university of cambridge information services committee agenda › committee › is › meetings ›...

University of Cambridge

Information Services Committee

There will be a meeting of the Information Services Committee at 2.15pm on Thursday 1 October 2015 in the Syndicate Room, The Old Schools.

Coffee will be available at 2.00pm.

AGENDA

Starred items: agenda items starred as straightforward will not be discussed unless the item is unstarred by a member. Requests to unstar an item should be received by the Chairman or Secretary by 9.00am on the day of the meeting. Declaration of Interests - Members are asked to declare any conflicts of interest relating to matters on the agenda.

. Papers 1. Membership and terms of reference

The Vice Chancellor has appointed Professor Duncan Maskell, Senior Pro-Vice Chancellor, to deputise for him as Chairman. The constitution, membership and terms of reference of the committee at 1 October 2015 are attached.

ISC 81

2. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2015 are attached. ISC 82

3. Action taken since the last meeting.

The meeting on 25 June 2015 was cancelled. Members instead received papers on the following topics (which are not recirculated but may be obtained from the Secretary):

ISC 74 - Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme (confidential: available to members only) ISC 75 - Strategy and organisation update ISC 76 - Development of an Information Services Strategy for the University ISC 77 - Information Services Governance – update ISC 78 - UIS dashboard ISC 79 - Technology Development Fund ISC 80 - Sub-Committee minutes

ISC 83

Paper ISC 74 reminded the Committee that of the £2m earmarked for the Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme, the ISSS had committed £0.5m to enable phase 1 to be completed (ISSS M477; 16 January 2014). The ISC was asked to give the Project Board authority to take any necessary budgetary decisions needed over the summer of 2015.

The Board had confirmed its request on 25 June. No member of the ISC raised any objection to this recommendation or any other business in the circular.

The Cambridge Libraries Connect Project Board was therefore authorised to draw-down up to £1,200,000 to enable the programme to progress to tender and development (see also item 9).

4. Matters arising not dealt with elsewhere on the agenda

M 92: Microsoft Enrolment for Education Solutions licence

The Committee is asked to note the progress, recognise and accept the residual risks and to provide steer on the timetable for benefits realisation and any further work.

IS 84

-2-

5. Sub-Committees

(1) The Committee asked to receive minutes of its sub-committees as follows:

a) Joint Network Management Committee (23 April 2015) b) Finance Systems Committee (1 June 2015) c) User Needs Committee (2 June 2015) d) Student Information Systems Committee (8 June 2015) e) HR Systems Committee (10 June 2015) f) Information Security Management Sub-Committee (24 July 2015) h) High Performance Computing Service Strategy Group (14-9-15 and paper SG 2.3)

Members who attend sub-committees are invited to draw the ISC’s attention to any significant matters in the minutes.

(2) The Committee is asked to approve revised terms of reference and a revised constitution for the Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group which will be retitled “Digital Teaching and Learning Sub-Committee”. The General Board Education Committee (GBEC) at their meeting on 1 July 2015 considered the attached paper and approved the changes subject to an explicit reference to the Digital Strategy for Education which has now been included as new term of reference (a).

The Committee will note the proposed change to the committee’s constitutional position from a joint sub-committee of the GBEC (setting academic policy) and ISC (setting IT strategy as successor to the ISSS) to a sub-committee of the GBEC only, but with a duty to report to the ISC.

ISC 85 (a) to (f)

ISC 85(g)

6. UIS operational update

The attached paper provides members of the ISC with an update on activity within the UIS since the last meeting, specifically:

• Annex A: service operations 30 April–24 September 2015, including incidents briefly reported in ISC 75, the loss of internet connectivity due to flooding on 17 July, and progress on the delivery of a second resilient internet connection;

• Annex B: report on progress of the UIS organisation change programme;

• Annex C: progress report on the Service Portfolio and Catalogue Project with the School of Arts and Humanities.

The paper also outlines progress on the Storage Strategy and the development of a robust West Cambridge Data Centre hosting policy.

ISC 86

7. Implementing the Review of IT Infrastructure and Support: Progress Report and Overview of Plans for 2015/16

The ISC is invited to provide a steer on the overall approach to implementing the Review including any changes or additions.

ISC 87

8. Strategic Planning to 2018-19

The Committee is required “to review and propose the budget for the University Information Services, on advice from the Director of Information Services” (term of reference (e) – see ISC 81). Plans proposing the budget for 2016-17 and forecast budgets to 2018-18 are required for submission by 1 December 2015.

The UIS requests that the ISC give guidance on which individual initiatives are required and should be included, as well as the overall level of additional project funding that it might be prepared to support in this Planning Round, to help guide the UIS on the scope that can be entertained for the projects that are of a more elastic nature

ISC 88

-3-

9. Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme

The attached paper:

1. Informs the ISC of the current position of the Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme.

2. Seeks approval from the ISC to receive the next programme report by e-mail, which will include a recommendation of award for the programme to move to the negotiation stage with the chosen supplier, and to confirm their response to the recommendation via email.

ISC 89

10. IT Career, Skills and Development Framework – Project outline

The Committee is asked to endorse the proposed scope of a project to develop the University IT community, to be funded from the Technology Development Fund (TDF) Reserve.

ISC 90

11. Information Services Governance - update

A note of progress on governance issues is circulated. ISC 91

12. UIS dashboard.

The updated UIS dashboard is attached. ISC 92

13. Forward look.

The Committee has agreed that each meeting should concentrate on a key strategic theme. Members are invited to suggest themes in addition to the following:

26 November Research computing/HPCS strategy IT services framework – objectives Microsoft enterprise agreement – progress report and next steps

21 January ERP strategy refresh – priorities and progress review Service catalogue deployment plan. Creation of pan University IT community

3 March Information security management – progress report and plans Digital education strategy update

21 April ERP strategy proposal IS strategy

16 June IT governance – review of effectiveness

14. Any other business.

Routine and reported (starred) business

15. * HEDIIP: New Landscape Project

The Committee’s attention is drawn to the Higher Education Data and Information Improvement Programme (HEDIIP) “established to enhance the arrangements for the collection, sharing and dissemination of data and information about the HE system”. http://www.hediip.ac.uk/.

There will be implications for the data held by, and returns overseen by, the Systems Committees. A brief note introducing the project is attached.

ISC 93

-4-

16. * Technology Development Fund

Members are asked to note the projects for which funds have been allocated under the delegated authority of the Director of Information Services.

ISC 94

17. * Meetings

At 2.15pm (in the Syndicate Room) venues may change

26 November 2015 14 January 2016 possible change to 21 January 2016 3 March 2016 21 April 2016 16 June 2016

Coffee will be available fifteen minutes before each meeting.

………………………………

Information Services Committee contacts:

Martin Bellamy (Director, UIS and Executive Officer to the Committee)

[email protected] 01223 332246

Nick Wilson (Secretary) [email protected] 01223 332250

Planning and Resource Allocation Office, The Old Schools, Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TS

September 2015


Information Services Committee1:

Constitution, membership and method and terms of appointment at 1 October 2015

1. The Information Services Committee consists of:

Constituency Member Appointment to Notes

(a) The Vice-Chancellor (or a duly appointed deputy) as Chairman

Professor Duncan Maskell, Senior Pro-Vice Chancellor

31 July 2019

(b) Three persons appointed by the Council after consultation with the General Board

Professor Ian Leslie 31 December 2016

Dr Rachael Padman 31 December 2015

Professor Graham Virgo, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education

reappointed to 31 December 2018

(c) One person appointed by the Council who is not a member of the Regent House

Ms Alison Allden, former Chief Executive of HESA

31 December 2016

(d) Three persons appointed from among the Heads of the Schools by the General Board

Professor Philip Allmendinger (SHSS)

31 December 2018

Professor Patrick Maxwell (SCM)

31 December 2015

Professor Richard Prager (ST) 31 December 2017

(e) Two persons appointed by the Colleges’ Committee

Mr David Ball, Bursar of Christ’s College

31 December 2017

Dr Matthias Dörrzapf, Senior Tutor of St John’s

31 December 2016

(f) One person appointed by the Library Syndicate

Mrs Anne Jarvis, University Librarian

31 December 2017

(g) The Registrary Dr Jonathan Nicholls -

(h)

Two members of the University in statu pupillari, co-opted by the Committee, one of whom shall be a graduate student;

Richard Jones (President, Graduate Union)

31 December 2015

Ms Helen Hoogewerf-McComb (CUSU)

31 December 2016

(i)

One person co-opted by the Committee, although it shall not be obligatory for the Committee to exercise this power

Mr Ian Watmore, 31 December 2015

1Grace 1 of 22 May 2013. http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2012-13/weekly/6308/section1.shtml#heading2-6 S&0 2014 p 144: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2014/chapter01-section9.html#heading2-36

njw40

Text Box

ISC 81

-2-Terms of Reference It shall be the duty of the Committee: (a) to establish and keep under review, subject to the approval of the Council and the General Board and,

where appropriate, the Colleges, a strategy for information services, and staffing requirements, across the University and Colleges in support of research, teaching and administration;

(b) to promote the effective and efficient implementation of the information strategy where appropriate throughout the University and the Colleges, to advise on developments in information technology and its implementation, including the sharing of experience and solutions;

(c) to establish mechanisms to ascertain information requirements of users across the University and the Colleges, and ensure that these requirements inform the strategy under (a) above;

(d) to ensure, through the Director of Information Services, that any such information policies, facilities, and services provided by the University Information Services are operating effectively and are fit for purpose, and to approve general principles for the allocation of resources and priorities in the use of information technology facilities;

(e) to review and propose the budget for the University Information Services, on advice from the Director of Information Services;

(f) to be responsible for ensuring that appropriate project and budgetary management and control mechanisms are in place for such major information systems and technology projects as the Council or the General Board may from time to time determine, and to be accountable for the funds allocated for such projects;

(g) to ensure that all centrally provided systems and services provide value for money;

(h) to set, consulting the Councils of the Schools, Colleges and other institutions as necessary, minimum standards of service to be provided;

(i) to be responsible for the regulation and security of the use of information technology facilities within the University, and of such computing facilities in College institutions as may be designated for this purpose from time to time by the appropriate College authorities concerned, and for this purpose to make, or amend, and publish rules, subject to approval by the competent authority, and to impose on a person infringing one or more of those rules either or both of the following penalties:

(i) the suspension of authorization to use computing resources for such a period as the Information Services Committee shall determine;

(ii) a fine not exceeding £175.

(j) to make an annual report to the Council and the General Board and to the Senior Tutors’ and Bursars’ Committees, that report to include a review of the strategy for information services.

The Committee shall establish such sub-committees, or other bodies reporting to it, as it considers necessary effectively to discharge its duties.)1

The Director of Information Services shall be the executive officer of the Committee.

The appointment of members in classes (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) shall be made in the Michaelmas Term for periods of four years from 1 January following. Two members in class (b), the member in class (c), one member in class (d) and one member in class (e) shall be appointed to serve in a year when the calendar year is odd; one member in class (b), two members in class (d), one member in class (e) and the member in class (f) shall be appointed to serve in a year when the calendar year is even. Co-opted members in classes (h) and (i) shall serve until 31 December of the year following that in which they are co-opted, provided that if a member in class (h) ceases to be in statu pupillari he or she shall thereupon cease to be a member in that class.

The Registrary shall appoint the Secretary of the Committee, in consultation with the Chairman.



Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 30 April 2015 in the Syndicate Room, The Old Schools.

Present: Professor Young (in the chair), Ms Allden, Mrs Jarvis, Mr Jones, Professor Leslie, Dr Nicholls, Dr Padman and Professor Prager with Professor Maxwell (for Professor Maskell), Dr Bellamy and Mr Wilson (Secretary).

Apologies for absence were received from: Mr Ball, Professor Daunton, Dr Dörrzapf, Ms Hoogewerf-McComb, Professor Maskell, Professor Virgo and Mr Watmore.

There were no declarations of interest.

85. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2015 (ISC 58) were approved, subject to correcting at M74 the reference in paragraph two to “ISC” to read “UIS”, and at M 77 to delete reference to the second backup connection to JANET being “lower capacity”.

86. Chairman’s report

The Chairman will report on any matters of interest.

87. Sub-Committees

(1) The Committee received as ISC 59 a provisional timetable of sub-committee meetings and, as ISC 60A-G, the minutes of the following:

IT Purchasing Group (26 January 2015) Business Systems Committee (20 February 2015) HR Systems Committee (11 February 2015) Student Information System Committee (13 March 2015) Financial Systems Committee (3 March 2015) Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group (29 January 2015) Joint Network Management Committee (8 January 2015)

(2) The Committee noted that the IT Purchasing Group had a wider remit than just IT and a dotted line relationship with the Purchasing Working Group by which it was often referred to as the “IT Commodity Group”, hence the confusion at the last meeting (M78). On the recommendation of the Purchasing Group the Committee approved the revised terms of reference set out in paper ISC 61 and appointed Dr Ian Cooper (UIS) as Chair in succession to Dr Richard Mee.

(3) The terms of reference of the HPCS Strategy Committee (ISC 62), approved by the Research Policy Committee on 23 April 2015, were approved so far as the ISC were concerned subject to the substitution at paragraph 10 of “biennial” for “biannual”.

(4) The revised constitution and terms of reference for the Joint Network Management Committee (ISC 63) were approved and Dr Padman was appointed as a member.

(5) The Committee agreed that the Director of UIS if not otherwise a member had the right of attendance at all sub-committees of the ISC. Minutes circulated with the agenda were often of meetings that had taken place some time ago. It would therefore be desirable if members of the ISC could represent each sub-committee and report on significant matters.

(7) The “Strategic Refresh” project overseen by the Business Systems Committee was delayed by the illness of the Project Manager and a report would be delayed beyond the end of the calendar year probably into the Lent Term.

(8) Reporting was the major issue for the Financial Systems Committee, which would need a new Chairman to succeed Professor Leslie. The incoming PVC (P&R) would be approached.

njw40

Text Box

ISC 82

-2-

88. UIS update report

Paper ISC 64 summarised progress since the last meeting on implementing the new UIS organisation and developing the IS strategy. The Director reported that the new recruits had arrived, were being inducted, and had been introduced with the full team at a recent open meeting. The new structure was now fully staffed for launch on 18 May.

Over 300 services had been identified each with an owner and an individual with operational responsibility. The strategic initiatives were proceeding well with the enthusiastic staff support.

