project completed on or before end
date
PROJECT PLAN
This section describes the project in more detail. As discussed above, the project will
generate an evidence-based set of ideas about how managers can deliver more with
less. The evidence will be identified through a literature review, interviews with
managers who have successfully delivered more with less (from HE and other
sectors), and the trialling of different approaches in four institutions. The findings from
these three research elements will be drawn together to draw out the key lessons,
key success factors, examples of successful practice, as well as challenges and how
these have been overcome. This evidence will then be used to develop the learning
resources to be disseminated via the online learning resource and other
dissemination events.
The project is summarised in the diagram below.
5 of 36
Literature review
Interviews with managers
across different sectors
Projects at
institutions
participating
Evidence
Online learning resource
(e.g. containing guidelines for delivering
more with less, practical ‘toolkits’, case
studies, examples of good practice)
Dissemination
(e.g. conferences,
information events)
training
and
The following sections provide more information about the project:






Research questions: Setting out the focus of the evidence to be gathered
Research Activities: Covering the literature review, interviews and
institutional projects
Data Analysis: Discussing the analysis of data gathered, and the creation of
learning resources
Dissemination: Setting out all the ways that findings from the project will be
disseminated to the HE sector
Project Review: Covering the processes for project review
Timescales and milestones: Summarising the main milestones and
timescale for the activities.
Project management is covered separately in section six.
3.1.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The project will be directed by a set of high-level research questions which determine
the scope of the evidence gathered, and therefore the issues dealt with by the
learning resources:






How have organisations from different sectors successfully delivered more
with less? (i.e. activities; personnel involved; timelines etc.)
What have been the outcomes from the activities? (e.g. scale and nature of
savings made, service improvements etc.) How have these outcomes been
evidenced? (i.e. robustness of evidence)
What is the context in which successful activities have occurred? Have any
contextual factors (i.e. assumptions of normality) potentially had a significant
bearing on success?
What are the key success factors that have led to organisations successfully
delivering more with less?
What challenges have organisations faced in attempting to deliver more with
less? How have these been overcome?
Can anything be improved about the activities undertaken? Are there further
6 of 36

3.2.
opportunities to deliver more with less? (i.e. through refining/developing
activities further)
To what extent are the specific activities and learning from the experiences of
other organisations transferable into the HE sector?
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
The research activities will involve a literature review, interviews and trialling of
different approaches to investigate the research questions. It is anticipated that whilst
the first activity will be the literature review, there will be overlap between the
research elements, and therefore they will inform each other. Each of the research
strands is described in detail below.
Literature review
The literature review will look at relevant literature to identify how organisations have
successfully delivered more with less. The literature will include various types of
document including journals, books, and press, as well as grey literature (i.e.
research, reports and information that is not conventionally published). The focus of
the literature will not be limited to the HE sector, but will include other sectors where
managers have successfully delivered more with less. The search strategy for the
literature is described in the table below.
Search Strategy
Search Terms
Subject terms (inc. derivatives): Delivering more with less,
efficiency, cost savings, cost removal, cost reduction,
savings, value for money, business process review
Terms to add to narrow search (inc. derivatives):
restructure, structure, system, culture, change, staff,
employee, assets, estate, transactional, transformational,
fit for purpose, leadership, Lean, quantifying, evaluation
Search Sites
Scope of literature
Number of sources to
select
Ask project partners for advice on search terms
Relevant academic databases
Relevant websites
Search engines
Ask project partners for any sites to search, or literature
Nothing published prior to 2000, with focus on 2006
onwards
Focus on UK, but with English-language international
literature where relevant (e.g. in relation to Canada, USA,
Australia)
30
Searches will be carried out using the strategy above, and then screening will
remove the documents that are irrelevant to the review. Following this, a simple
spreadsheet will be used to note the potential contribution of each piece of literature
to answering the research questions, and from that to rank the research in terms of
its potential contribution. The most relevant 30 documents that cover the research
questions and range of interventions covered in the literature will then be selected for
review. Each of these will be reviewed and summarised onto a review template,
7 of 36
designed to collate the findings and simplify and quicken the data analysis process.
The data will be analysed to extract the key messages for the HE sector, as well as
to identify potential case studies and examples to use as part of the learning
resource. The findings from the review will inform the two other research elements by
identifying:



companies/individuals that have successfully delivered more with less
key issues involved in delivering more with less successfully that can be
further explored with interviewees
good practice principles/examples to inform the work of the four participating
institutions.
The findings of the review will be written up in a stand-alone paper.
Interviews
Interviews will be carried out with between 20 and 30 relevant individuals who have
successfully led changes to deliver more with less in their organisation. Interviewees
will be sought from different sectors, including from HE, and the private, public and
third sectors. The criteria for selection will not be sector-based, but on experience of
successful delivery of more with less that is potentially applicable within the HE
sector.
Organisations that have successfully delivered more with less will be identified via
several routes:





Asking the project leads at the participating universities to determine if any lay
members of their councils would be relevant to interview, or have any other
relevant contacts
Asking contacts at HEFCE and the Leadership Foundation for HE if there are
any members of their boards who would be relevant to interview
Through examples of successful practice covered in the literature
Contacting relevant sector bodies in the private (e.g. CBI), public (e.g. LGA,
NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement (although this has been
recently axed by the Government)) and Third sectors (e.g. NCVO), as well as
in HE to identify organisations/individuals to interview
Snowball sampling (i.e. ask interviewees if they have any contacts that would
be relevant for interview).
Potential interviewees would be sent information about the project, stressing the
importance of the project to the HE sector, and the sector’s importance to employers
in all sectors, to encourage them to participate. Where there was no individual
contact at an organisation, an appropriate individual would be sought (e.g. in public
relations) to contact and discuss the project with, so that they can identify and pass
on contact details for relevant individual(s) in the organisation.
Prior to confirming an interview, the researcher would have a brief discussion with
the interviewee about their organisation and their delivery of more with less, in order
to ascertain as far as possible that the investment of time in the interview will be
useful. If there are more nominated interviewees than it is possible to interview, this
will serve as a way of deciding which to interview (i.e. ensuring no duplication,
choosing most directly applicable activities to HE sector etc.).
Informed consent would be gained prior to interviews, and discussions would be had
8 of 36
with interviewees prior to the interview to determine whether they/their company wish
to be named or remain anonymous. It is anticipated that where companies consent to
being named, any information about them will be sent to them for approval prior to
publication by the project.
Interviews will be semi-structured, meaning that the researcher has a core set of
issues to discuss with interviewees, but can deviate from these to pursue potentially
useful information, or gain necessary clarification. Where appropriate, interviews may
be carried out with more than one individual in an organisation (e.g. because multiple
individuals were involved in leading the changes; to get different perspectives on the
changes and how/why they have worked etc.). The form of interview will depend on
the preference of the individuals being interviewed, and could involve individual
interviews, group interviews, and telephone interviews. As appropriate and where
value can be added, other individuals involved with the project (e.g. Patrick Kennedy)
may be involved with the interviewing process.
Interviews will be recorded for accuracy, and then summarised by the researcher into
a template. As with the literature review, the data will be analysed to extract the key
messages for the HE sector, as well as to identify potential case studies and
examples to use as part of the learning resource.
The findings of the interviews will be written up in a stand-alone paper.
Trialling of different approaches
The partner institutions are each trialling an approach to delivering more with less.
The four projects are of interest to the institutions, as well as relevant to the wider HE
sector, and are designed to be different, but complementary, in order to provide as
much value as possible. Project descriptions are provided at Appendix One.
The projects will be managed by the individual institution. The Project Manager will
discuss with all the projects at the outset how they are going to record their activities,
and identify benefits/impacts, challenges, key success factors and potential
improvements throughout the project. It is anticipated that a standardised tool will be
used to gather feedback from the four institutions at set points throughout the project,
and that a review of the activities will take place at the end of the project. In addition,
the Project Manager will facilitate sharing of information and learning between the
four institutions throughout the project (see below).
The institutions will produce outputs from their projects that will feed into the wider
project. These outputs will be focused on the delivery of efficiencies, and the
mechanisms used to achieve those efficiencies. These will include:




Two interim reports following the headings provided by the Project Manager
and Researcher (December ’10 and June ’11)
A final report encompassing a review of their project including activities,
challenges, lessons learnt, benefits/impacts, and costs incurred/savings made
A case study write up of the project for the website (or multiple case studies
if appropriate)
A resource document that will aid managers from other HEIs to implement
similar activities as those undertaken in the institutional project. This could be
a ‘how to’ guide or toolkit, or advice to other HEIs undertaking similar
activities, depending on what is most appropriate.
9 of 36
3.3.
DATA ANALYSIS AND WRITING OF LEARNING RESOURCES
The data will be analysed from each of the research strands, and will be brought
together. As dissemination will be carried out throughout the project, it is important
that the data is drawn together in such a way that emerging findings can be drawn
out at any stage of the project cycle. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo will
be used to organise and interrogate the whole dataset. As well as being stored in
case study format, the data will be gathered under each of the research questions in
order to draw out the emerging themes across all activities. This will enable findings
of whole case studies, as well as findings from across the dataset, to be drawn out at
any point in the project cycle. The findings will form the basis of the learning
resources to be developed.
Learning resources will be developed that enable managers within HE to quickly and
easily engage with the research findings. The resources developed will depend on
the nature and topics of the research findings, and it is anticipated that there will be
various resources:




3.4.
Two project reports, summarising the project and its findings
A number of case studies of organisations where more has been delivered
with less, describing the process and outcomes, success factors, challenges,
and how it could be applied within HE
One or more practical toolkits to encourage and facilitate managers to
consider, test and apply the lessons from the project
A project website, which will act as an online learning resource, with an
information architecture allowing users to quickly and easily find their way
through the lessons from the project.
DISSEMINATION
There will be extensive dissemination from the project to the HE sector. This will
include an online resource, presentations at events and a project report, as well as
ongoing dissemination as appropriate through the project website.
The resources at the project are aimed at managers in HE. There are different
audiences within this group, for example managers with strategic roles and those
with operational roles. In recognition of the fact that all managers need to be
engaged in delivering efficiencies to see sustainable change, the project will aim to
provide resources for all managers. Where necessary, there will be stratification in
the website to direct different audiences to the relevant information for them. In all
resources, key messages for the different audiences will be drawn out.
Ongoing Dissemination
There will be ongoing dissemination throughout the project, due to the anticipated
high level of interest and urgency of the issue for the sector. This ongoing
dissemination will include publication of case study examples (as and when written
up and passed for publication), plus findings from the literature review and interviews
when complete. It is anticipated that emerging findings will be drawn together and
disseminated at several points in the project cycle, aligned with dissemination
through events.
This ongoing dissemination will take place through the project website on the
University of Exeter’s Planning Services webpages
(http://admin.exeter.ac.uk/ppr/HEFCE/more_with_less.shtml). Through the website,
interested individuals will also be able to sign up to a project email list and/or Twitter
10 of 36
feed to be alerted when there is new information available. There will also be a forum
on the site to encourage individuals to comment on the materials and findings, and
interact with the project team.
Online Learning Resource
The online learning resource will be a development of the project site, and will
continue to be sited within the Planning Services pages of The University of Exeter’s
website. Links will be provided to the relevant pages of partner’s websites. The
information architecture will allow users to explore the lessons from the project in an
intuitive way, and quickly and easily find information and resources relating to the
specific issues/areas that concern them. Clear signposting will be used so that
different audiences can find information appropriate to them. In principle, the ‘deeper’
into the site a user goes, the more detailed information they will find on a topic,
including potential benefits, success factors, challenges to be aware of, and case
studies of successful practice.
The site will be designed with, and built by, IT Services at Exeter, in time for the final
dissemination stages of the project, and will stay live until at least February 2015 in
line with the grant conditions made by HEFCE. Until the resource is developed,
ongoing findings and information about the project will be available through the
project website.
The learning resource development will have several stages:








Clarification of concept (e.g. general architecture; information contained
within; location etc.)
Design information architecture (i.e. the structure of pages and links)
Build the website structure
Write the information for the site (based on other project outputs, but writing
style amended in line with good practice web writing)
Create the website and test internally
Pilot the website with a small number of managers in HE (e.g.. to check for
functionality; ease of use; usefulness of structure etc.)
Amend the site as necessary in line with comments
Launch the site
Internal Learning Event
There will be a dissemination event for staff at the four partner institutions in June 2011. It is
recognised that the projects at the four institutions are very different. Therefore there are likely
to be staff at each institution who are not directly involved with the project at their institution,
but would have an interest in one or more of the other three projects. There is value for the
institutions in cascading learning beyond those who are directly involved in their projects.
The event will last a day, will involve relevant staff from all partner universities, will be
interactive, and will involve:



Presentation of emerging findings from the project as a whole (i.e. all three strands of
research)
Detailed presentation of activities, lessons and findings from each of the four
institutional projects, with significant opportunity for participants to ask questions and
interrogate the projects further
Opportunity for all participants to share ideas/practices/challenges about delivering
more with less, and to learn from each other.
11 of 36
It is anticipated that as staff are limited to partner institutions, this will facilitate the sharing of
the challenges and difficulties that partners have faced in a way that were not possible if
those outside the partnership attended.
Events
The emerging findings and final results will be disseminated at relevant events
throughout the project. It is anticipated that emerging findings and then full findings
will be presented and a dialogue had with managers in the sector at:






AUA South west Conference (25th January 2011)
LFHE Conference (26th January 2011)
AUA Corporate Planning Forum (February 2011)
Association of University Administrators (AUA) Annual Conference (April
2011)
An interim symposium/conference, organised through the South West group
of the British Universities Finance directors Group (BUFDG).
National BUFDG conference.
Other organisations that may have appropriate dissemination events are AUDE,
Association of managers in HE Colleges and UHR.
There may also be some bespoke dissemination and training events held, covering
the whole project, as well as presentations by the partner institutions.
Project Report
The project will also produce two written reports:


3.5.
A project report, outlining what the project has done, what has been
achieved, and describing the outcomes of the project
A short key findings report with an executive summary describing the main
findings from the three research strands, and the implications/potential for the
HE sector to deliver more with less.
PROJECT REVIEW
Once the objectives of the project have been achieved, a project review will take
place. The review will look at performance against the objectives and KPIs, and
determine to what extent these have been met. The review will also seek to draw out
lessons from the project as a whole to inform future projects of this nature. It is
anticipated that the review will involve all the partners in the project.
12 of 36
3.6.
TIMESCALES AND MILESTONES
Month
August 2010
September
Activities
Orientation & clarification of scope
Draft project plan produced
Institutional Projects: Visit universities and clarify
projects prior to Board Meeting
Key Milestones
October
Board Meeting (4th Oct)
Literature Review: instrument construction
Interviews: Instrument construction
Literature Review: Search Strategy agreed
Literature Review: Searches undertaken & literature
identified
Literature Review: Select literature to review
Interviews: Identifying contacts
Determine system to review project progress
Literature Review: Review literature
Interviews: Identifying contacts (ongoing as necessary)
Interviews: Setting up interviews
Project Co-ordination Group meeting (w/c 13th Dec tbc)
Literature Review: Review literature
Literature Review: Analyse & write up
Interviews: Setting up interviews
Interviews: Carrying out interviews
Interviews: Summarising & writing up case studies
Institutional Projects: Analyse and write up interim
reports 1
Dissemination: Ongoing
Review project progress
Online Learning Resource: Clarification paper for Board
Board Meeting (21st Jan)
Interviews: Carrying out interviews
Interviews: Summarising & writing up case studies
Dissemination: Interim dissemination events
Dissemination: Ongoing
Online Learning Resource: Clarification of concept
finalised at Board Meeting (21st Jan)
Write Progress Report for HEFCE
Complete and send progress report to HEFCE
Interviews: Carrying out interviews
Interviews: Summarising & writing up case studies
Dissemination: Interim dissemination events
Dissemination: Ongoing
Interviews: Carrying out interviews
Interviews: Summarising & writing up case studies
Dissemination: Interim dissemination events
Dissemination: Ongoing
Interviews: Summarising & writing up case studies
Interviews analysis and writing up
Dissemination: Ongoing
Dissemination: Ongoing
Review project progress
Online Learning Resource: Design information
architecture
Learning resources: paper to board on what will be
developed
Board Meeting (w/c 6th June tbc)
Dissemination event involving project and other staff
from partner institutions (incorporating Project
Coordination Group)
Institutional Projects: Analyse and write up interim
reports 2
Dissemination: Ongoing
Online Learning Resource: Agree architecture
Agree MoU
Agree project plan
Agree individual partner
projects
(all actions- 4th Oct)
November
December
January
2011
February
March
April
May
June
13 of 36
Key info on Exeter website
(30th Sept)
Complete Literature review
(23rd Dec)
Project interim reports: 1 (but
v. light touch) (23rd Dec)
Emerging findings 1 published
(31st Jan)
Progress Report to HEFCE
(ready for 1st Feb)
Complete interview phase
(28th April)
Complete data analysis of all
literature review/interview data
(By Board- 3rd June)
Dissemination event involving
staff from all partners (w/c 20th
June tbc)
Project interim reports: 2 (By
event- 17th June)
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
2012
February
Learning resources: Agree what to develop
Online Learning Resource: Write material & build site
Dissemination: Ongoing
Learning resources: Develop
Online Learning Resource: Write material & build site
Write Progress Report to HEFCE
Complete and send Progress report to HEFCE
Dissemination: Ongoing
Learning resources: Develop
Online Learning Resource: Write material & build site
Dissemination: Ongoing
Review project progress
Learning resources: Complete
Online Learning Resource: Write material & build site
Dissemination: Ongoing
Project reports: writing
Online Learning Resource: Internal test
Board Meeting (w/c 14th Nov)
Dissemination: final dissemination events
Project reports: writing
Online Learning Resource: Piloting & amendment
Project Co-ordination Group meeting (w/c 5th Dec)
Institutional Projects: Analyse and write up final project
reviews, and produce case studies/resources.
Dissemination: final dissemination events
Project reports: writing
Online Learning Resource: Release and publicise
Project Review: Collect/collate data
Dissemination: final dissemination events
Complete and send Progress report to HEFCE
Dissemination: final dissemination events
Project Review: analyse data and complete
Board Meeting (w/c 30th Jan)
14 of 36
Emerging findings 2 published
(21st July)
Progress Report to HEFCE
(ready for 1st Aug)
Creation of Learning resources
and website (27th Oct)
Complete partner project
reviews (1st Dec)
Online learning resource goes
live (23rd Dec)
Project reports completed (23rd
Dec)
Progress Report to HEFCE
(15th Feb)
Project Review completed
(15th Feb)
4.
RISKS, CONSTRAINTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
4.1 RISKS
Area
Strategic risks
Impact*
Likelihood*
Total
Mitigation
Net risk
The learning resource does not
fit sector’s needs
5
2
10
2.5
The project outputs lag the
needs of the partners/sector
4
2
8
Individual projects fail to deliver
to partner expectations
4
2
8
75%- project team briefed by
senior leaders at partner HEIs
on
sector
needs
and
developments
60%- investment of resource
upfront; interim/final stages to
dissemination will deliver early
outputs
75%project
specification
owned by partners; close
engagement
in
project
management
3
1
3
25%limited
mitigation
possible, but all intelligence is
pointing to there being major
pressures
2.25
Project partners relationship
breaks down to major extent
5
1
5
1.25
Project partners unable to
provide sufficient of their own
resources
Project over-runs on time and/or
cost
4
1
4
75%- existing close relationship
between partners (Cornwall
campus sharing); good informal
links between senior staff’
Project Board will keep high
level communications open.
75%- senior commitment in
place
4
1
4
1
Loss of project manager or other
key project staff
5
2
10
75%- robust project plan,
professional
project
management approach
75%- project managed within
broader
Exeter
approach;
ability to vire resources if
necessary
4
1
4
75%- will draw on experienced
IT and learning professionals;
technologies used will be
already proven.
1
Relevant literature cannot be
identified for review
5
1
5
1.25
Individuals/organisations cannot
be identified for interview
5
2
10
Individuals/organisations will not
consent to be interviewed
5
2
10
75%- identification of a range of
search terms used across
different sectors; identification
of multiple sources to search
(e.g. databases; websites)
75%- multiple routes to identify;
stakeholders with links into
different sectors involved in
project
40%- flexibility of interview
approach/timing
for
convenience; stress importance
of project for HE sector, and
importance of HE to all
employers; involvement could
contribute towards CSR targets
3.2
2
Environmental risks
The funding challenge assumed
does not in fact materialise
Project management risks
1
2.5
Technical risks
Online learning resource proves
to be sub-standard
Research risks
*Impact is defined on a scale of 1-6 (1 being insignificant, 2 minor, 3 moderate, 4 significant, 5 major, 6 catastrophic)
*Likelihood is defined also 1-6 (1 being very remote, 2 unlikely, 3 moderately likely, 4 significant chance, 5 very likely, 6 almost certain)
15 of 36
2.5
6
4.2
CONSTRAINTS
There are several key constraints that the project must operate within, and which
need to be monitored:




Budget: The project must operate within the budget (comprised of HEFCE
contribution and individual institution contributions). The budget contains £15k
contingency. Project Manager and individual institutions to profile anticipated
spend and monitor actual spend.
Timescale: All outputs must be delivered by February 15th 2012. Project
manager to monitor progress against milestones.
Senior staff time: Project relies on the input and support of senior staff
across the four institutions, who are likely to be very busy. Project Manager to
ensure that their time is not used on tasks that could be done by project team.
Availability of interviewees: Research will rely on interviews with individuals
across different sectors, and these interviews will fall outside their day-to-day
responsibilities. Researcher to be flexible and fit in with availability of
interviewees when setting up interviews.
5.
RESOURCE FOR THE PROJECT
5.1
FINANCE
The budget for the project is laid out in the table below.
Cost
Core Project
Project manager/researcher and office support
Office set up and stationary
IT development
Training and Development
Travel
Contingency
Core Total
Institutional Projects
Project support
Specialist advice/consultancy
Travel
Institutional Total
Whole Project
Total
Total
£66k
£4k
£10k
£4.5k
£2.5k
£14.4k
£101.4k
£95.6k
£74k
£4k
£173.6k
£275k
The schedule of payments to Exeter, as lead institution, and from Exeter to partners,
are laid out below.
Month
January ‘10
April ‘10
July ‘10
August ‘10
October ‘10
January ‘11
April ‘11
Payment from HEFCE to Exeter
£48.5k
£48.5k
£48.5k
Payment for institutional projects
£86.8k (£21.7K each)
£48.5k
£40.5k
£40.5k
£275k
16 of 36
£86.8k (£21.7K each)
£173.6k
The partners will also match fund the project through full economic costing of the cost
of project staff, and senior staff time incurred on the project.
Project partner
Exeter
Creative arts, Falmouth and Sussex
5.2
Contribution
£119k
£149k (£49.7k each)
STAFFING RESOURCES
Project Board
The scope of the Project Board is defined in the Terms of Reference and
membership papers. The Project board will normally meet three times annually and is
comprised of the project leads from the four participating institutions:






Patrick Kennedy, Chair (University of Exeter)
Alan Cooke (University of the Creative Arts)
Niamh Lamond (University College Falmouth)
Louise Nadal (University of Sussex)
Sally Wilcox (ex-Lay Member of University of Exeter Council)
Iain Springate (Project Manager and Researcher).
Board meetings are attended by other individuals as appropriate and agreed by the
Project Board, including Anna Verhamme, Tash Khan-Davis (Exeter) and Anne
George (Falmouth).
Project Team
The core project team at the University of Exeter is comprised of Iain Springate
(Project Manager and Researcher, Delivering More with Less) and (until October ‘10)
Cate Planchon (Administrator).
Project staff for the four institutional projects are:




University of the Creative Arts- Alan Cooke, Dr Seymour Roworth-Stokes
University of Exeter- Patrick Kennedy, Gill Preston
University College Falmouth- Niamh Lamond, Jo Stubbs
University of Sussex- Louise Nadal
Project Co-ordination Group
The Project Co-ordination Group will be comprised of the Project Manager and
Researcher and the key operational leads at each of the four participating
institutions. The group will meet three times, around the time of each interim report.
One of the meetings (in June 2011) will be incorporated into the internal learning
event that will involve a wider group of staff from the partner universities. The aim of
the meetings will be to:



Ensure all partners are up to date on activities across the project
Discuss activities, and share progress, ideas and learning
Look at and discuss emerging findings from the project as a means to check
relevance and quality.
17 of 36
6.
MANAGING THE PROJECT
This section describes how the project will be managed, focusing on the central
project management. The four projects run by individual institutions will be internally
managed by those institutions, and their responsibilities are set out in Memoranda of
Understanding that are agreed by the project Board.
6.1.
MONITORING PROJECT PROGRESS
In order to ensure that the project remains on track to deliver the required outcomes
on time and on budget, monitoring will be undertaken by the Project Manager
overseen by Patrick Kennedy, and the Project Board. The Project Manager will set in
place systems to keep track of:



Progress against milestones
Progress against KPIs/objectives
Spend against profiled budget
Progress will be reported to Patrick Kennedy at regular meetings, and to the Project
Board at Board meetings. Any issues arising will be dealt with in line with the
mitigations against identified risk if appropriate, and in consultation with Patrick
Kennedy and the Project Board.
Whilst the projects at the four participating institutions will be managed by those
institutions, the Project Manager will keep in contact with the project leads at each
institution in order to keep abreast of individual project progress. This ensures that
any delays/issues that could potentially impact on the project as a whole can be
identified and dealt with.
6.2.
MONITORING PROJECT QUALITY
In order to ensure that the work carried out as part of the project is of the required
quality, some ongoing monitoring of quality will be carried out:



Literature review and interviews: Both strands of activity will be undertaken
in ways that aim to ensure high quality output. For the interviews this will
involve development of a comprehensive interview schedule, recording of
conversations to ensure accuracy, and checking summaries of interviews with
participants. For the literature review this will involve development of a
comprehensive summary template to ensure all information is gathered
systematically. It is anticipated that one or more early case study write ups
and emerging findings will be looked over by a member or members of the
Board to ensure quality of output
Projects at individual institutions: Quality issues will largely be monitored
by individual institutions. However, the Project Manager will have an oversight
of the projects through the regular reports of progress and findings, and the
Project Board can monitor the quality of projects through reporting at Project
Board meetings
Project outputs: Outputs from the project (i.e. resources, toolkit etc.) will be
initially checked by a member or members of the Project Board, and then
feedback will be gained from managers in the HE sector as outputs are rolled
out.
18 of 36
6.3.
COMMUNICATION
The communication with stakeholders in the project will be carried out as described
in the table below.
Stakeholder
Expected Communications
Frequency
Media
HEFCE
Progress reports and updates
if significant changes are
made to project or delays
occur
As requested (TBC)
Written reports
Project Board
Awareness of project progress
against plans
Emerging findings
Board meetings every four
months
Meetings
Project
Coordination Group
Project progress against planboth central project and
institutional projects
Three times throughout
project in line with interim
reports
Meetings
tele/videoconference
Regular meetings (TBC)
and
additional
as
required/requested
Meetings
Email
Emerging findings and lessons
from each other to inform
projects
Patrick Kennedy
Awareness of project progress
against plans
Early
indication
of
any
potential issues, delays etc.
19 of 36
or
APPENDIX ONE: INSTITUTION-SPECIFIC PROJECTS
7.
7.1.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CREATIVE ARTS
Key contact(s)
Staff Member
Alan Cooke, PVC Corporate
Resources
Seymour Roworth-Stokes, PVC
Research and Development
Contact details
01252 892647
acooke@ucreative.ac.uk
01252 892768
srstokes@ucreative.ac.uk
Rationale for project activities
The University for the Creative Arts is undertaking a structural and organisational change to deliver
enhanced international support functions in line with its Internationalisation Strategy. This is based on
a business process review and self evaluation of service delivery which will inform an option appraisal
to consolidate operations through an International Office.
The project seeks to derive efficiencies in the delivery of services which are currently dispersed
across a number of departments, whilst deriving a sound business plan to ensure investment in
internationalisation will secure additional income in the medium to long term.
Internationalisation is seen as a key objective of University’s Strategic Plan covering the period until
2016-17, and will support a sustainable and prosperous future.
The LGM project will ensure the review will:

help identify duplication and gaps in existing processes;

ensure that processes are aligned with University’s strategic aims ;