ISC 64 also included an update on the progress of the pilot project to investigate research computing from the West Cambridge Data Centre and on the progress of the pilot of a service catalogue with the School of Arts and Humanities, the School with the greatest need. UAS services had been included. It had not yet been decided if the pilot would be expanded into a roll out to all institutions or if they would be dealt with sequentially.

Although the analysis phase for research computing seemed short, analysis was not confined to the one phase. The proposal for the Capella building was noted – and enabled some flexibility. The outcome should be a strategy for the next ten years.

The Director confirmed that although projects were distinct, links were being made and projects were joining up.

89. Information management and security

Paper ISC 65 outlined the development of an Information Management and Security pathway taking account of the discussion at the last meeting (M75).

The Committee was aware of differences of option about accountability in this area. A distinction could be drawn between accountability for University and personal assets. It was clear where legal accountability for University assets lay and the consequences for breaches of security. But responsibility could be delegated without parting with ownership and ultimate accountability. The Audit Committee recognised cyber security as a risk and internal audit could be used to monitor the exercise of delegated responsibility. The Committee agreed to commend that pattern to the Council through these minutes. Further work was needed to enunciate it properly.

Other considerations were any special arrangements for particular types of data, such as data in scope of the Data Protection Act, for which the “controller” was defined by the Act; for patient data, national security data, and for other data acquired in conducting sponsored research. Good policies would reduce reluctance to use very sensitive data. The Clinical School had welcomed this initiative as helping it demonstrate compliance.

The Committee agreed the proposed approach which would be subject to review by the Information Security Management Steering Group before returning to the ISC for approval.

The membership of the Group was set out in Appendix III of ISC 65. The Committee suggested that the Head of the Computer Laboratory’s Security Group be invited to nominate a member of his team.

Action: Director

90. CUDAR: Fundraising System

Paper ISC 66 described the outcome of the procurement process for a new system for CUDAR and the recommendation for a preferred supplier that the Project Board would be considering on 27 April 20141. The paper was commercially sensitive and circulated to members only.

The Committee agreed with the choice of supplier and the basis on which the recommendation had been made. They noted the potential for College use.

Funding had been earmarked by the ISC in the Administered Fund for projects but the cost could not yet be finalised and a larger contingency might be required.

1 Post meeting note: the recommendation was approved by the Project Board.

-3-

The Committee approved:

1. A potential project overspend of £200k (to be refined following the Design Phase); and

2. The drawdown of £1m to facilitate the Design Phase.

Action: Secretary – to inform CUDAR

91. Storage Strategy

Paper ISC 67 outlined activity UIS had undertaken to understand the storage services required by end users across the University and described a series of pilot services to inform the development of a coherent architecture.

There were four main priorities for which consultation had demonstrated support:

• A “Dropbox” type solution, to be run initially as a pilot; • Local storage for HPCS at West Cambridge • Advice on and provision of research data services, offering support for data handling • File System as a Service, especially as a replacement for equipment reaching the end of its

life.

Members were concerned that although the “Dropbox” solution was supported, in practice branded solutions would be preferred for collaborations if outside access was wider than the University system would permit, but the University system would be more secure. It should also be clear it was distinct from file storage.

It was important that the File system as a Service option was available as soon as possible to prevent unnecessary new purchases by institutions.

The Committee endorsed UIS’ approach to the pilot services and to defining a storage strategy and approved the use of the TDF to fund the initial costs, subject to individual proposals being approved by the Director before release of funds. In addition, each pilot to have one or more nominated early adopter institutions, prior to initiation.

Action: Director.

92. Microsoft Enrolment for Education Solutions licence

Paper ISC 68 set out the detailed case for purchasing a University wide Microsoft Enrolment for Education Solutions licence (commonly referred to as a “Microsoft Campus Agreement”) which the Committee had approved in principle at their meeting on 20 November 2014 (M46).

Discussions since that meeting had confirmed widespread support with sufficient volume to give very good value for money for a range of benefits to staff and students, especially when offset by current spending which would no longer be necessary.

There was as yet no formal agreement with Colleges, although most had agreed in principle. Students would not have the package installed on their devices, but would access cloud based services.

The Committee approved:

• The procurement of a Microsoft EES agreement on behalf of the University. • A strategic initiative to develop a University wide Active Directory and the investigation of

further potential services • The release of Office 365 ProPlus productivity software for all staff and students (subject to

agreement with Colleges for those individuals not covered as University staff).

Action: Director.

-4-

93. IT Governance: minimum standards of IT Provision and Integration

Paper ISC 69 took account of the comments the Committee had made at their last meeting (M76) on proposals for minimum standards. The process for the User Needs Committee’s (UNC) recommendation of minimum standards of service provision, would be based not only on advice from the User Panels, but also on other inputs, including the expertise of UNC members. Their role was now to advise and recommend, not approve, minimum provision. It would not be asked to monitor the standard of software in the catalogue.

The Committee approved the revised proposals.

Action: Director

94. Incident reports, lessons learned and remedial activity

Paper ISC 70 described progress on the provision of a resilient network connection and the lessons learned as a result of an incident at the Central Network Hub (reported at the previous meeting in paper ISC52) and reported on two other recent occurrences:

• West Cambridge (Soulsby) power issue – 23 February 2015 • Old Schools power outage – 24 February 2015

The Committee noted:

• Progress on the provision of a resilient network connection to the University requiring some building work but which should be completed by the Michaelmas term;

• Lessons learned from the incident at the Central Network Hub and to support the UIS recommendations on addressing risks of major work to the network;

• An incident at the Soulsby data centre on 23 February and the success of remedial activity to date, with work planned to address the operation of the air handler units;

• An incident at the Old Schools on 24 February, the remedial work including dealing with the single points of failure.

The Committee agreed that it was not yet necessary to add the signature of the Director to approvals under the Capital Planning Process but all planning work must consider risks to existing networks and agree appropriate rsk mitigations with UIS. The Buildings Committee would be asked to introduce that requirement.

Action: Secretary


A note of progress on governance issues was circulated as ISC 71 (see also M87); constitutional reform was largely completed.

96. UIS dashboard.

The updated UIS dashboard was circulated as ISC 72. There were no significant issues.

97. Forward look.

25 June 2015 Pre-meeting with UIS staff over a buffet lunch at the RNB

1 October 2015 A final-project report from the UIS Service portfolio and catalogue pilot seeking endorsement of the next steps (anticipated to include rolling out the model to other schools and institutions)

98. Technology Development Fund

Members noted the projects for which funds had been allocated under the delegated authority of the Director of Information Services (ISC 73).

-5-

99. * Meetings

Meetings had been arranged as follows:

At 2.15pm on Thursday 25 June 2015. The meeting had been moved to the Roger Needham Building and would be preceded by a buffet lunch at 1.00 pm. ………………………….

At 2.15pm in the Syndicate Room:

1 October 2015 26 November 2015 14 January 2016 3 March 2016 21 April 2016 16 June 2016

Coffee would be available fifteen minutes before each meeting.

………………………………






May 2015



The meeting of the Information Services Committee on Thursday 25 June 2015 has been cancelled. This circular includes some routine reports and one matter for decision by correspondence which in the option of the Chairman is urgent but non-contentious and does not therefore require a meeting.

Unless any member raises an objection to any item included below before midday on Friday 26 June 2015 (by e-mail to the Secretary, address below) the business in this circular will be deemed approved.

For decision

Papers 1. Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme

The attached paper provides the ISC with the current position of the Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme and seeks approval from the ISC to give the Cambridge Libraries Connect Project Board authority to take any necessary budgetary decisions needed over the summer of 2015. £2m has been earmarked for the project of which £0.5m was committed by the ISSS to enable phase 1 work to be completed (ISSS M477; 16 January 2014). The ISC are now asked to authorise the draw-down of up to £1,200,000 to enable the programme to progress to tender and development. The Project Board meets on 25 June 2015 and the request to the ISC is subject to Project Board agreement. Members will be informed if the discussion at the Board leads to any change to the above request. The Project Board will seek further approval from the ISC to award the contract to the recommended supplier. The PRC has asked to approve the Full Case in due course (PRC M1596; 22 January 2014).

Members are asked to note the paper is confidential and should not be circulated further.

ISC 74

For report

Papers 1. Minutes

The draft minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2015 were circulated to members on 26 May 2015 and will be received at the next meeting.

2. UIS strategy and organisation update

Paper ISC 75 provides members of the ISC with an update on the status of the organisational change against plan, outlines new areas of focus to support the development of UIS and reports on the first of a series of working sessions of the Senior Leadership Team.

ISC 75

3. Development of an Information Services Strategy for the University

Paper ISC 76 provides members of the ISC with the initial thinking on work UIS is initiating to develop an Information Services Strategy for the University, in consultation with the constituent parts of the Collegiate University.

ISC 76

njw40

Text Box

ISC 83

-2-


A note of progress on governance issues is circulated. ISC 77

5. UIS dashboard.

The updated UIS dashboard is circulated. ISC 78

Technology Development Fund

Members are asked to note the projects for which funds have been allocated under the delegated authority of the Director of Information Services.

ISC 79

6. Sub-Committee

The following minutes have been received:

(a) IT Purchasing Group (27 April 2015)

(b) Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group (29 May 2015)

(c) Business Systems Committee (5 June 2015)

(d) User Needs Committee (27 Feb 2015)

ISC 80

7. Meetings

At 2.15pm in the Syndicate Room:

1 October 2015 26 November 2015 14 January 2016 3 March 2016 21 April 2016 16 June 2016

Coffee will be available fifteen minutes before each meeting.

………………………………






June 2015

Microsoft EES Agreement – Update

Purpose of this paper This paper provides an update of progress toward securing a University-wide Microsoft Enrolment for Education Solutions agreement (EES; or “Campus Agreement”), outlines the benefits from the agreement and certain residual risks and provides a high-level timetable for benefits realisation and further work.

Action requested Members of the ISC are asked to note the progress, recognise and accept the residual risks and to provide steer on the timetable for benefits realisation and any further work.

1 Progress to date Since the last update a joint UIS and Procurement Services team have:

1. Hosted engagement events targeted at both departmental and college IT staff

2. Secured commitments from twenty seven Colleges and the Theological Federation to join the scope of the agreement

3. Established a robust and defensible number of in-scope FTE to numerate the agreement

4. Conducted and concluded negotiations with Microsoft fixing the content of the agreement and establishing maximum “per FTE” price

5. Run a tendering process to select a Reseller and to negotiate the Reseller margin (reducing the “per FTE” price from that established with Microsoft)

6. Resellers responded with their Best & Final Offers on 17 September 2015

7. Preferred reseller chosen on the basis of established procurement criteria, with Contract Award date set for 21 September 2015

8. Recruited a Project Manager to manage consequential implementation projects & benefits realisation

9. Identified a set of Residual Risks and developed suggested Mitigations

10. Identified Benefits and developed a plan for Benefits Realisation and an indicative programme of further work.

2 Work remaining in this phase The following steps are necessary to finalise and close the agreement:

1. Paperwork completed and exchanged for the agreement start date of 28 September 2015 2. Communicate the final price and outcome of the negotiations to the ISC 3. Develop a detailed FAQ about the deal for wider circulation across the University

Page 1 of 8 Revised 25-Sep-2015

njw40

Text Box

ISC 84 (revised)

3 What’s in the deal? A detailed list of products included in the agreement is set out in the appendix to this Update. The headline products and services are (listed separately for Staff and for Students):

3.1 For staff • Windows 101

• Education or Enterprise, for use on University and participating College owned devices • Software Assurance on Windows, allowing upgrade and/or downgrade rights

• Microsoft Office Professional 20162 • For use on University and participating College owned devices • Includes the option of installing Microsoft Office 2016 for Mac • Software Assurance on Office, allowing upgrade and/or downgrade rights • “Work at Home” rights permits same version of Office on a personal device at home

• Core and Enterprise Client Access Licence (CAL) Suites3 • Licenses connections to:

Windows Server, Standard and Data Center Exchange Server, Standard and Enterprise SharePoint Server System Center Configuration Manager Advanced Threat Analytics Skype for Business Server Rights Management Server

• Office 365 Pro Plus4 • Installs Office on up to five personal devices for personal use

• Office 365 Education5 • Exchange Online, Skype for Business6, SharePoint Online, Yammer7 and OneDrive for

Business8 • OneDrive provides up to 1TB of “File Sync & Share” storage for each user

• DreamSpark Premium9 • Deployment Funding concession of £20,000 towards professional services to assist with

deployment of products and services which will remain available (until spent) for six months after agreement is reached. (Microsoft has not offered this to any other UK university)

1 Windows 10 is the latest and current version of Microsoft’s computer operating system for personal devices. It is available in a number of “versions” that offer slightly different functionality. These differences are largely concerned with manageability in an “enterprise” or organisational context.

2 Office Professional 2016 is Microsoft’s latest and current version of their personal productivity software suite, with General Availability announced on 22 September 2015. This version is a perpetually licensed product, usually installed from a copy held on DVD, USB, hard disk or network share.

3 Client Access Licenses involve no software installation or configuration. They are a legal entitlement (and requirement) for Microsoft software on the client to access (communicate with) Microsoft software running on a server.

4 Office 365 Pro Plus is Microsoft’s personal productivity software suite installed from the Internet and paid for through a subscription. It differs from Office Professional 2016 by having the ability for Microsoft to (1) upgrade it frequently through “updates” and (2) prevent continued use should the subscription be terminated.

5 Office 365 Education is a collection of software services delivered over the Internet and paid for through a subscription. They include services like Exchange Online (email) and SharePoint Online (document sharing platform) amongst other services.

6 Skype for Business is the latest name for what Microsoft used to call Lync. It is a Unified Communications application including capabilities for Instant Messaging, Video Conferencing, White-boarding, Collaborative Editing and Voice over IP Telephony.

7 Yammer is an on-line only “Enterprise Social” application. It can be used for formal and informal on-line collaboration between members of organisationally or geographically distributed teams of people working on projects or engaged in activities of shared interest.

8 OneDrive for Business is an on-line data storage services that can synchronise data (files and folders) between personal devices and storage accessed over the Internet. It can be used to share files and folders with collaborators and teams. It is a similar service to that provided by Dropbox, Box or Google. Existing Dropbox users can choose to migrate their files to OneDrive or keep them on Dropbox and use OneDrive in addition to their Dropbox in a similar way.

9 DreamSpark is Microsoft’s name for their programme that gives access Microsoft software development tools for learning, teaching and research purposes. Students and educators can gain access at no cost to Microsoft’s full software development tool set, server and application platforms and training and certification programmes for the purposes of learning, teaching and research.


3.2 For students • Windows 10

• Windows 10 Education upgrade for Student-owned personal devices • Office 365 Pro Plus

• Installs Office on up to five personal devices for personal use • Office 365 Education

• Yammer and OneDrive for Business • OneDrive provides up to 1TB of “File Sync & Share” storage for each user • Office 365 Exchange On-line also available for all Alumni (at zero cost)

• DreamSpark Premium

4 Numbers and costs There is no single record or database holding details of all staff who fall within the definition of eligibility for this agreement. Microsoft define eligibility as “all employees working more than 200 hours per year who consume IT services through a dedicated device or account”. For the University and Colleges this means both academic and academic-related staff, administrative staff and domestic and catering staff who have the use of a University or College provided device and all staff employed under a discrete contract of work (i.e. “contractors”). University or College provided devices also includes devices charged to grants or research funding or any device managed within a local network. The team have used the CHRIS (for employees) and CUFS (for contractors) to identify in-scope FTE staff and asked the Colleges to provide their own FTE count. The UIS have factored out the employees who work less than 200 hours per year or who are unlikely to be provided with dedicated IT equipment from the FTE numbers below. The University RAVEN identity management system was cross-checked to corroborate the total number of FTE by eliminating all RAVEN (@CAM) accounts that should or would be out of scope (e.g. Students and visiting academic staff). Since the original proposal for an agreement was presented in 2014 in ISC 32, the number of University staff has grown and the 2013 HESA number of staff included in that proposal did not include the contractor FTE staff who are provided with equal and identical IT devices and services to employees listed in CHRIS. There was a material difference between the in-scope FTE count from the CHRIS and CUFS and the accounts listed in RAVEN when all “out of scope” accounts had been removed. Until this difference is understood and resolved, there remains a residual risk that the in-scope FTE count used for the agreement may not be the true in-scope FTE count for the University and participating colleges. The UIS have been unable to identify the employment status of the accounts which differ between the RAVEN number and the CHRIS/CUFS/College count. This difference was a number somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 accounts, which is not insubstantial. Taking a prudent and conservative approach, we have fixed on the CHRIS/CUFS/College count as the number of FTE in-scope for this agreement. That number is larger than the number used in the outline business case and comprises 11,516 University FTE and 2,136 participating College FTE for a total of 13,652.


Participating Colleges will pay for their own FTE. The University will pay for the 11,516 FTE in-scope of the agreement. The budget allocated must also accommodate the VAT on the payment. Microsoft heavily discount their products and services to education at a global level and their discount structures are well-established and understood. At the number of FTE above, this agreement falls under Microsoft’s Level C price band, which yields an Estimated Reseller Price of £39.00 (+VAT) per FTE for the products and services within this agreement. Microsoft have been and are unwilling to reduce this figure unless the University get closer to the number of FTE needed to enter the next price band (Level D), which is normally 25,000 FTE. The team achieved a concession of reducing this to 20,000 FTE, but our final number is insufficiently close to this for the team to get Microsoft to concede Level D pricing. In the negotiation the UIS challenged Microsoft to demonstrate their commitment to becoming a key service provider to the University and to reflect that in the offer they make, although the case for their commitment is weakened when the University is unable to persuade all Colleges to participate in the scope and significant wholly-owned subsidiaries of the University are also excluded. We’re told that this is different to the undertakings agreed between Microsoft and other UK universities. The final stage therefore relies on reducing the Reseller margin allowed for within the £39.00 “Estimated Reseller Price” to get the total price for 11,516 FTE within the £500,000 budget when VAT is included. On Friday, 17 September three of the four Resellers bidding responded with the same price. The preferred Reseller will therefore be chosen through assessment of their bids against the established procurement criteria. The final price is commercially sensitive and will be sent to the ISC through another communication. The final price enables the scope of the deal to fit within the budget for the number of FTE declared above.

5 Risks There are a number of residual risks to be managed and mitigated consequential upon completion of this agreement. Principle risks we foresee include:

1. FTE Numbers 2. Implementation difficulties & delays in product/service uptake

5.1 FTE numbers The difference between the CHRIS/CUFS/College FTE number and the corroborating data from RAVEN create a risk that the real number of in-scope FTE are much higher than we have declared to Microsoft. At the end of each year of the agreement, Microsoft will expect the University and participating Colleges to re-validate their number of FTE and to accommodate any increase into the payment for the year to follow. If we are successful in implementing the agreement, by driving widespread adoption, we create a mechanism for Microsoft to validate the number of FTE for themselves. By giving staff the ability to download and install Office 365 Pro Plus, Microsoft can count the number of individual users and by


migrating accounts into services like Exchange On-line, Microsoft can see the consumption of services on a user-by-user basis. The risk is that the true number of in-scope FTE at the University and in the participating Colleges may be closer to the number we find through analysis of RAVEN accounts than to employees found through CHRIS, CUFS and declared by the Colleges. Since RAVEN tends to be the authentication mechanism by which people at the University consume current on-line services, this represents a real risk, rather than a theoretical one.

Mitigations The variance in the number of FTE year-on-year may be mitigated by either:

• Fixing the number of users as they are at the start for the full three-year term of the agreement and then accommodating any growth in FTE numbers (either “organic” growth or from the acquisition of other institutions) by using current on-premise services and buy buying additional copies of Windows and Office outside the agreement at a higher unit price through a Select Agreement (as now). In this case such “growth” employees could not take advantage of Office 365 Pro Plus, nor Yammer (on-line “cloud” service only), OneDrive for Business and the UIS would need to retain and grow on-premise services for Exchange and any other on-premise services needed to match and remain compatible with any on-line services the University chooses to exploit.

or

• Forecasting FTE numbers by using better data analysis to determine and corroborate the true number of FTE and then by resetting a budget to accommodate the annual growth in line with the fixed price per FTE. This process would seek to resolve and positively identify the differences between the CHRIS/CUFS/College number and the RAVEN corroboration data.

As part of the procurement project, the UIS has already forecast growth in the FTE Staff numbers for the University based on the last 10 years of data submitted to HESA. This shows a mean annual growth rate across all Staff types of 2.447%. This does not include contract staff or College staff. A more accurate forecast would need to include these additional staff types and ensure that nothing has been missed by validating corroborating sources. A more accurate forecast might also seek to assess the probability and impact of discrete growth events, such as the University absorbing another institution, creating a new Department or establishing a new College. 5.2 Implementation difficulties & delays in product/service uptake Each month that a product or service is not consumed erodes the value or savings found through the agreement. While it is recognised that it will not be possible to exploit, deploy or adopt all products and services provided by the agreement immediately, at the extreme, if in three years’ time, the University is still largely using Office 2010 and Windows 7 and running several on-premise services for email, file sharing and collaboration, we will have leveraged the benefits of the agreement very little.


Mitigation The UIS shall develop robust implementation plans, with supporting projects to secure as much benefit from the agreement as possible. Such plans shall include (but shall not be limited to):

1. Enablement of Office 365 Pro Plus, Yammer and OneDrive benefits for all Students as soon after the agreement is concluded as possible.

2. Enablement of Office Professional 2016 through the UIS Software Distribution Service as soon after the agreement is concluded as possible.

3. Enablement of Office 365 Pro Plus, Yammer, OneDrive and “Work at home” benefits for all Staff as soon after the agreement is concluded as possible.

4. Architecture, design and deployment of a rationalised University-wide Active Directory to enable smoother migration to on-line services made available within the scope of the agreement.

5. Architecture, design and deployment of an updated End User Computing strategy to deliver an updated desktop & laptop work environment where needed.

Each plan shall need an implementation project, properly resourced to engage with beneficiaries and stakeholder to ensure smoothest implementation and soonest realisation of the benefits.

5.3 Licensing for Microsoft Products outside the Agreement During the discovery phase of the procurement project the UIS conducted a survey of the past purchasing of all Microsoft products bought and deployed across the Collegiate University. That data helped understand our current license position in readiness for the negotiation with Microsoft. For instance, it did reveal a variance between the number of Client Access Licenses the University could prove it had purchased and the likely number it should have purchased to cover all client access from in-scope users. The discovery phase also revealed similar information about Microsoft products outside the scope of the agreement. Here the principle concerns are Client Access Licenses for SQL and licenses for the server products themselves. There are a number of ways to license the server products, including or excluding the Client Access License. A detailed analysis would be needed to understand the true extent of any residual risk. It should be expected that once Microsoft have closed this agreement with the University, Microsoft’s people will turn their attention to other sources of revenue they might find from the University and Colleges. There should be two principle areas Microsoft might focus on. Firstly, Microsoft will seek to maximise the uptake of on-line (Cloud) services, some of which are included I the agreement (e.g. Exchange On-line) and some which are not (e.g. Azure10). Microsoft will seek to maximise revenues from those services. Secondly, Microsoft will seek to ensure any of its Intellectual Property not covered by this agreement are also properly and fully covered with licenses held by the University. The top candidates for this scrutiny are typically server products and SQL Client Access licenses.

10 Azure is Microsoft’s name for a family of Cloud services offered as Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and Platform as a Service (PaaS). Microsoft services like Exchange On-line are Software as a Service (SaaS).


Mitigation The UIS could begin a project of work to refine the data gathered in the Discovery Phase of this project and collaborate with Departments and Colleges to establish a fully legal licensing position for the University and Colleges. The UIS and Procurement Services could then advise on the most cost effective approach to ensure compliance and the elimination of contingent risk.

Ideally this work will take a small number of months and require the commitment from Departments and Colleges to openly collaborate to refine the data and reveal the detail of their licensing positions.

6 What will be the first benefits realised from the agreement? We should be able to offer Students and Staff access to Office 365 Pro Plus shortly after the agreement is concluded. Working with a Microsoft partner, we need to identify the @CAM accounts that identify each Student and each in-scope FTE Staff and to authorise those accounts for access to the Office 365 service. Microsoft have suggested a partner we can work with to do this and it is a very well-known and reliable process already used across all other universities in the UK (and elsewhere). Access to OneDrive for Business should or could follow a similar process. We may benefit from taking a slightly slower approach to the implementation of Yammer, where integration with a rationalised University-wide Active Directory may pay dividends in the longer term. This should be a relatively short assessment and then a choice of the preferred route forward. Access to Office Professional 2016 should be almost immediate, since a placeholder for Office 2013 Professional Plus is already available on the UIS Software Distribution Service, although we would need to make some configuration changes such as setting the price to zero and ensuring the software has any updated installation key. The UIS has already started the steps necessary to resource, plan and enable these early benefits. Detailed plans are in development for each activity listed in Section 5.2 above and it would introduce additional risks to offer, at this stage, definitive dates by which each activity will deliver an outcome. However, a degree of “expectation management” would seem in order, hence, for (1), (2) and (3) above, it should be possible to enable these benefits within a small number of weeks following completion of the agreement.

7 What benefits will take longer to realise and why? Some benefits, such as migration to on-line services or the deployment of an updated managed desktop will require more planning and design. These benefits may also depend on the deployment of additional on-premise services such as a rationalised University-wide Active Directory. The UIS has already begun the process of resourcing the project team to undertake these tasks and would expect to start a number of projects to collaborate with stakeholders in order to achieve the best long-term strategic outcome from these developments.


For (4) and (5) in Section 5.2 above, the expectation should be that architectural work might take a small number of months and implementation and migration work will also take a small number of months following that. The University-wide Active Directory can be designed and implemented in parallel to existing services and a smooth synchronisation and migration plan developed. The End User Computing strategy work will develop a solution to replace existing UIS services through a migration project over time. Dr Mark Ferrar 24 September 2015


1

JOINT NETWORK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (JNMC)

Minutes for the meeting held on 23 April 2015 in The Thetford Room, Roger Needham

Building.

Present: Dr. R Walker (RDHW) in the chair, Mr C Lawrence (CL), Mrs L Thompson (LT) &

Prof. R Glen (RCG).

In attendance: Dr M Bellamy (MB), Dr M Johnson (MAJ), Mr A Culver (AEC), Mr R Carter

(RPC), Mr G Ross (GR), Mr E Koht (EHK), Mr J Holgate (JH) & Mrs J Wilson (JMW).

Apologies: Mr R Franklin (RCF), Mr C Edwards (CE) & Prof. J Sinclair (JS).

1. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2015 were approved.

2. Matters Arising

a) O2 coverage

GR reported that O2 had submitted a planning application to amend the existing mast

on the Granta Pub but that the Council rejected the planning application. Simon

Edwards has looked at the paperwork from the Council regarding the rejection and

thinks it won’t be too difficult for O2 to resubmit and get approval. Their refusal was

because they felt there was not sufficient justification why there should be

amendments made to the mast.

b) JNMC terms of reference

A paper was presented to the Committee indicating the current state of the draft

composition remit for this Committee under the new ISC (Paper no.

ISC(JNMC)(2015)113). JH commented on point 4 of the paper regarding the

appointing of the Chairman, confirming that the ISC agreed they should be appointed

by them, but taking into account advice from the JNMC. The Chairman proposed that

we adopt these as our remit and the Committee agreed.

c) Council representation

The Chairman mentioned that there we still had a vacancy due to the departure of

Steven Cowley. MB reported that this action needed to be raised at the ISC and that it

was in the ISC Government’s paper which will be presented at the meeting being held

njw40

Text Box

ISC 85(a)

2

next week. Two of the current ISC members suggested were Rachael Padman from

the department of Physics and Professor Ian Leslie from the Computer Laboratory.

MB asked that if neither of these were willing to take this on, would it need to be

another ISC member, or would it need to go to Council. The Chairman replied that he

didn’t think it needed necessarily to be an ISC member and that this Committee would

probably benefit more from a technically informed person. He then stated that he

would welcome any suggestions from the Committee.

3) Service Review

A paper was presented to the Committee (no. ISC(JNMC)(2015)109) entitled

Network and Telecomms Operations Report. The following subjects were raised:

a) West Cambridge Data Centre

JH reported that the first phase of implementation was now complete and was ready

for hosting equipment.

b) VPN Service

A new VPN service has been launched which is at present running alongside the old

VPN service (which has been named VPDN). The VPDN will be turned off next

week and an email to this effect will be sent out. An institutional version of the VPN

has also been created, which has a nominal charge of £300 a year.

c) Wireless Surveys

JH highlighted to the Committee that this has become a very popular service.