Increase administrative efficiency through either centralisation or decentralisation which ever
is appropriate.
Whilst a self assessment by departments was undertaken in August 2010, the work is still in progress,
and further work is required to achieve the target date of 1st September 2011 for implementation.
The LGM project will support delivery through project management and will draw out the
impacts/benefits as well as good practice and lessons learnt.
Activities
The project has four phases:

Business Process Review: Functions which support international development include
International Admissions and Study Abroad through Academic Registry, English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) through Academic Services, International recruitment
through Marketing & Communication and accommodation and catering through
Estates Services. In addition Financial Services and Academic Units both have a
significant contribution to make.
The review has focused on the business processes and related expenditure
concerning the international (OS and EU) student lifecycle including efficiency and
effectiveness. Self assessment is nearly complete and an update report has been
tabled at Executive.
20 of 36

Option Appraisal and Implementation Schedule: The BPR has identified the following
issues:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Risk associated with Border Agency controls and Tier4 Highly Trusted Status
(HTS) – this affects OS recruitment, admissions, and student experience
(retention)
The need for an integrated English Language pre-sessional offer (Pathway
Centre) to enhance OS conversion
Improved Customer Relationship Management (regular contact ecommunications with prospective students)
Need to secure a ‘meet and greet’ service (only advice and guidance
currently)
Unclear accountabilities for the delivery of internationalisation activities
Investment in OS recruitment and promotion of Scholarships
Reallocation of resources from Home/EU (e.g. Admissions Days subject to a
‘capped’ market) to OS conversion
Improved and better response time for OS admissions management (e.g.
academic decisions based of electronic portfolios in 48 hours)
Alternative structural models need to be evaluated and costed to create an
International Office:
o
o
‘Satellite’ (with a Head and Administrative support to oversee functions
within respective departments)
Consolidated (functions brought together e.g. recruitment, admissions,
EAP/Study Abroad)
An Internationalisation Group (IG) has been formed to oversee the project and once
a decision has been made by Executive on the structure an Implementation
Schedule will be developed and consultation undertaken.

Business Plan: The Internationalisation Business Plan will be developed in parallel to the
Option Appraisal and Implementation Schedule.
It will draw together the Internationalisation Strategy, Academic Strategy and
operational plan for the International Office alongside other related international
support functions to identify objectives, targets and key performance indicators over
a 5 year period – to tie in with the new Strategic Plan. This will be informed by market
intelligence, opportunities for portfolio development and planning, and overseas
recruitment priorities.

Communication and Dissemination: building on good practice, this phase will evaluate how
effective the process has been, what efficiencies have been generated, benefits/impacts
identified and the lessons learnt.
Timescales and key milestones
Indicative timescales and key milestones from each strand of activity are laid out below:
6 September 2010
Update to Executive
7 – 20 September
Finance and
assessment
Academic
21 of 36
Areas
issued
with
BPR
self
24 September
Issue tenders
W/C 10 October
Tender responses for Project Manager
20 October
Internationalisation Group to receive BPR report
W/C 24 October
Appointment of Project Manager
1 November
Executive to make decision on structure through option
appraisal
22 November
Executive to receive outline for International Office Business
Plan and Implementation Schedule
21 January
Internationalisation Group to agree final draft of International
Office Business Plan
21 February
Executive
to
agree
communication plan
14 March
Executive to receive update on consultation process
W/C 11 April
Posts advertised
21 April
Update for Internationalisation Group
W/C 27 June
Interviews and appointments
25 July
Update for Internationalisation Group
1 September 2011
New structure fully operational
implementation
schedule
and
Anticipated impacts/benefits arising from activities and evidence of impact
We anticipate the impact will be:








Improved OS Student Experience
Development of portfolio through market intelligence
Increased external income
Greater levels of cultural awareness
Advancement of the Internationalisation Strategy
Improved processes and procedures related to the international student lifecycle and balance
of ‘central’ and ‘decentralised’ responsibilities
VfM for support of internationalisation
Benchmarked support in line with good practice
The fours phases of project implementation will be evaluated to derive specific impacts.
The Project Manager will report to the PVC R&D, and will work towards:




Appraisal of appropriate KPI’s and benchmarking data
Liaison with the Project Accountant (Strategic Developments) to derive options appraisal
Co-ordination of Business Plan, liaising with members of the Internationalisation Group in its
production
Development of an Implementation Schedule and Risk Analysis
22 of 36



Liaison on the development of a Communication Plan
Collation of lessons learnt and benchmark data to inform case study material
2 x interim reports and end of project report
It is envisaged that the Project Manager will be required to participate in the following:





Internationalisation Group briefing (20 October)
Meeting with Project Accountant (Strategic Developments)
Presentation of outline and final Business Plan to Internationalisation Group
4 x Internal Project Management meetings
Review meeting with LGM Project Manager
Note: tender proposals for the Project Management role will be asked to quantify time allocation to the
project.
Major risks
Risk
Inability to recruit Project Manager
Senior
Managers
cannot
agree
recommendations/conclusion
Trade Unions hamper implementation
schedule
Financial mismanagement
Inability to delivery income generation targets
Mitigation
Experience of managing major projects
Could second/redeploy staff to project if
necessary
Executive to make final decisions against the
timetable identified
Regular
communication
through
Joint
Negotiating and Consultative Committee
Experience of delivering major restructuring
programmes
Robust institutional regulations and audit
procedures in place
Market intelligence and market attractiveness
will be evaluated
Product portfolio will be reviewed relative to
demand
Project budget outline
(i.e. projection of HEFCE funding spend and forms of expenditure for institution contribution)
HEFCE Funding
Activity
Project Management
Market Research and Portfolio Planning
Consultation/Workshops
Travel and Subsistence
Reserve
Total
Cost
£35k
£5K
£1K
£2.5k
£0.9K
£43.4k
Institution contribution
The University for the Creative Arts will contribute staff time and allocation of resources equivalent to
£49.6K in fEC.
23 of 36
7.2.
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
Key contact(s)
Staff Member
Patrick Kennedy, Director of
Strategic Planning and Change
Gill Preston, Assistant Director,
Change
Contact details
01392 263315
P.J.Kennedy@exeter.ac.uk
01392 725391
G.L.Preston@exeter.ac.uk
Rationale for project activities
The project at Exeter focuses on the transition from nine Schools to five Colleges which took effect on
1st August 2010. Given the volatile external funding environment, the aim was to develop a revised
organisational structure that could secure efficiencies, drive up quality of service, increase income and
help facilitate a culture change of closer working together across colleges and professional services.
Whilst the transition from Schools to Colleges took effect on 1st August, it is recognised that the
transition is still a work in progress, and support is needed to ensure all the potential efficiency
benefits of the transition are realised. The project will aid delivery of some of this support, and seek to
draw out the impacts/benefits of the support as well as good practice and lessons learnt through
delivery.
Activities
The project is focused on three elements of the support for the transition to colleges, namely:



Common Action Teams (CATs): These are seven cross professional service teams that
report to the Professional Services Management Group (PSMG) and cover several areas
(e.g. Research and Finance, IT, HR). They purposely have no budget, and their remit is to
consider how to be more efficient, how to work more effectively, and the capture/sharing of
best practice. Two project managers (one to be appointed) are providing support to the CATs.
Value for Money (VfM) Committee: The Committee will seek to influence the activities that
drive VfM, and will monitor activity using a series of KPIs and reports. It will not manage or
deliver VfM projects/initiatives, but will seek to facilitate a culture and ultimately behaviour
change so that all staff take responsibility for seeking/achieving efficiencies in their work.
Staff Suggestion Scheme: The Scheme will be developed as part of the project, building on
good practice elsewhere, and will gain staff views on how efficiencies could be generated in
their work.
24 of 36
Timescales and key milestones
Indicative timescales and key milestones from each strand of activity are laid out below:
Month
Aug 2010
Sept
Activity
All strands: Project Planning
VfM Committee: First meeting
Staff Suggestion Scheme:
implementation issues etc.)
Planning
(i.e.
scheme
design;
process;
Oct
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Planning
Nov
CATs: First meetings late 2010 (future meetings tbc)
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Implementation (i.e. research design; instrument
construction; roll out etc.)
Dec
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Implementation
CATs: Feedback from College Project Manager
All Strands-Emerging findings
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Scheme open for staff to give ideas
Jan 2011
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Scheme open for staff to give ideas
Feb
VfM Committee: Second meeting
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Scheme open for staff to give ideas
Mar
VfM Committee: Feedback gathered on progress made
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Scheme open for staff to give ideas
Apr
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Review first set of ideas and pass on to VfM
Committee/CATs as appropriate
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Scheme open for staff to give ideas
May
VfM Committee: Third meeting
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Scheme open for staff to give ideas
VfM Committee: Feedback gathered on progress made
June
CATs: Feedback from College Project Manager
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Scheme open for staff to give ideas
All Strands-Emerging findings
July
Staff Suggestion Scheme: Review second set of ideas and pass on to VfM
Committee/CATs as appropriate
Aug
Sept
CATs: Feedback from College Project Manager
Oct
Nov
All strands- Review of Impacts
Dec
Jan 2012
All strands- Review of Impacts
Feb
Anticipated impacts/benefits arising from activities and evidence of impact
The impact of the transition to colleges is expected to be:






Greater working together between disciplines and across Colleges
Financial sustainability
Development of postgraduate study
Greater research grant income
Wider and deeper internationalisation
Improved Graduate employability
25 of 36
All the separate strands of the project will contribute towards achieving these impacts, and the
delivery of more with less, through their own specific impacts, as outlined below.
Impact
CATs
Delivery of more with less
Identification and resolution of
operational issues
More effective working together
that delivers effective policy
implementation and joined-up
developments
VfM Committee
Value for Money is brought into
consideration across all the
University’s activities
Gaps in the University’s Value for
Money activities are identified,
and ways are found to fill them
Progress made in delivering
service more efficiently, and
delivering greater VfM
Staff suggestion scheme
Savings are made as a result of
ideas from staff across the
institution on ways of delivering
more with less
Evidence to be collected
Information from CATs on savings made as result of actions;
Case studies of successful practice- received through College
Project Manager (Governance)
Information from CATs on issues resolved and how relate to
efficiencies; Case studies of successful practice- received
through College Project Manager (Governance)
Information from CATs on effective working together and how
relate to efficiencies; Case studies of successful practicereceived through College Project Manager (Governance)
Minutes & reports from members indicate that ways to raise
profile of VfM considered and implemented; Examples of good
practice from within/outside university disseminated- received
through Head of Projects, who services committee
Minutes & reports from members indicate that gaps have been
identified, and ways sought to fill them; Case studies of
process from gap identification through to implementation of
solution- received through Head of Projects, who services
committee
Progress against KPIs relating to efficiency- received through
Head of Projects, who services committee
Reports from relevant department(s) on implementation of
ideas and savings made as a result; Case studies of
successful ideas- received through team with responsibility for
Scheme
Major risks
Risk
Loss of key staff involved in project
Major overspend
Failure to deliver outputs
Mitigation
Involvement of Projects Office/Planning
Services team ensures project information
not confined to just key individuals; Ability to
redeploy other staff to project if necessary
Experienced at administering budgets;
proven systems in place to successfully
manage budgets
Experienced staff undertaking activities; clear
project plan and objectives for activities;
outputs are of significant importance to
university.
26 of 36
Project budget outline
(i.e. projection of HEFCE funding spend and forms of expenditure for institution contribution)
HEFCE Funding
Activity
Project Management
Events/Away Day
Travel
Currently unallocated
Total
Cost
£35k
£3K
£1k
£4.4k
£43.4k
Institution contribution
The internal contribution to the project will total £75k through staff time, fEC of staff time, and some
miscellaneous non-pay items (e.g. IT, stationary etc.).
27 of 36
7.3.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FALMOUTH
Key contact(s)
Staff Member
Niamh
Lamond,
Director
of
Finance and Estates
Johanna Stubbs, Finance MIS
Development Manager
Contact details
01326 37
Niamh.lamond@falmouth.ac.uk
01326 370434
Jo.stubbs@falmouth.ac.uk
Rationale for project activities
University College Falmouth, (UCF) recently published its institutional Road Map which was;
“written for UCF staff and is to support the implementation of the University College’s Strategic Plan
and its various sub-strategies, all of which are aimed at creating a truly exceptional, world-class, multiarts university in the next five years for Cornwall.”
The roadmap sets out 25 key areas where major redevelopment and redesign of existing structures
and processes will be required to enable UCF to reach its goal. Planning, delivering and accepting
change has been a large part of working life at UCF over the last few years, and the publication of the
roadmap, coupled with the political and financial environments we are now facing, delivers an urgent
need for us to develop a robust and responsive support system which will enable management to
deliver the changes required to meet our targets.
Professor Anne Carlisle introduces the road map and explains that;
“In the future, there will be no disguising the fact that maximising our resources will become much
more critical for Falmouth, because like most of UK HE, we will face challenging times over the next
five years. Only an entrepreneurial, responsive, adaptable UCF will be able to resist negative
environmental factors and be able to find opportunities in a rapidly changing HE sector. This will only
happen if we have the confidence to innovate at all levels, be a leader in new fields, as well as sharing
our own and embracing new models of practice from the rest of the HE sector.”
In order to provide management teams with the skills and support that are required to manage change
effectively, UCF intends to review the way that we plan, communicate and implement changes, to
ensure that we have a clear methodology for each stage of the change cycle ;
 Plan – Pre Project stage;
o Identifying business needs and drivers.
o Reacting to that need in an appropriate timescale.
o Developing solutions.
 Deliver - Project Stage
o Planning the implementation.
o Implementing solutions.
o Communicating solutions.
 Operate - Post Project
o Measuring the effectiveness and Return on Investment (ROI) of a solution.
o Feeding back lessons learned.
o Continuous improvement methodology.
28 of 36
In recent years UCF has adopted a new approach to implementing changes to its Management
Information Systems, (MIS), Project Managers have been appointed who are PRINCE2 certified
Practitioners.
To date we have achieved excellent results using this methodology, and we are continuing to expand
this Project Orientated Change Control, (POCC) in the 2010/11 MIS project delivery plan. UCF intend
to expand this POCC across the institution and this project aims to deliver a project support
framework and a management toolkit for planning, implementing and reviewing change at UCF.
These toolkits will feed into a larger institutional management toolkit which is under development in a
separate project, with the aim of creating a repository of guidance and support for management staff
to utilise moving forward.
This project will also be the first phase in developing UCF’s Project Office allowing the eventual roll
out of POCC methodology across UCF. Phase I aims to develop the existing project team providing
them resources to investigate and develop its pre and post project methodologies.
UCF are in the early stage of rolling out ITIL within the IT department, which is an industry best
practice approach to IT service delivery and change control, as part of this project we will be looking
into how this will work alongside PRINCE2 and other change control models.
There are a huge number of change control models available which could be adopted to deal with the
Pre and Post project states, and some initial work has been done under a recent JISC bid to
investigate an innovative and immerging methodology in the HE sector call Enterprise Architecture
(EA). This project intends to further explore and trial the application of EA here at UCF.
What is EA ?
EA is high-level strategic technique designed to help senior managers achieve business and
organisation change. It provides an evolving, dynamic way of describing and aligning the functional
aspects of an organisation, its people, activities, tools, resources and data/information, so they work
more effectively together to achieve its business goals. EA is also about achieving desired future
change through design. It holds that by understanding existing information assets, business
processes, organisational structures, information and application infrastructures (the ‘as is’ state) it is
possible to ‘do something different’, something new and innovative (the ‘to be’ state). 1
This project intends to start our application of EA on a small scale applying our learning to the 10/11
MIS Projects to start to build up an EA of the institutional core operating model.
1
Taken from the JISC Doing Enterprise Architecture EA early Adopter study.
29 of 36
Activities
The main project aim is to investigate, develop and trial a UCF change management cycle, identifying
the elements of EA, PRINCE2 and ITIL that are required to successfully control change management
effectively.
UCF Change Management Cycle under investigation
Plan Cycle – Creation of a business facing project office.
We are implementing a new structure to aid project planning activities, with Development managers
heading up a number of working groups, attended by senior managers and managers, where
business needs and challenges can be tabled and potential solutions explored through the review and
mapping of existing processes and the identification of inefficiencies and gaps.
Plan Cycle - EA Investigation and development activities.
In this Phase I of our introduction of EA to UCF we hope to utilise EA as an identification and
communication tool. To highlight relationships and connections between roles, areas and systems.
We see the main deliverables of the approach to be the adoption of a process mapping tool, common
language and methodology. Enabling us to start to map the Core system environment, and we expect
this new approach to process review and redesign will enable us to identify and quantify areas where
improvements in systems, process or design can be made.
The Development managers will be assisted in the application of EA by the recruitment of a Project
Support Officer who will be involved in the capture and documentation of current and future process
design and will assist with the research of EA application within the HE environment and collation of
the toolkit and delivery of project communication strategies.
Deliver cycle - POCC development and activity
UCF has already invested in PRINCE2 training for its development managers, as part of this project
we will be devising a ‘just enough PRINCE2’ Management toolkit, researching how others utilise
PRINCE2 in HE, bringing together templates, resources and training materials, to engage Senior
Management in the project management process, and to lay the foundations for rolling out POCC
across UCF in the future.
30 of 36
The Development managers will be assisted in development of POCC documentation and toolkits by
the recruitment of the Project Support Officer --- who will be involved in the research of PRINCE2
application within the HE environment and collation of the toolkit materials.
Operate cycle – Post Project development and activity
ITIL is an industry standard in IT service planning, UCF has invested in ITIL training for its IT service
desk are we are developing and rolling out the ITIL framework through a separate project within IT.
This project aims to work with the ITIL implementation team to identify key areas in the change
management cycle ensuring that EA and ITIL are delivering process alignment and change efficiently
and that our process models reflect the structures in place once solutions reach the Operational state.
Governance
As the initial focus of EA activity will be focused on 10/11 MIS projects, this project will be overseen
within UCF by the current MIS Group structure, ensuring its progress in monitored effectively and
providing a high level of support for the project objectives.
31 of 36
Timescales and key milestones
Month
Sept 2010
Oct
Nov
Dec
Activity
Planning
EA / Process mapping investigation
EA Foundation training
EA Practice Group Event
Working Groups established
Apr
Appoint Project Support Post
Working Groups meet
EA Practice Group Event
EA Training complete
Process Mapping Planning
Process Mapping Commences
Planning EA/PRINCE2/ITIL research
Working Groups meet
EA Practice Group Event
EA/PRINCE2/ITIL research commences
Working Groups meet
May
Planning Project Office Development
Jun
Working Groups meet
EA Practice Group Event
Jan 2011
Feb
Mar
July
Aug
Toolkit development
Change cycle development
Working groups meet
Project Office team review of impacts
Working Groups review of impacts
Toolkits Complete
Project Office Established
Change cycle to Man Board
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 2012
Feb
Anticipated impacts/benefits arising from activities and evidence of impact
Anticipated Impacts / Benefits expected