Colleges such as Lucy Cavendish are very keen on having a survey but we don’t have

the resources to do this. The current amount of man days for upcoming surveys totals

over 360 working days. The backlog is 350 working days but this is still increasing

every day, with a big increase in the Colleges. JH highlighted the need to increase

resources if we were to clear this backlog and continue to give a good service.

d) GBN

The Chairman confirmed that the Committee had agreed there was a need for an extra

man and JH stated that they might be coming back to the Committee asking for a third

person. The Chairman commented that it was clear from the list the GBN was over

saturated with demand. The Chairman confirmed that the Committee were happy

with the Kettle’s Yard purchase suggestion and stressed that we need to watch that we

are not under-pricing the product we supply to the outside agencies, such as Hills

Road Sixth Form College, Shire Hall, BAS, etc.

3

JH referred to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the County Council,

the City Council, the South Cambridge District Council and the University. The

MOU allows us to have access to the ducting in their guided busway for the second

link to Addenbrooke’s. Not only will they let us use lampposts, CCTV and the

guided busway infrastructure, the County Council will also ensure that specifications

for new infrastructure, (i.e. roads) includes ducting that in future can be used for the

University. In return we will continue to provide free Public Wi-Fi and improve

connectivity around the greater Cambridge area. The committee were in support of

this. The MOU is currently with Legal Services so is as yet unsigned.

e) Telecomms

GR reported that they have now got the network infrastructure sorted for Jabber so

this can be used both inside and outside the CUDN and for institutions that have their

own local firewall.

A techlink seminar is planned on 16 June where they will announce this service.

f) Network Traffic & CUDN Stats

The usual traffic stats were presented to the Committee (as paper no.

ISC(JNMC)(2015)110), together with the CUDN stats (paper no.

ISC(JNMC)(2015)115. The Chairman commented that there wasn’t anything

surprising in these graphs but that it was very useful to see them. It was however

noted that the Mobex traffic was tailing off slightly.

4) Any Other Business

a) Wireless Access Point Rental

A paper (no. ISC(JNMC)(2015)111) was presented to the Committee indicating the

wireless traffic. JH pointed out that the traffic has doubled in percentage over the last

few years and that it keeps on increasing. JH commented that of particular interest

was the graph showing the ‘Unique user authentications per month’, which indicated

the broader picture of the different domains used.

JH also mentioned that we have lowered the price twice since 2012 and that we were

in negotiation with Aruba to become our own supplier. This will mean that we will

be able to buy wholesale, with some discount and will get direct support from Aruba.

He is also hoping that Airwave will supply a licence so we can absorb their

functionalities. These include radiofrequency management, being able to see

performance of AP’s, reporting and sending out alerts, etc. This was trialled recently

and found to be very good. JH is currently looking into the cost of this.

4

b) WCDC Dark Fibre Proposal

A Paper (no. ISC(JNMC)(2015)112) was presented to the Committee. The

Committee agreed, that in the special case of the WCDC and our desire to host

services there, this was probably a very sensible proposal and that it should be

accepted.

c) Provision of a second Janet Link

A paper (no. ISC(JNMC)(2015)114) was presented to the Committee showing the

progress made towards the provision of a second Janet link.

JH reported that the additional Core Router was on order and should arrive within 2-3

weeks from now. He also mentioned that the provision of a fully diversely routed

fibre from the WCDC to a London Connection (itemised as 2.1) was reliant on Virgin

Media and the GBN and believes we are looking at June/July for completion.

JH also mentioned the issues that will probably come back to the Committee from this.

Significantly, that moving to an active/active Janet connected network, which will

generate traffic accounting issues. His personal opinion was that it was outdated and

we could do with something better. The Committee suggested that we come up with

a concrete proposal and it was suggested that for the departments, we could use

figures from the RAM and how much chest funding they were getting. JH agreed that

he would come up with some figures for the next meeting using a 60/40 split between

Departments and Colleges.

Action: JH

d) Public Wi-Fi

JH referred to the Public Wi-Fi and whether we continue running it beyond the 12

month period. This is a service we want to carry on delivering on behalf of the City

Council and Colleges (so 50 Access Points, then £5,000 Access Points). The Cloud’s

price is around £10k but includes back-haul. As a comparison, JH has been to another

competitor, Global Reach, who are under the Virgin Media auspices and they have

quoted us for a 12 month period of £7.5k for 75 Access Point’s (i.e. the City Centre)

and £120k for 5000 Access Points. However we will then be required to do our own

back-haul which would require an ISP link.

The Chairman commented that he thought the figures quoted seemed quite expensive

and asked if it would be a long term win for the University and UIS if we were to do

this work ourselves. This would entail some form of self-authenticating public sign-

up, but he believed that given the scale of the estimates, it would probably be more

cost effective if we were to find the resources to do it in-house. The Chairman

suggested that if JH could come back to the Committee with a figures less than £24.00

5

per Access Point then this would certainly be the way to go. The Committee were in

full agreement.

Action: JH

Date of next meeting: 3rd

July 2015 at 2.15 pm in the Thetford Room, Roger

Needham Building.

of 10


Minutes of the 63rd meeting of the Financial System Committee (FSC) 10:00am, Monday 1st June 2015

Room GS15, William Gates Building

Present: Professor Ian Leslie (Chair); Andrew Reid, Finance Division; Paul Dampier, UAS; Chris Edwards, University Information Services; Richard Young, University Information Services; Dr Howard Jones, School of the Physical Sciences; Claire Cahill, Arts and Humanities; Laura Cousens, School of Humanities and Social Sciences; Karl Wilson, School of Biological Sciences; Jenny Gilmartin, Research Office. In attendance: Steve Hutson, Assistant Director of Finance; Jo Hall, Finance Division; Mike Quinn, University Information Services The chair welcomed Richard Young to the meeting. 1. Apologies for absence Apologies were received from: Peter Hedges, Research Office; Kate Carreno, Non-Schools Institutions; Chris Patten, Finance Division. 2. Minutes of previous meeting The minutes of the 62nd FSC meeting held on 3rd March 2015 were approved. 3. Matters arising Action point 5.1: Peter Hedges to draft a ToR for a Research Systems Committee. To be carried forward to next meeting. Action point 5.2: Andrew Reid to review the ToR with the aim of harmonising with the CHRIS and CAMSiS ToR and feedback received to provide a final draft for review. Taken under agenda item 6. Action point 6.1: Jo Hall to present a PID and request for funding to the next FSC. Taken under agenda item 7. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS 4. Winter Patching and Database Upgrade Project Close The meeting took the project close report as read. Jo Hall summarised that the project had successfully delivered against the objectives set. Lessons learned identified a high priority related to how the University defines system security in the future. Following discussion the meeting agreed that the approach to system security should be the subject of Academic community review. Specific questions should be posed to establish key requirements. It was felt it would be important to present what the Oracle eBusiness Suite can offer in terms of security. A group should be established to include Departmental Administrator representatives to formulate the questions to be posed.

njw40

Text Box

ISC 85(b)

of 10

Action point 4.1: Steve Hutson to set up a group to formulate the questions to be posed on system security. Jo Hall highlighted a medium priority lesson learned related to testing segregation between departmental and central users. A post go-live issue affecting the transfer of costs between grants had not been identified during testing because a user had tested in a central rather than departmental responsibility. Unfortunately the issue related only to departmental responsibilities. Plans are in place to be more specific in future when testing relating to responsibilities used. Jo then referred the meeting to future considerations:

• The APPS Password was changed as part of this exercise for the first time. A schedule is now required to be set to maintain this as a routine.

• Due to the size of patches now provided by Oracle the approach to patching needs to be formally agreed. Previously recommended patches were applied every 6 to 12 months but the scale of change in these patches makes this a significant exercise.

• Security Review – as already discussed.

• ERP strategy – to be covered in agenda item 5.

• The University should start considering its position in terms of 12.2. Oracle has issued an update to its Lifetime Support Policy (dated April 2015) with the following detail:

of 10

The meeting discussed the implications of paying for extended support or using sustaining support until the ERP Systems Strategy review reached its initial conclusions, instead of pushing to upgrade to 12.2 in the near future. Initial estimates are that an upgrade to 12.2 is a heavily technical upgrade that would take at least 6 months so if there was a desire to remain within premier support the University would have to commence the work by July 2016 at the latest (with project start up taking place prior to this). Mike Quinn confirmed that the ERPs Systems Strategy will issue a directional statement in the first calendar quarter of 2016. 5. ERP Systems Strategy Update Mike Quinn, ERP Systems Strategy Programme Manager talked the meeting through a presentation on this work. (Slides attached at the end of these minutes.) Professor Leslie referred to the security discussion and asked to include this in workshops to be carried out as part of the strategy. It was agreed this was a good opportunity and Chris Edwards proposed a dedicated workshop. Paul Dampier asked if the cost of the various options were to be modelled.In his experience outsourcing or moving to the cloud does not save money due to the hidden costs and charges applied by the supplier on post contract development. Mike Quinn confirmed that current work was to establish the current baseline and then all options would be costed Paul Dampier noted that the new Library system was likely to be SaaS as the current market precluded other options. The chair thanked Mike Quinn for his update.

6. FSC Terms of Reference Chris Edwards provided an update to the meeting stating that the ISC had met to review ToR for all systems committees. The ISC has now confirmed they are happy with the ToR’s except for one research related committee and as a result no further formal work on this is required from the FSC.

7. Information Delivery Update Steve Hutson noted the limited progress of this work. However he was pleased to report that the lead for this work had now been assigned to UIS and a Business Analyst has been appointed and will start on 17th June. The new Business Analyst has worked at the University before and is familiar with Agile development which is the preferred approach for this work. Steve Hutson emphasised that the project would look to exploit existing functionality rather than add new functionality. Professor Leslie asked whether this meant that new functionality would not be added to CUFS. Steve Hutson confirmed this was the case. The project will start with a requirements gathering exercise and identification of quick wins. This would be approached on a role basis. Chris Edwards confirmed that a budget is in place for this work and dedicated resource in addition to the project manager would be appointed to ensure delivery. The budget spans 2 ½ years. It was confirmed that a Project Brief will be drafted by July for circulation to the FSC before going to the BSSC who would oversee this work (via the FSC).

of 10

The meeting discussed areas of concern including the need to address current inefficiencies as well as enhancing existing applications to make full use of them and whether the remit would look at all systems. Chris Edwards confirmed this was the case. Steve Hutson also confirmed that part of the project will ensure that rigorous change control processes will be adopted to ensure duplication is managed across tools and ad-hoc changes are controlled. Professor Leslie asked for confirmation that any work done must be able to survive an upgrade and to expect that significant progress will have been made by the next meeting. This was confirmed. Action point 7.1: Information Delivery Project Manager to present the Project Brief at the next FSC meeting on 16th September before this goes to the BSSC. OTHER BUSINESS 8. Operational update Jo Hall tabled the Financial System change portfolio as at 1st June 2015 and explained that now the Winter Patching and Database Upgrade project had completed the focus was on planning the next raft of development work. All remaining business critical and high priority areas of work will form the next 3 – 6 month plan of work. A change evaluation exercise will be carried out in the next three months to review the remaining important tasks to assess if they are still a requirement and to gather the current development priorities that will form the next two year plan. 9. Technical Update Chris Edwards noted there was nothing to report.

10. Dates of future meetings

The meeting confirmed the suggested dates for future meetings through to June 2016. Professor Leslie confirmed that Security will be an agenda item for the next meeting in September. Action point 10.1: Jo Hall to include Security as an agenda item for the meeting in September 2015. 11. Any other business Chris Edwards noted that with his change in role he would cease to attend the FSC as this role would now be filled by Richard Young. Professor Leslie asked for a handover period inviting Chris Edwards and Richard Young to attend together at the Committee’s September meeting. It was also noted that Professor Leslie would cease to be a member of the FSC with immediate effect. The committee thanked Professor Leslie for his wise counsel and leadership especially during the CUFS R12 Upgrade when the FSC acted as Project Board. Future Meeting Dates (Room GS15, William Gates Building) 2015 / 2016 Weds 16th September: 09:00 - 11:00am Mon 7th December 2015 2:30 – 4:30pm Weds 9th March 2016 2:00 – 4:00pm

Thurs 9th Ju Agenda Ite

une 2016

em 5. ERP S

2:00

Systems S

0 – 4:00pm

Strategy Up

Page 5 of 10

pdate Prese

0

entation Sl

ides:

of 10

0

of 100

of 10

Financial Systems Change Portfolio as at 1st June 2015:

Ref Name Source of change

Planned due date

Priority Benefit Overall status

Lead Comments

1 HE FE SORP 2015 Change evaluation

Dec-15 Business Critical

Compliance with the new SORP On schedule

Paul LightFinance Division

Changes to support the introduction of new SORP

2 Disaster Recovery Change evaluation

TBC Business Critical

Protection and risk mitigation in case of a disaster impacting on systems or asociated hardware

Not started Mark Ansell

UIS

Awaiting UIS to advise on approach and plans to commence this work

3 CUFS Security and segregation of transactions review

External TBC Business Critical

Refinement of system security set up to future proof CUFS for patching and upgrades

Not started TBC Changes in AR forms caused conflict with SLS during the Winter Patching Project. Need to address approach or apply significant functional set up changes to prevent future issues

4 Cheque printing from Oracle

Change evaluation

May-15 (Rev)

High Priority

The cost to upgrade Bottomline was unacceptable. Producing cheques from Oracle provides a cost effective solution.

Dual running in progress

Jo HallFinance Division

Functionality now live. Final template design completed - bank feedback received 29th May. Final format changes to be actioned

5 GMS Invoicing Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

Efficiency and effectiveness savings introducing accurate bill ing statements

On schedule


Review of specification with ROO

6 Science Warehouse contract expires

Change evaluation

Nov-15 High Priority

Contract renewal On schedule

Caroline Blackman-

EdneyFinance Division

Tendering exercise deferred for completion Nov/Dec 15.Contract extension in negotiation

7 Deloitte Data Analytics

BAU Q32014/15

High Priority

Departmental internal audit - management information

On schedule


Meeting with Deloitte on 19th June to review analytics extracted

8 Library system interface

External TBC High Priority

To support implementation of new Library System

On schedule

Sally Barker

UIS

New library system interface with CUFS. As Is processes being confirmed

9 NW Cambridge Rent System Interface

External Aug-16 High Priority

To be confirmed On schedule

TBCUIS

Possible interface with CUFS and Bill ing process within CUFSFluent engaged to design new rent collection system to interface to CUFS for bi ll ing. Options being assessed

10 e-Connect (BACS Remittance software) replacement


Stella server is end of l ife. E-Connect is not compatable with newer servers and alternative cannot be sourced so in-house solution wil l enable efficiency improvements

On schedule

Nick ColeUIS

UIS are investigating alternative software option

11 Reporting Improvements Initiative

Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

To provide improvements to users of finance reports in terms of accessibility and usability

On Hold Merv JonesUIS

Project Brief to be drafted. Project Manager appointed.

12 AR Interfaces Change evaluation

Jun/July 15 (Rev)

High Priority

Efficiency savings introduced through the removal of the need to key data into CUFS

On Hold Jo HallFinance Division

Botanic Gardens AR Interface / Sports Syndicate Interface P2To be re-planned once other priority timelines agreed

13 X5 / CUFS Interface Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

Removal of need to re-key data entered into X5 into CUFS

On Hold Dawn Edwards

UIS

On hold pending X5 system upgrade

14 Purchasing system and process review


To evaluate the current system and supporting processes for purchasing, recommending options for improvements in efficiency and effectiveness

On schedule


Project requirements being established in advance of Project initiation and PID developmentTungsten presentation being arranged

15 Online Supplier Database

Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

Enhancement of existing process to capture essential detail

Not started TBCFinance Division

In planning: To implement improvements developed prior to the R12 upgrade

16 Procurement cards (or similar solution)

Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

To be confirmed On schedule

Robin UttinFinance Division

First meeting of stakeholders being organised

Finance Systems Change Portfolio: 1st June 2015

of 10

Ref Name Source of change

Planned due date

Priority Benefit Overall status

Lead Comments

17 PO Print Re-format Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

To be confirmed Not started Caroline Blackman-


Awaiting change requirements from Procurement Services

18 Database upgrade of character sets

Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

To standardise character sets Not started TBCUIS

In planning: HR and CUFS projects to run seperately - UIS owner to be confirmed

19 Reduction of database size

Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

To reduce storage and hardware overheads and well as support requirements

On schedule

Karen Fernandez

UIS

Planned for 2014/15 and 2015/16Archiving requiremements provided by Finance Division.

20 Review of database access control

Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

Protection for administrators of the system and for system security

Not started Mark Galvin

UIS

In planning: To review how appropriate access to the database can be controlled via tools such as TOAD and SQL etc.

21 eInvoicing rollout to new suppliers

Change evaluation

TBC High Priority

Efficiency savings in reduced costs to process invoices

On Hold eInvoicing Project Board

Finance Division

Review of existing processes in progress to address supplier / Science Warehouse issues before moving to add further suppliers

22 Re-write of Internal trade customer maintenance programme

BAU TBC High Priority

Address fai ling automatic process to provide efficiencies

On schedule


Customer maintenance programme fai ls. Fundamental re-write of process required to address issues arising over a long time scale

23 AP ForensicsProof of Concept

BAU Q32014/15

High Priority

Potential fraud detection and preventionErroneous payment detection

On schedule


Plan to deliver this work by the end of July currently in review

24 Employee Expenses System integration

BAU TBC High Priority

Efficiency in removing the need to key data into CUFS

On schedule

Graham Titmus

Computer Laboratory

Interface with CUFS. First stage meeting took place 24 Oct 14. Test fi le received from Computer Laboratory in May 15. To be tested in June.

25 Tax Engine Review Change evaluation

Dec-15 High Priority

Simplification of tax assessments on processing transactions

On schedule


First stage evaluation of CUFS Tax Set Up arranged to take place mid-July 15

26 Grants NDC Budget al location

Change evaluation

TBC Important To improve grants budget management

Not started Jo HallFinance Division

Priority to be reviewed for planning

27 iProc Replenishment

Change evaluation

TBC Important To allow inventory orders to update stock automatically



28 Procurement dispensation System changes

Change evaluation

TBC Important Procurement Services improvements

Not started Caroline Blackman-



29 Responsibil ity Review

Change evaluation

Jul-16 Important To align CUFS responsibilities with role requirements and reduce complexity


Priority of this could be impacted by the dependencies of the Security Review

30 Data Integrity Change evaluation

TBC Important To cleanse CUFS of obsolete data to improve system performance and reporting


CUFS System data integrity - development of monitoring toolsPriority to be reviewed for planning

31 OIE / loading Employees / Bank account / assignment information

Change evaluation

TBC Important Efficiency improvements in managing set up and changes to suppliers


Review to determine if this change is feasiblePriority to be reviewed for planning

32 Bursting of Fixed Asset Registers

Change evaluation

TBC Important Automated process to issue fixed asset registers


Automated process to distribute fixed asset registersPriority to be reviewed for planning

33 Invoice data capture review

Change evaluation

TBC Important Efficiency savings in processing of invoices


Review to determine if this change is feasiblePriority to be reviewed for planning

34 CAPSA Branding Change evaluation

TBC Important Standardisation of naming conventions for the finance system


To remove CAPSA from naming conventions and responsibilities in CUFSPlanned work for 2015/16

35 Payment of Students by BACS

External TBC TBC To be confirmed Not started TBC Not yet planned work.

36 Fundraising System Project interface

External TBC TBC To be confirmed Not started TBC Possible interface with CUFSNot yet planned work

of 5

Minutes

Our Ref: UNC.150602.Minutes

Tuesday 2 June 2015, 10.00am Thetford Room, Roger Needham Building Present: Dr Rachael Padman (Chair), Prof Ian Leslie, Prof Graham Virgo, Dr Alan Blackwell, Mr John Norman, Dr Martin Bellamy, Mr Chris Edwards Apologies: Prof John Clarkson, Ms Helen Hoogewerf-McComb In Attendance: Dr Ian Cooper (secretary), Mr Steve Riley USER NEEDS COMMITTEE 1. Welcome and apologies Dr Padman welcomed members to meeting and welcomed Mr Steve Riley, Deputy Director for Service Operations (UIS). Dr Blackwell, having previously sent his apologies, joined the meeting at 10.40am. 2. Minutes of previous meeting The minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2015 were accepted. 3. Actions and matters arising Action point 1.1 (closed) – IC confirmed that the minor update to the Terms of Reference had been made. Action point 1.2 (closed) – IC confirmed that Ms Helen Hoogewerf-McComb had been invited to attend the committee as a member in class (v). Action point 1.3 (closed) – Prof Clarkson had been co-opted to the committee but was on sabbatical until January 2016. He would be provided with copies of papers in the interim. Action point 1.6 (ongoing) – The development of the User Experience Platform had been assigned to Dr Ferrar, Chief Architect (UIS), who had discussed the matter with Prof Virgo prior to the meeting. Before further development it would be necessary to better understand the needs of students and to also understand what other universities, both within the UK and globally, do. Prof Virgo would act as sponsor for the work. Action point 1.7 (closed) – Proposed dates for future meetings of the Committee had been circulated. 4. Review of the Committee’s Terms of Reference 4a) IT Governance: Minimum standards of IT provision (UNC-06) Dr Padman introduced UNC-06, setting out the governance arrangements for minimum standards of IT provision and integration for the Information Services Committee. Comments by members of the UNC had resulted in amendments, as shown in the revised text. There were no further comments

njw40

Text Box

ISC 85(c)

of 5

4b) Committee’s Terms of Reference (UNC-07) The revised Terms of Reference were accepted and would be published online. 5. Constitution of the Committee (UNC-08) Dr Padman reported that she had been in discussions with Mr Andrew Aldridge from the Communications Office and proposed that he should be co-opted to the Committee under class (vi), which was agreed. Prof Leslie outlined the work he was undertaking reviewing research computing and indicated that he was content to remain on the Committee until the end of 2015. A discussion on the membership of the Committee and the role of experts was held. Prof Leslie noted that a new appointment in the Computer Laboratory may give a useful perspective. Mr Norman suggested that the Committee should not necessarily be limited to members of University staff. Dr Padman asked for any thoughts on the Committee’s membership to be passed to her.

Action point 2.1 – All 6. Interaction with UIS Service Operations division Mr Riley provided an overview of the work he now oversees as Deputy Director for Service Operations in the UIS. He outlined five areas of work under way: moving to a services-oriented way of working; ensuring staff are provided with appropriate tools (e.g. helpdesk); instilling best practice and empowering staff to make decisions; ensuring appropriate pay and conditions are in place to deliver operational support; developing staff to respond to the needs of users. Dr Padman outlined work on the Service Catalogue being developed with the School of Arts and Humanities, for which there were 320 listed services but felt this needed to be reduced to a more manageable level. The 320 services could be better thought of as IT components, from which a service could be built, and many of the components had the same Service Owner who would develop a strategic view across the services. Mr Riley felt that there would likely be the need for a temporary increase in staff resource but that there were future significant savings in the way that desktop support, helpdesk and user administration are carried out and that greater levels of self-service would also help. Possible future deployment plans for the Service Catalogue were discussed, which would follow a period of review of the current pilot. Mr Norman noted that reliability is a key element of user satisfaction and that the University appears to do better than its peers. A discussion was held regarding service improvement and it was noted that discussions with customers are needed since helpdesk and other such data (if they exist) may not provide the full picture, with some users not reporting problems and others “putting up” with processes. One

of 5

suggestion was to undertake a poll to determine which system wastes the most time, which is not likely to be the sort of thing that would be reported via the helpdesk. 7. User Panels Dr Bellamy outlined thoughts on regular consultation forums for the main domains of delivery across the University: teaching and learning, research (including administrators supporting this area), students, and those providing College & Departmental IT infrastructure. These groups would likely meet termly and would be called onto project boards to assist with making appropriate decisions. A larger all-user survey should be run annually across the University with monthly pulse surveys to a smaller group picking up on emergent issues. It was felt that further surveys may result in survey fatigue and it was proposed that two lines of approach be taken to pilot engagement: firstly a single simple question (such as the “waste of time” poll outlined above), secondly to engage with users of the finance system during the consultation activity currently under way. Mr Edwards was asked to progress the idea on the finance system development and the UIS was asked to provide a discussion paper on engagement and user panels in the Michaelmas term.

Action point 2.2 – CE Action point 2.3 – MB

8. Consideration of user needs in service development Mr Edwards described work taking place in the Build and Development division of the UIS, including the use of personas. Some work had taken place in the development of the Service Catalogue project and this would be built upon. The thinking behind the roles of Dr Padman, Mr Norman and Dr Blackwell in the Room Booking service project would be considered in other projects. A user experience specialist was to be recruited and Mr Edwards would discuss the proposed role with Dr Blackwell and Dr Padman, with the draft to be presented to the Committee before the PD33 is raised.

Action point 2.4 – CE A library of resources was being developed, including personas, which could be used across projects rather than each re-inventing them from scratch. In addition work was being undertaken to collect data from actual user behaviour, which could be shared with users to facilitate design discussions. Dr Padman asked that a paper be returned to the Committee for visibility on its way through the UIS process.

Action point 2.5 – CE 9. User-centred design seminars Dr Padman proposed that it would be helpful for the Committee to sponsor design seminars, to be held by the UIS, to spread expertise among the IT developer community across the University. The members endorsed the approach and suggested that these be held once per term, in part

of 5

helping to recover the previous webmaster forum that had been lost. Suggestions for possible seminars should be passed to Dr Padman or Dr Bellamy. It was hoped that a seminar could be run in the Michaelmas Term and Mr Riley would explore whether his contacts at the Government Digital Service (GDS) might be available.

Action point 2.6 – All, IC 10. Any other business 10a) Proposed future meeting dates Proposed future meeting dates for the Committee had been circulated. 10b) Representative to the Open Access Project Board Dr Blackwell was nominated to represent the Committee on the Open Access Project Board. 10c) UAS open meeting Mr Edwards suggested that it would be valuable to raise user needs and engagement at the UAS open meeting, which would take place on 2 July 2015. There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.50. Dates of future meetings All meetings will be held in the Huntingdon Room at the Roger Needham Building unless otherwise indicated:

• Tuesday, 3 November 2015, 10.00-12.00 • Tuesday, 15 December 2015, 10.00-12.00 • Tuesday, 9 February 2016, 10.00-12.00 • Tuesday, 29 March 2016, 10.00-12.00 • Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 2.00-4.00

Summary of action points

Ref. Action Who Status

Actions from previous meetings 1.1 Update final paragraph of Terms of Reference to

correct class of student member IC Closed

1.2 Invite Ms Helen Hoogewerf-McComb to attend IC Closed 1.3 Co-opt Prof Clarkson to class (vi) IC Closed 1.4 Deputy Directors for Research & Institutional Services,

and Education, Administration & Student Services to develop consultation methodology for user panels

MB Ongoing

1.5 Review of project board constitution to be considered by the committee

IC Ongoing

1.6 Determine appropriate next steps for the User Experience Portal – assigned to Dr Ferrar, Chief Architect

MB Ongoing

of 5

Ref. Action Who Status

1.7 Circulate dates for future meetings of the Committee IC Closed New actions from 2 June 2015 meeting 2.1 Recommendations for UNC membership to be passed

to Dr Padman All

2.2 Review benefit of engagement with users of the finance system in designing a system considering users’ needs

CE

2.3 Provide a discussion paper for the Committee, to consider an outline proposed engagement plan and user groups

MB Michaelmas Term

2.4 Draft PD33 for the user experience specialist to be provided to the Committee prior to being raised and advertised

CE

2.5 Provide a paper to the Committee to give an update on the library of resources, and data-driven design, being developed within the UIS

CE

2.6 Suggestions for design seminars to be passed to Dr Padman or Dr Bellamy. Mr Riley to explore an invitation to the Government Digital Service