Create a change management cycle model for UCF.
Create a methodology for optimisation of business processes.
Delivery of more with less.
Management toolkits created to enhance skills and future planning activities.
Enhance communication between areas across UCF.
Create a knowledgebase of material on EA application within small HE institutions.
Create a knowledgebase of material on Project Management principles for resource limited
HE institutions.
Start a repository of core area process maps, to enable the sharing of design, development
and good practice in core processes across the sector.
32 of 36
Impact
Change
Management
Cycle
model created.
Optimisation
of
business
processes.
Delivery of more with less.
Management Toolkits.
Enhance communication between
areas across UCF.
Evidence to be collected
Change Management cycle model available.
Information from MIS projects on process inefficiencies
identified.
Information from MIS projects on savings identified from
reengineering processes.
Finalised Management Toolkits available.
Creation of Business facing Project office.
Major risks
Risk
Lack of
resources
technical
Lack of engagement
of Key Users
Key staff may leave
institution
Mitigation
Produce realistic plans, monitor the progress carefully, and ensure
adequate resources are available
Proper consultation, involving users in decision making process. Good
and inclusive communication during the life of project
board and
project teams
project
Other resources would need to be freed up to complete tasks, or
external consultancy required.
Ensure solution project brief agreed by sponsors in advance
Lack of involvement
of top level staff
Management Board to support project and be regularly updated on its
progress.
Failure to
suitable
support
Failure to
outputs
Failure to recruit Project Support will require additional time from
Development Managers so other MIS projects will need to be revised.
Or bring in external EA consultants.
Produce realistic plans, monitor the progress carefully, and ensure
adequate resources are available
Inadequate
brief
recruit
project
deliver
Overspend
project
on
Produce realistic plans, monitor the progress carefully, and ensure
adequate resources are available
Project budget outline
(i.e. projection of HEFCE funding spend and forms of expenditure for institution contribution)
HEFCE Funding
Activity
Project Support Officer
Travel and Accommodation to Events
Currently Unallocated
Cost
£32.5k
£10k
£0.9k
Total
£43.4k
Institution contribution
The internal contribution will total £ 52k through staff time, fEC of staff time, and some miscellaneous
non-pay items (e.g IT, stationary etc.)
33 of 36
7.4.
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX
Key contact(s)
Staff Member
Louise Nadal
Contact details
01273678709
l.nadal@sussex.ac.uk
Rationale for project activities
The University has restructured its academic units and support provision and undertaken a
major cost reduction exercise in the last two years. In order to build upon these developments
to improve the University’s financial and reputational standing further in the context of a
particularly challenging funding environment, it is intended to seek out further strategic and
operational efficiencies in focusing upon a key institutional (and sectoral) priority –
enhancement of the student experience.
In preparing for anticipated changes in the funding regime associated with higher education,
the University is conscious of the need to meet rising student expectations while facing
reductions in the level of public funding. The project will aim to achieve this objective by
focusing upon creating improvements through a number of strands, with sub-projects
focusing particularly upon the enhanced provision of student advice services and of IT
learning resources, improved levels of graduate employability and increased business
engagement.
Activities
The University’s project has three main areas of activity, encompassing four sub-projects:
Employability:
 Undertake a feasibility study on the potential to roll-out the University’s ‘Learning to Lead’
programme more widely. An initial successful pilot in 2010 was run jointly by the University’s
Careers and Employability Centre and an international management training consultancy to
introduce students to the themes of leadership and policy development. Students attend an
intensive week-long leadership training programme, designed to develop skills and optimise
employability and have access to a series of other opportunities to enhance their experience.
The programme is accredited to the Institute of Leadership and Management and involves
alumni of the University, with personal coaching, support and feedback being provided for
all participants.
 Explore the opportunities to integrate support for careers and employability with enterprise
and business engagement, building on pre-existing initiatives for student enterprise.
Objectives include the further development of student enterprise activities and the creation
of student placements and internships (both during and after study) by making use of the
University’s alumni network; this is activity which has not been a feature of the academic
offering in the past due to the almost exclusively ‘pure’ nature of the provision.
Student Support:
 Evaluation of the cost and service benefits associated with the University’s newly restructured student support provision. This brings together non-specialist student support
and advising services, together with student funding advice, by creating an information,
advice and guidance service in line with sector trends in a single, central campus location.
This approach has facilitated a significant reduction in staffing levels and premises and it is
34 of 36
expected that the new Student Life Centre will provide a model of enhanced service
provision to students from the start of the Autumn Term 2010.
Learning Resources:
 A group will be convened to consider ways in which the University’s provision of IT support
and access may be enhanced outside normal working hours. The objective is both to
improve the student experience and achieve more efficient utilisation of these facilities at
limited cost.
Timescales and key milestones
Strictly indicative timescales and milestones are set out below and are subject to revision,
further development and change:
October 2010
Project planning for all projects
Employability: Feasibility study begins
Student support: Student Life Centre opens
November 2010
IT Learning Resources Group convened (future meetings tbc)
December 2010
Assess emerging findings
Employability: Feasibility study completed
Student Support: Feedback on service delivery
January 2011
Employability: Academic portfolio review starts;
Planning for integration of employability and
enterprise activity
March 2011
Employability: Learning to Lead programme starts
Learning Resources: Feedback on the progress made to date
May 2011
Employability: Learning to Lead programme ends
Feedback on integration of employability and
enterprise
June 2011
Assess emerging findings
December 2011
Review impacts of all strands
Anticipated impacts/benefits arising from activities and evidence of impact








Enhanced student experience
Higher levels of student satisfaction
Improved graduate employability
More efficient use of IT based learning resources
Improved National Student Survey scores
Greater engagement with the University’s alumni base
Increased levels of business engagement, particularly in the local economy and the region
Provision of wider access for students to enterprise activities and a range of employment
opportunities
 Updated academic portfolio, focusing upon skills needed for life after university
35 of 36
Impact
Evidence to be collected
Employability:
Enhanced graduate employability Feedback from Learning to Lead course participants; case
studies from past participants; DLHE data (in due course);
skills
number of participants on the programme
Greater
student
access
to Employers offering internships and placements; alumni
involvement; number of new business contacts; information on
employment based opportunities
revisions to the academic portfolio
Students participating in enterprise events and competitions; IP
Increased student enterprise
impacts; feedback from student participants and companies
Student Support:
Improved
provision
at Feedback from users of the service; financial comparisons,
including value for money; analysis of the types of advice
substantially reduced cost
provided
Resolution of operational issues Review of services and their operation and how these
demonstrate enhanced service provision at lower cost
associated with the new service
Learning resources:
NSS scores and comparisons; user surveys; analysis of space
Improved student satisfaction
usage across campus
Major risks
Risk
Anticipated
delivered
outputs
Mitigation
Clear plan for delivery of
outputs;
experienced
staff
driving the project strands;
ongoing monitoring of each
strand to assess value
Potential for redeployment;
involvement of staff other than
the key individuals to share
expertise; effective project
management to support each
strand
Prioritisation of the subprojects at the start of the
process and on an ongoing
basis in the early months;
provision of effective central
support to key staff to ensure
delivery
not
Loss of key staff
Too many sub-projects
deliver expected value
to
Project budget outline
(i.e. projection of HEFCE funding spend and forms of expenditure for institution contribution)
HEFCE Funding
Activity
Project management
Portfolio market research
Focus groups/workshops
Travel and subsistence
Unallocated
Total
Cost
£30k
£5k
£2k
£2k
£4.4k
£43.4k
Institution contribution
The University will contribute staff time and allocation of appropriate resources (tbc)
36 of 36