All, IC Michaelmas Term

of 4

STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM COMMITTEE Unconfirmed The Committee met on Monday 8 June 2015, in the Council Room, Old Schools. Present: Chair: Professor Graham Virgo (Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education) Mr Graham Allen (Academic Secretary, Head of Academic Division), Dr Max Beber (Senior Tutor, Sidney Sussex College), Dr Martin Bellamy (Director, UIS), Dr Sue Colwell (Tutor for Graduate Affairs, St John’s College), Dr Malcolm Edwards (Head of Planning and Resource Allocation Office), Mrs F Jane Fisher-Hunt (Administrative Officer, Faculty of Human, Social and Political Science), Dr Laurie Friday (Degree Committee Administrator, School of Physical Sciences), Dr James Keeler (Senior Tutor, Selwyn College), Mr James Matheson (Head of IT Services, Department of Engineering), Dr Kate Maxwell (Head of Student Operations, Academic Division), Mr Rob Richardson (Education Officer, Cambridge University Students’ Union), Mrs Lesley Thompson (Bursar, Lucy Cavendish College) In attendance: Mr Andrew Cox (Head of Student Systems, UIS), Mr Richard Young (Deputy Director, Education, Administration and Student Services) Secretary: Miss Debbie Salmon (Administrative Officer, UIS) Apologies: Apologies for absence were received from Dr Rebecca Lingwood (Director, Institute of Continuing Education), and Mr Jack Wright (Welfare Officer, Cambridge University Students’ Union). No requests were received to ‘un-star’ a starred item. Mr Richard Young was welcomed, in attendance for the first time as a new Deputy Director, UIS, with responsibility for Education, Administration and Student Services. 1. Declaration of Interests None were declared. 2. Minutes The minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2015 were approved. 3. Matters Arising There were no matters arising that were not already covered on the agenda. 4. Student System Performance Incident (SISC/101/15) On 5 May 2015, a planned upgrade to the database infrastructure had resulted in poor performance of the System, which was not properly usable for two days. The incident was followed by a number of infrastructure changes over the subsequent two week period, to return performance to normal levels. The incident was unforeseen as it was not possible to create a test scenario that caused the failure, however lessons had been learned from the event which may require a general change to UIS testing processes.

njw40

Text Box

ISC 85(d)

of 4

5. Student System Development Report (SISC/102/15) The development projects released on 24 March and to be released on 16 June 2015 were summarised in the report; particular items of note were highlighted. Despite the temporary performance related issue referred to (in 4. above), the infrastructure upgrade (PeopleTools 8.54) was an important milestone towards the Oracle PeopleSoft version 9.2 upgrade, as it included significant functionality changes. The only risk relating to the forthcoming release was a dependency on Digitary to upgrade its system, which would affect the Raven for Life development. As at the date of the meeting it was unlikely that the development would be included in the 16 June release, however the current process for graduating students to access their data in the System would remain in place. Three additional small development projects had been accommodated by the team within the quarter, which included i) improvements to the collection of qualifications from applicants completing the Cambridge Overseas Preliminary Application form; ii) the enabling of specific offer levels to be set depending upon the subject; and iii) the addition of a new value in the System to allow advisors to be appended to graduate students. 6. Development Planning (SISC/103a/15 and SISC/103b/15) The programme of work under each of the themes would continue into the third quarter of 2015: i) Student Operations; ii) HESA; iii) Student Information System Platform, and iv) Management Information. Continuing projects within the Student Operations programme would include the next phase of University Transcript enhancements subject to the Digitary upgrade dependency, the continued improvements to the Cambridge Graduate Supervision Reporting System, and the Graduate Application Project; the latter now had its own Project Board in place chaired by Professor Virgo. New projects included support of the International Student Team, by i) providing them with a reporting tool to more efficiently meet the statutory demands of the UKBA; and ii) enabling of the search functionality to more easily differentiate between part-time and full-time students. The development released in Michaelmas Term 2014 to allow the majority of students early access to their UIS accounts would be extended to include Faculty of Education PPD students. The HESA programme of work would continue with a Student Source of Fee project; due to the requirements of assessing scope and ongoing investigation into sourcing a satisfactory ‘vanilla’ solution, the expected project delivery date had been extended to 1 September 2015. It was noted that, although the Oracle delivered solution for HESA reporting was used by some UK universities, the frequency and unpredictability of changes from HESA meant that Oracle had often delivered the code changes just before the reporting deadline, whereas our own development team had been able to react to HESA changes much earlier. The Student Information System Platform programme would continue with preparations for the version 9.2 upgrade. The Management Information team were now working within the programme to assist with the development and testing of the data conversion. The Graduate Lifecycle admissions reports were being rewritten in the new technology. From September 2015, for the period of the System upgrade, only mission critical development projects would be progressed, with the exception of the continuing Graduate Application Project/New Admissions Functionality.

of 4

A major development is expected in 2016 due to the removal of UMS testing scores and the transition to a different form of undergraduate admissions scoring; this project is already in the early planning phase. 7. Student System Upgrade to Oracle PeopleSoft version 9.2 (SISC/104/15) The previous progress paper submitted to the Committee (SISC/093/15) focussed on the technical terminologies and benefits of the upgrade. The current progress update reported on a potential new academic structure, the procurement process timeline, detail of the existing functionality to be carried forward, a comparison with current functionality, and information about the scale and impact of change by business area. Current ongoing background work included data conversion, removal of redundant fields, and clean-up of code. In a review of all business processes affected by the upgrade, user communities would be taken through the new ‘vanilla’ functionality to determine whether it would be acceptable as ‘out of the box’, or if it required configuration; a working group structure would be set up to put in place a formal process for making decisions. A meeting had already taken place with representatives of the Student Registry to review screen shots and examples of the new interface, with positive feedback. The new technology would allow a web-based interface to sit on top of the system, and the continued use of Cambridge terminology. Some activities currently carried out within the System, for example student questionnaires, might be more easily created and communicated using other technologies such as Moodle or other available survey tools. The tender process to select a third party implementation partner would soon begin, to put in place a support model to allow the team to retain full control of the configuration. The project would formally commence in September 2015 with a detailed planning phase. As the version 9.2 code would not be released by Oracle until late 2015, it was expected that the team would not be ready to present the ‘vanilla’ system to user working groups until Easter Term 2016. On behalf of the Bursars’ Business Committee, a concern was raised about the minimal use of financials within the System, the exporting of data to other systems in the Colleges, and more specifically about the lack of recording and management of the graduate fee in the System, which is reliant upon a detailed spreadsheet produced by the Finance Division; it was questioned whether the upgrade would enable an improvement in this situation. It was generally acknowledged that the use of financials (in CamSIS) was minimal as the Colleges preferred to extract data to their own systems, with the known exception of Jesus College which extensively utilised the capabilities of the System for its student fee transactions and billing. It was noted that a high profile project had been instigated by the Registrary to review all University ERP systems, which would progress to the consultation phase during Michaelmas Term. There was clear concern in respect of the governance and ambition of the project; a sub-group of the Committee had not been set-up to engage with, and guide, the upgrade process; and there had not been sight of the procurement document to select an implementation partner. A Project Board (a sub-group of the Committee supplemented by key stakeholders) would need to be put in place to govern the upgrade process to ensure all user interests were fully consulted and represented. The chairmanship and membership of the Project Board would be discussed separately, and brought for approval to the SISC Business Committee meeting on 22 July 2015, or to an additional emergency meeting of the Committee.

Action: Mr Young In the meantime, the procurement document would be circulated to the Committee, for review and feedback. Action: Mr Cox

of 4

8. Any Other Business There was no other business. Date of Next Meeting A meeting of the SISC Business Committee will take place at 10.30am on Wednesday 22 July 2015, in the Old Schools Meeting Room.

HR SYSTEMS

Page: 1 of 3 Version 1.0 (Published)

Copyright © 2014 University of Cambridge Last Modified: 06/06/2014

meeting minutes 10 june 2015

Meeting Minutes

HR Systems Committee Meeting 20

A meeting of this committee was held on 10 June 2015 at 10 a.m. in the Council Room. Present: The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Institutional Affairs) (Chairman), Dr Bellingham, Ms Dekkers, Mr Evans, Ms Gupta, Mr Hutson, Dr Lam, Ms Pollintine, Ms Stone and Mr Wilson with Mr Hawkins as Secretary. Mr Virr and Mr Young were present. Apologies for Absence: Mr Edwards, Ms Mehrer and Mr Reid. 1. Membership Changes

The Committee noted that Mr Richard Young was attending in the place of Mr Edwards.

2. Declarations of Interest

None.

3. Minutes

The Committee approved the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2015, subject to adding Mr Hutson to the list of those present.

4. Matters arising

None. 5. HR Systems Development Plan

The Committee received the draft HR Systems Development Plan covering the period to February 2016. In discussion, the Committee noted that:

The plan was still being finalised, but did contain those items which were known to be required in that period: phase 2 of the TES development, final work on the SRD system to facilitate go-live near the start of the Michaelmas Term, work on self-service, upgrades to CHRIS and work to support the Accommodation Office in managing new accommodation in North West Cambridge.

njw40

Text Box

ISC 85(e)

HR SYSTEMS




In due course, larger projects were expected to arise from the Director of HR’s long-term strategy paper; it was worthwhile in the interim to work on smaller projects which nevertheless delivered significant benefits.

The estimated effort chart indicated that some resource later in the period was currently unallocated; the paper from the Consultation Group (see item 6) indicated that a number of items could be usefully worked on to assist institutions, but additional matters also needed consideration. These included small developments to UPS.

The Committee agreed:

to ask the Secretary to provide a further draft of the Development Plan to the HR Systems Consultation Group for comment

to consider the Plan further by circulation, together with any comments from the Consultation Group, with a view to approving it by the end of August.

6. HR Systems Consultation Group

The Committee received a paper setting out institutional priorities for HR Systems development, as prepared by the HR Systems Consultation Group. The Committee noted that:

A survey of institutional users had been undertaken to help the Consultation Group understand needs across the wider University

The Group had considered the results of the survey and indicated a priority order of developments (based largely on the responses to the survey), without consideration of resource requirements

Certain matters, such as HESA, would be unlikely to be included in a list of institutionally priorities but were nevertheless vital the University.

Mr Evans reported that the priorities in the paper were consistent with the view of Faculties and Departments in the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, but that work should fit in with any long term strategy. Ms Gupta indicated that, in the long term, systems and processes should be more integrated, and be underpinned by correspondingly more integrated policies. For example, reward policies, processes and systems could be better aligned. However, work to achieve this would be necessary. In the meantime, there was a valuable opportunity to pursue tactical or small-scale improvements to systems and processes which would be of help to institutions.

The Committee noted that the officers would prepare formal response to the Consultation Group, and agreed to ask that it be circulated to the Committee.

HR SYSTEMS




7. Employee Self Service

The Committee recalled that, at their meeting on 31 October 2014, they had agreed to authorise work to develop a replacement to the University’s employee self-service system. They received a paper proposing an interim approach to the replacement project: the use of the self-service module built into CHRIS. The Committee noted that:

Time pressures meant that it would not be straightforward to deliver a new in-house employee self-service system on the timescales originally envisaged

The CHRIS self-service module, which had previously been found to be unsatisfactory, had been redeveloped by Midland and was now a much better product; penetration testing would be required

The Midland self-service offering would provide most of the functionality envisaged for the first phase of the in-house system; significant gaps such as HESA could be filled by small-scale separate developments or the proposed leaver survey

Deploying the Midland system would not preclude the deployment of an in-house system in a few years.

Deployment would be in September 2015 at the earliest; it might not be possible until the Lent Term.

The Committee agreed to authorise the deployment of the CHRIS self-service module.

8. Development Projects Progress Report

The Committee received a report on current development projects. The status of the Web Recruitment, SRD and TES projects was noted.

9. Application Manager’s Report

The Committee received the Application Manager’s regular report. The Committee noted that the contract with Midland was due to expire on 15 July 2015, and that renegotiation was underway.

10. HR Systems Budget 2014/15

The Committee received the HR Systems financial statement as at 30 April 2015.

* * *

The Committee noted that this was the Chairman’s last meeting. They agreed to thank him for his service, and noted that he would be succeeded by Professor Ferran.


Information Security Management Sub-Committee (ISM-SC) Notes of the meeting on 24th July 2015 Present: Jonathan Nicholls (Chair), Martin Bellamy (Executive Officer), Anne Jarvis, Peter Hedges, Ben Warn (Deputising for Milly Bodfish), Jim Bellingham, John Rimell, Peter Curran, Dave Scott, Lesley Thompson and Michelle Finnegan (Secretary) 1. Apologies were received in advance from: James Knapton, Markus Kuhn, Milly

Bodfish, Caroline Edmonds and Priscilla Mensah, Richard McMahon.

2. Introductions: Jonathan Nicholls welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were performed.

3. Terms of Reference: The group agreed the proposed Terms of Reference and confirmed the membership of the group. Possible additions of Legal Services and HR representation were suggested but the group agreed to continue with the current membership on the understanding that these functions will be engaged in the work programme, and that the ISM-SC membership could be changed as required at any time.

4. Review of the objectives and plan: The presentation prompted much discussion, exchange of ideas and views. A summary of the points captured follows:

• Standards compliance: state explicitly which standards we are proposing to comply with, i.e. DPA, ISO 27001/2, NHS IGT.

• The committee requests that we provide a "toolkit" that makes it

straightforward for institutions to comply with the new framework.

• Martin Bellamy was confirmed as the SIRO for the University by the ISC, the SIRO reports to the ISC. A policy note should be drawn up for approval at the ISM-SC to cover what delegated authority the SIRO has.

• Guidance for staff should explain how those reporting information losses

will be supported, to provide people with the confidence they will be supported when reporting a breach.

• We should involve HR from the outset; understanding and complying with

IM policy becomes part of joining an organisation, and we need to be clear on whether continued breaches will be dealt with under the disciplinary and/or the research misconduct processes.

• We should consider the impact of the "Open Data Concordant" discussed

at the open access board.

• We should consider how to adopt Marcus Kuhn's advice of encouraging staff to think "if we were thinking about how to break into the system, how would we do it?"

njw40

Text Box

ISC 85(f)

• The presentation material should be reviewed to fully include colleges i.e. 2015 focus on colleges and departments. 2016 identify Pathfinder colleges and departments

• Cambridge Assessment has had an "USB amnesty", as part of their "security awareness program"; should we consider something similar?

• We should consider creating guidance on levels of encryption i.e. different

levels for different types of data.

• With the initial focus being on Chris, CamSIS and CUFS, we should ensure that we cover all subsidiary systems, for example including web recruitment and Camcors.

• We should consider "personas" in a future phase.

• Metrics should be reviewed at a future meeting.

• Cambridge Assessment has appointed data owners for all systems; what

can we learn from this?

• In the "ensure" phase we should state explicitly we are involving internal audit.

• Consider inviting chemistry onto the working group.

The group approved the plan presented and noted that the timescale is challenging. Michelle Finnegan agreed to share the Workstrand Report and ISC paper with the group for further background.

5. Formation of a working group: The group agreed to the formation of a Working Group to oversee the work on corporate systems. Membership to be suggested by Michelle Finnegan and agreed by Jonathan Nicholls.

6. No AOB

7. Date of the next meeting: October, date and time to be confirmed.

MR August 2015 Page 1 of 4

Draft for Discussion – Review of TLSSG Terms of Reference

The Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group TLSSG was convened in 2010-11 as a result of identified gaps in support for teaching and learning (excerpts from Reports follow as Appendix A). Immediate drivers at the time included the creation of the Library Syndicate and the merger of CARET and the Language Centre within the UL.

Recent changes have prompted the Steering Group to request a review of the Terms of Reference; these changes include:

- The creation, in 2012-13, of the Teaching and Learning Joint Committee (TLJC), whose remit is to consider wider policy issues of teaching and learning, dissemination of good practice, and the identification of issues affecting University practice in teaching and learning;

- The restructure of the Information Strategy and Services Syndicate (ISSS), one of the parent committees, into the Information Services Committee (ISC);

- The overall restructure of information technology into the combined UIS and integration of CARET into its services;

- The creation of a Moodle Project Board to oversee the development and rollout of the University VLE;

- The revision of the University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy.

The members of TLSSG feel that the current terms are still relevant, as there is still a strong role in supporting innovation in technology-enhanced learning and improvement of the student experience. However, the proposed update of the University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy makes it clear that a key priority for 2015-18 will be the development of a strategy for making best use of technology for supporting teaching and learning. The creation, implementation and monitoring of this strategy should become a key priority for the Steering Group.

The Steering Group suggest that the following changes may be helpful:

1. Revising the Terms of Reference as follows: a. to make creating, delivering and monitoring of a digital teaching and learning

strategy a key priority; b. to include the role of external or outward-facing engagement and promotion of

technology-enhanced learning practice at the University; c. to include the identification and support of University “Digital Learning Champions”

at the local level. 2. Membership should be extended as follows:

a. there should be six members nominated by the General Board, one from each of the Schools;

b. the Senior Tutors’ Committee should be asked to review whether it is content to continue with one member or if it wishes to increase this to two;

c. there should be cross-representation with the Teaching and Learning Joint Committee;

d. There should be representation from specific parts of the Collegiate University where there is particular expertise in and experience of digital teaching and learning.

3. The Steering Group should become a Sub-Committee of GBEC, reporting also to ISC, in order to better reflect the centrality of the Group’s work.

4. There should be a clearer link between the work of the Sub-Committee and that of the Teaching and Learning Joint Committee.

njw40

Text Box

ISC 85(g)


Current TLSSG Terms of Reference:

Reporting to the General Board through the Education Committee, and the Information Services Committee (ISC) the Committee will be responsible for:

a. steering development of pedagogic support and innovation; b. keeping under review the use of digital/electronic materials in the University’s teaching

programmes, consistent with the University’s high academic standards and achieving value for money;

c. administering the Teaching & Learning Innovation Fund; d. promoting good practice in the use of digital/electronic materials across the University.

Membership (total 11):

(a) PVC Education (Chair) (b) 1 member from the Information Services Committee (ISC) (c) 3 members appointed by the General Board – to be broadly representative of the Schools (d) 1 member appointed by Senior Tutors’ Committee (e) University Librarian and Director of the University Information Services (f) Up to 2 members co-opted at the discretion of the Committee (g) CUSU Education Officer

Draft Revised Terms of Reference:

Digital Teaching and Learning Sub-Committee

Reporting to the General Board through the Education Committee, and the Information Services Committee, the Committee’s primary responsibility will be to steer development of pedagogic support and innovation across the University. It will do this by:

a. Developing, promoting and monitoring the University’s Digital Strategy for Education; b. Keeping under review the implementation and use of digital/electronic materials in the

University’s teaching programmes and the wider sector, consistent with the University’s high academic standards and achieving value for money;

c. Developing and promoting ‘Digital Learning Champions’ across the University; d. Working with the Teaching and Learning Joint Committee to promote reflection and good

practice in the use of digital/electronic materials across the University; e. Working with the Office of External Affairs and Communications to disseminate information

and good practice about teaching and learning in the Collegiate University; f. Administering the Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund; g. Receiving reports from and advising the Moodle Project Board regarding development of the

University’s VLE.

Membership (total 16):

(a) PVC Education (Chair) (b) 1 member from the Information Services Committee (ISC) (c) 6 members appointed by the General Board – to represent each of the Schools (d) 1 member appointed from the Teaching and Learning Joint Committee (TLJC)


(e) 1 member appointed by Senior Tutors’ Committee (f) University Librarian and Deputy Director of Education, Administration and Student Services

(UIS) (g) Up to 3 members co-opted at the discretion of the Committee (h) CUSU Education Officer


Appendix A Original drivers for implementation of TLSSG:

Extracts from Reports to the University

i. Report of the General Board on the University Library and the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies

www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009-10/weekly/6193/section6.shtml#heading2-26

There should be a rolling development programme of pedagogic support and innovation implemented by the UL but developed through a new Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group to be a Joint Committee of the General Board’s Education Committee, determining academic policy, and the Information Strategy and Services Syndicate, setting IT strategy. The General Board have agreed to set up this new Committee with effect from the beginning of the next academical year.

Within the UL, CARET’s primary role would be to provide a focus for support of innovation in teaching and learning including the investigation and development of new technologies, advice on pedagogical issues, and engagement with the academic community to support new teaching methods. CARET would also fulfil a key role in the UL programme of pedagogic support and innovation to be steered by the Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group.

ii. Review of Teaching and Learning Support Services Report (July 2008)

www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009-10/weekly/6168/section4.shtml#heading2-12

(1) There should be a rolling development programme for pedagogic support steered by a Teaching & Learning Services Steering Group (TLSSG) to be a Joint Committee of the Education Committee, determining policy, and the ISSS, setting IT Strategy.

(2) The TLSSG should be chaired by the PVC (Education) and have representatives from all stakeholders including ‘users’ and ‘suppliers’. Consideration should be given to how the TLSSG would interface with the University Library Syndicate and the General Board’s Committee on Libraries (or the proposed single combined Syndicate).

(7) Congruence between the work of CARET, the Language Centre, and other institutions, and the general oversight of pedagogic support articulated through the University Librarian, would be overseen by the ‘Teaching and Learning Services Steering Group’ outlined above.

(8) There should be a permanently established Teaching & Learning Innovation Fund managed by the TLSSG which can provide ‘pump-priming’ for innovative academic-led teaching and learning projects.

1

High Performance Computing Service Strategy Group Minutes of the meeting, 14 September 2015, 2pm

The Old Schools Meeting Room, University of Cambridge List of attendees: Ian Leslie, Chair (IL) Anne Alexander, CRASSH and Digital Humanities Network (AA) Martin Bellamy, UIS (MB) Paul Calleja, UIS (PC) Stewart Cant, Department of Engineering (ST) Richard MacMahon, Department of Astronomy (RM) Mike Payne, Department of Physics (MP) Debora Sijacki, Institute of Astronomy (DS) Ralph Ecclestone (Secretary) (RE) Joanna Jasiewicz (JJ) Apologies were received from Anne Ferguson-Smith, George Efstathiou, Gos Micklem, Sandra McLaughlin, Matthew Wingate, John Todd, and Steve Russell. 1. Minutes of the last HPCS SG meeting. Minutes of the last meeting, held on 1 June 2015, were provided for reference as paper HPCS SG 2.0 and the actions arising were discussed as follows:

- Organisation of the next HPCS SG meeting at the end of September (Dr Ralph Ecclestone). The agenda of the meeting will include the funding of HPCS, strategy of the HPCS SG and HPC REF eligibility, among others - complete

- Circulate within the HPCS SG a document about the details of the DiRAC 3 funding bid by the end of June (Professor Ian Leslie) - to be discussed

- Setting up a subgroup of five members to discuss the changing funding model of HPCS (Professor Ian Leslie) - to be discussed

- Establishing a User Committee Group that will report to the HPCS Strategy Group (Professor Ian Leslie) - to be discussed

- Gathering data on the energy costs of departments; contacting the Heads of Departments (Professor Ian Leslie and Dr Paul Calleja) - Professor Leslie reported that a review of IT in the Department of Physics had led to an agreement to monitor the energy use of all machines; he hoped other departments would follow

- Discuss the role of the Library with Heads of Schools and then liaise with Dr Anne Alexander (Professor Ian Leslie) - it was agreed that this referred to Digital Humanities which Professor Leslie was following up separately

2. DiRAC 3 (papers HPCS SG 2.1 and 2.2). PC and RM provided updates on DiRAC 3 related to the current status and future process of the DiRAC 3 HPC upgrade. The general direction of travel for the Comprehensive Spending Review was known; PC expected the DiRAC funding to survive the review. IL suggested that more would be known about the bid in one or two weeks. PC agreed, and stated that the call would be published in January and the timeline for installation was the end of 2016. PC added that he was aware that the call would contain a technical specification for the system and that the DiRAC Oversight Committee was expecting Cambridge and Leicester to collaborate (50:50) on a response. PC emphasised that Cambridge would benefit from access to spare capacity on the DiRAC 3 system. IL enquired whether HPCS had a process in place to respond to the DiRAC 3 call. RM responded that Lynn Gladden had established a bid committee which she chaired and where RM acted as a convenor. The membership of the committee might need to be reviewed. The HPCS Strategy Group agreed that the DiRAC 3 call would be handled by this bid committee. DS underscored that the group needed to take the bid seriously as the call was competitive.

njw40

Text Box

ISC 85(h)

2

IL enquired about the costs and PC responded that DiRAC would pay all power and staff costs although the depreciation of the data centre was not covered. The costs would be £26m plus operating costs. PC raised the issue of whether this money was a grant (if so, the 80/20 problem might occur) - this was unclear, and there was no great confidence that STFC knew. DS added that the assessment criteria were described in paper 2.2 under point 4.3.1. MB enquired whether there might be a negotiation process if other proposals were put forward (for example, Cambridge might be asked to make a financial commitment to the bid). It was agreed that this was a matter for the bid committee, although it was expected that this committee would consult with the HPCS Strategy Group. IL added that Chris Abell would likely replace Lynn Gladden on the bid committee in January 2016. RM left the meeting after providing updates on the DiRAC 3 bid. 3. HPCS funding model review working group (paper HPCS SG 2.3). PC reported that the review of the HPC funding model revealed that the model was not optimal. It was fully funded by recharge, which put Cambridge in a disadvantageous position as it inclined the University to be reactive instead of strategic. Our competitors received central funding. As the RCUK MRF funding was declining, the HPC needed to rethink the funding model to maintain a leadership position. A hybrid model, described in the paper 2.3, could be a solution. The hybrid model was generally supported, MP commented that there was a need for committed sums of money that could be spent flexibly; this rolling funding would be much more efficient than intermittent refurbishment. It was agreed that this model would be the one used by the HPC Funding Review Working Group. PC stated that the DiRAC community at the University is currently understaffed (quite significantly, compared to competitors). AA confirmed that she would ensure that the Humanities and Social Sciences were represented in the HPC Funding Review Working Group through AA or a designated representative. 4. Current 2016-2017 planning round submission. PC stated that in preparation for the annual planning round the group needed to start working on the submission now and finish by the end of October 2015. IL underscored that the group needed to work on the strategy of the HPCS with regard to DiRAC and resource allocation. PC commented that DiRAC could be included in the planning round at the end of 2016. IL proposed (and the meeting agreed) that there was a need for a small group to look after the capital refresh and enquired about the potential membership of the group. IL summarised that the commitment from the University was needed for the refresh in the amount of £1 -1.5M. If the HPC was successful with equipment bids, then the University commitment could be reduced. MB enquired if the University funding should be held by the UIS and the members agreed that it was desirable. 5. HPCS User Committee (paper HPC-SG 2.4). PC reported that the HPC-SG User Committee would report to HPCS Strategy Group and would meet once a term. This frequency can be reduced over time. PC stated that the goals of the user committee were described in the paper 2.4 and that all potential HPC users from each School had been approached and agreed to serve in the Committee. PC added that a user forum was also set up as a grassroots body and that the chairman of the forum needed to be a member of the user committee. The meeting briefly discussed the possibility of including external people in the User Committee, but decided not to do so. Market forces would ensure that the service met users' needs.

3

6. Software as research output: Github. IL stated that the UIS had used Github internally and asked the members whether Github would be useful for the HPCS community. IL added that Github would be helpful for storing data with the view to the RCUK open data requirements. PC, AA and SC agreed that it would be useful to have Github. 7. Next Meetings and Future Business – Ian Leslie. The Strategy Group will meet at the end of October to discuss the upcoming planning round, capital refresh strategy and DiRAC 3 bid. There was no other business. Summary of actions to be taken as a result of the HPCS Strategy Group meeting:

2.1 A HPC Funding Review Working Group to be set up (action IL), to include AA or her designated representative from Humanities and Social Sciences. 2.2 IL and PC to set up a small group to prepare, by the end of October, a financial submission to the planning round. 2.3 Set up the next meeting of the HPCS Strategy Group at the end of October (doodle poll to be sent out by JJ).

HPC Funding model Review HPC-SG 2.3

14/9/2015 Paul Calleja

Introduction

The HPC-SG was tasked by the HPCS review to investigate changes to the HPC funding model that would safe guard the future HPC services and enable the university to compete more effectively with other leading UK research led institutions in terms of HPC enabled research outputs. To this is effect the HPC-SG has now formed the “HPC Funding Model Review Working Group”. This document provides background information for the review and serves as a discussion document for the HPC-SG to discuss the scope and method of the review.

Membership of the HPC Funding Review Working Group

Paul Alexander Physics (chair)

Mike Payne Physics

Life sciences TBD

Humanities TBD

Paul Calleja UIS

Background

The HPCS review held last year concluded that the HPC strategy group should undertake a review of the HPC funding model with a view of determining a funding model that potentially led to hybrid funding model where by a baseline “core” service level is funded by the chest with recurrent grant funding being used as now to grow the service where needed to meet higher demand for specific funded projects. This hybrid model takes forward the best aspects of the current self-funding model and augments this income with central funding to bolster the service, allow strategic investment and safe guide a minimum competitive level of HPC resources.

The HPCS review underlined the importance of HPC and big data resources for a broad range of research activity across the University. The review also pointed out that from that all of our competitor UK research led institutions have a fully centrally funded model for HPC provision as compared to our fully self-funded model and that a fully self-funded model reduces our ability at Cambridge to be strategic with HPC investment strategy.

Another factor increasing the importance of the financial review is that over the last few years there has been a steady shift of funding council policy away from MRF funding of HPC resources. This is having a marked downward effect grant funding for HPC resources at Cambridge. STFC have completely stopped funding all HPC through MRF routes, the BBSRC have stated that HPC resources should be seen as essential University infrastructure and are not funding HPC resources on grants. The HPCS has seen a steady decrease in EPSRC MRF income as EPSRC concentrate funds in the use the National HPC Service at EPCC

Funding model review process

1) Undertake comparative study of leading research led University HPC funding models and resources to understand what a U.K. University leading HPC resource looks like.

2) Confirm the position of funding councils in relation to MRF and recurrent grant funding for HPC resources

3) Determine the baseline minimum “core” HPC infrastructure required in terms of staff costs and capital investment to keep Cambridge in a UK leadership position in the provision and support of HPC technologies (current estimation PA - Staff 600K infrastructure £1.5M) The University has already invested £10M in HPC data centre.

4) Undertake HPC research output study demonstrating the link between HPC outputs and REF / QR related income helping build a case that HPC chest funding is cost neutral due to research related income.

5) Suggest a financial model that underpins Cambridge HPC services at U.K. University leadership levels, allows strategic HPC resourcing and takes the best aspects of the current funding model forward in terms of encouraging recurrent grant funding and reducing the cost to the chest.

UIS Operational Update

Purpose of this paper This paper provides members of the ISC with an update on activity within the UIS since the last meeting, specifically:

• a service operations report as Annex A, covering the period 30 April–24 September 2015, including incidents briefly reported in ISC 75, the loss of internet connectivity due to flooding on 17 July, and progress on the delivery of a second resilient internet connection;

• a report on the progress of the UIS organisation change programme, as Annex B; • a progress report on the Service Portfolio and Catalogue Project with the School of Arts and

Humanities, as Annex C. In addition the paper outlines progress on the Storage Strategy and the development or a robust West Cambridge Data Centre hosting policy.

Action requested This paper is for information only.

1 Storage Strategy – progress report A project initiation document (PID) has been developed by the Architecture Division and a project manager has been recruited to oversee the implementation of the strategy and the deployment of the services. The first service to be offered will be file synchronisation and sharing based on OneDrive for Business, enabled by the successful completion of the Microsoft EES Agreement negotiation. A detailed project plan for further services will be provided to the November meeting of the committee.

2 West Cambridge Data Centre Hosting Policy Since drafting the West Cambridge Data Centre cost recovery and utilisation paper in January [ISC 40] the UIS has worked with institutions across the University to relocate equipment into the energy-efficient facility. The outline list of equipment institutions wish to transfer suggests that the data centre will run out of capacity – power in the first instance, followed by cooling and then space – before all equipment can be moved. A significant proportion of the equipment is at the older end of the permissible ‘5 year’ range, with some having to be accommodated being outside of this range. The existing policy provides little to no incentive for institutions to use the WCDC efficiently or effectively. Additionally, old but energy efficient equipment would be treated less favourably than new but inefficient systems. The UIS is developing a revised policy that will consider age, power, cooling and space requirements, based on industry trends in technology improvements, against which equipment can be compared and from which a “moving average” benchmark can be set each year. Equipment (of any age) falling below the capabilities required would be allocated a fixed retirement date.

Page 1 of 12

njw40

Text Box

ISC 86

Continuing workloads would then need to be moved onto new or newer equipment or to a shared, virtualised Private Cloud, service provided by the UIS. Further, issues of physical access to equipment will be considered in order to move the centre to a “lights-out” model. A revised policy will be presented to the November meeting of the committee. Dr Ian Cooper Dr Mark Ferrar 18 September 2015

Page 2 of 12

Annex A: UIS Service Operations report 30 April–24 September 2015

Executive summary During the period since the ISC last met the UIS experienced an unfortunate number of high level incidents, all of which have been resolved:

• 28 April: Load balancer outage, affecting the main University web server • 25-27 May: Special Exams server problems • 17 July: Central Network Hub flooding, resulting in loss of internet connectivity

Over the summer work has continued with the enablement for a second link to the Janet network, and the review of IT infrastructure resilience has continued.

Action requested This paper is for information only.

1 Load balancer outage On the night of 28 and morning of 29 April 2015, the main University web server experienced periods of instability (21:55–22:55 and 02:00–08:00) due to an issue following a scheduled upgrade to load balancing network equipment. During the affected periods some users attempting to view the main University website would have been unable to do so. A number of the University’s administrative systems, including the UAS email system, were also affected but use of these at the time of the incident would have been minimal. The software on the load balancer was rolled back to the previous version and restarted at 08:00 on 29 April 2015. Subsequent investigation identified the problem and the need for an additional software fix to be installed. UIS staff did not receive timely notification of the problems as the alert system relied on the email platform that was also negatively affected by the incident.

1.1 Lessons learnt • The change management process failed to identify the consequences of the upgrade and

did not include a timely review to ensure that fallback could take place, if necessary, during the maintenance window.

• Many UIS monitoring systems are currently reliant on email to alert staff. Methods of alerting staff are being considered in our review of IT infrastructure resilience (see Section 4.2) and some other systems are already in place.

2 Special exams Special Exams is a long-established annual, Windows computer-based, service that takes place in the Titan rooms, this year for the four week period from 19 May. It provides a means for students who, for whatever reason, cannot handwrite and are provided an environment on which they can type and print their exam answers. Approximately 200 students use this system each summer and all were affected to some degree by this year’s technical problems.

Page 3 of 12

The technical offering was substantially changed for 2015 with the system based on a new Windows server, populated with student data from CamSIS. On Monday 25 May, server-related problems (on-screen error messages, login credentials not accepted, screen freezes) began occurring, reaching a point where it had a major impact on most students present on the morning of Tuesday 26 May. Exam sessions run 8am-6.30pm, which prevented the server being modified until the evening, at which point a software fix was applied. The fix was unsuccessful and severe problems occurred on Wednesday 27 May throughout the day, with lost scripts, frozen screens, error messages and inability to logon. Problems were traced to incompatibility between products and a decision was taken to move the system onto a Linux server. After testing, the Linux system was put into service on Wednesday evening ready for exam sessions on Thursday 28 May. Following deployment of this new system a few on-screen error messages were still present but these didn’t appear to cause significant disruption to students.

2.1 Lessons learnt • Appropriate load testing was not carried out running the system in live mode, suitable

policies and procedures were not in place. • The correct staff resources were not in place to support a critical IT service. • The failure highlighted that the initial business analysis was incomplete.

An initial report was submitted to the Head of Student Registry on behalf of the Board of Examinations in July 2015. A final report with costed options is has been submitted to the Board of Examinations for their consideration in their September 2015 meeting.

3 CNH flooding on 17 July 2015 The hardware running the University’s internet connection, and those of other educational institutions in the region, resides in a basement area on the New Museums Site, along with other UIS servers and servers hosted for other institutions. Flooding on the site, caused by heavy and sustained rainfall on an active building site, early on the morning of Friday 17 July 2015, resulted in power to the room being switched off at 02:30 due to rising water levels and the consequential risk to life and equipment. This resulted in the total loss of connectivity to the Janet network for customers in the region, including the University. In addition, the resilience of some UIS services (including Hermes webmail) was also compromised. Staff from the UIS Networks team were on site from approximately 07:00, making an initial assessment in the flooded environment. The area was significantly flooded and without power there was no lighting. The UIS incident management team initiated a two-pronged approach at 08:30:

1. to continue recovery work at the CNH, with a view to restoring full service; 2. to bring online the contingency network connection at West Cambridge Data Centre

(WCDC).

Page 4 of 12

At approximately 10:00 UIS staff became aware that our resilient services had been interrupted in an unexpected manner. These systems were developed to work in a quorum but following relocation of some systems (due to earlier problems in the Soulsby data machine room) multiple members of the voting system had been affected by the incident and quorum could not be achieved, causing systems to fail. Work to return these and other services to full operation continued throughout the day. Shortly after midday the contingency connection from WCDC was brought online and the University’s connection to the internet was re-established. At around the same time Janet staff reported that they had been able to bring their network equipment back online, restoring service to other institutions in the region, as it had been less affected by the flooding than initially perceived. Unfortunately the University’s main router had been damaged by water penetration and could not be returned to service. Work continued through the weekend until Monday 20 July 2015 to ensure that the internet connectivity was fully operational and capable of handling the load. Work to move other UIS and customer servers to other UIS locations continued, with the last customer’s server being moved on Saturday 15 August 2015 (having been deferred at the customer’s request).

3.1 Lessons learnt • Network resilience was not to the standard required of a Russell Group university. • The University’s future building plans should ensure that any critical IT systems are not

placed at risk from the effects of building works. • Systems supporting the provisioning of virtual servers did not automatically stop staff from

deploying multiple parts of a quorum in the same machine room. Automatic provisioning tools have been changed to ensure this does not happen in the future.

3.2 Incident communications Throughout the day, communications on the current state of services were posted on both the UIS website and twitter feeds, as well as from the Office of External Affairs and Communications. The Office of Communications attempted to update the main University website to inform staff and students of the ongoing incident but unfortunately a technical problem prevented this. As the provider of the website platform, the UIS is investigating the cause. The UIS and Office of Communications are also working together to ensure that incident communication protocols and tools are developed.

3.3 Update On Saturday 29 August 2015 the University was reconnected to its full capacity 20Gb link using the unique characteristics of the GBN. Once work to make the David Attenborough Building weatherproof has completed, network equipment for the University will be redeployed in the CNH. Work is also underway to plan the relocation of the CNH to the second floor of the Zoology building at the New Museums Site.

Page 5 of 12

4 Updates on IT infrastructure improvements

4.1 Janet second link The requirement for the University to have a resilient Janet network connection was realised prior to an earlier flooding incident in the CNH (in January 2015, see ISC 52). The delivery of the second connection is on track for activation by the end of October 2015, at which point the University will have two independent connections to the internet that will run in “active/active” mode. Following this implementation, should one network connection fail then the University’s networking equipment would automatically route all traffic over the stable connection. To enable the resilient second connection a second regional Janet network distribution site is being established at the University’s WCDC. This will become the primary regional node for the Janet network in the future, reducing the risk to network connections based in the CNH.

4.2 Review of IT infrastructure To ensure the University has IT infrastructure befitting its status as a world class institution, UIS is continuing work on a comprehensive review of our IT infrastructure, which will include the review of vulnerabilities identified in the Old Schools earlier in 2015 (see ISC 70). This will enable us to propose a robust remediation plan; a placeholder for this work has been included in our draft Planning Round funding proposal (Annex B, 10.0).

Steve Riley Sue Rogers Ian Cooper 24 September 2015

Page 6 of 12

Annex B: UIS Organisation Change Programme

1 Introduction This paper provides the ISC with an update on the status of the UIS organisational change against plan and outlines three new areas of focus to support the development of the department. It also reports on the second of a series of working sessions of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) that took place on 1 & 2 July at Hughes Hall.

2 Organisational change process Since the last report to the ISC in June 2015 [ISC 75] the project remains on track against the published milestones:

3 Consultation and Implications for Individuals Consultation is being conducted on a divisional basis as reported in the previous update to the ISC. This is due to the changes having differing impacts on different parts of the department. However, the timelines for these consultation periods have been brought together, giving the additional benefit of being able to maintain an organisation-wide overview throughout the process. A summary of the number of individuals affected by the proposed changes is shown in the table below (but may alter subject to the ongoing consultation):

No change 124 Minor change to either content or line management 81 Matched to another role (>70% content the same as current role) 12 Redeployment to new role 17

Whilst every member of staff has the option of 1:1 consultation meetings, it is the expectation that approximately 50% will take this opportunity. Often this will mean a number of meetings in order to work through the implications of the proposed changes.

Page 7 of 12

4 Project Governance The first Project Board met on 15 July and will meet monthly from September until the end of the change project in December 2015. The Project Board is responsible for the direction and management of the project and comprises of the SLT and two non-executive members: David Ball (Bursar of Christs College) and Prof Richard McMahon (Chair of the IT Committee of the School of Physical Sciences). In setting up the Project Board this makes UIS fully compliant with the recommendations made in the November 2014 Deloitte Audit report on the management of the change project.

5 The Hughes Hall SLT Away-day 1 & 2 July At the second of three planned offsite meetings for the SLT, the following were considered:

1. Global trends in IT (both general trends and trends in higher education) and the needs of the wider University. There is a significant opportunity for UIS to work with Principal Investigators, University Teaching Officers, Administration staff and students to accelerate our contribution to improving research, education, digital student experience and administrative outcomes.

2. Accelerating UIS contribution. This will require us to move quickly and to increase both the extent and the effectiveness of team working across the organisation. This will involve some changes in UIS ways of working. It was agreed to start with a UIS staff survey to better understand how everyone feels today, and to clarify and prioritise the next steps.

3. Individual development. To help both individuals and the divisions to succeed moving forwards, it was agreed that everyone in UIS should have a discussion with their line manager by the end of September. The discussion will review the last 12 months, consider objectives for the year ahead, and capture skills development opportunities. One of the outcomes of this exercise is to be a UIS skills database.

4. Ensuring methods of working mean UIS can be relied upon to provide excellent and sustainable services. A starting point will be documenting the UIS approaches for maintaining effective relationships with the wider University, for ongoing provision of services, for building and sustaining IT capability and for initiating new services. This will help achieve a common understanding of the role of each division in these areas.

5. Recognising the need to effectively resource what will likely be an increasing number of new initiatives over time, the SLT committed to designing a ways of working framework that will both ease the process of individuals transferring between work areas, and help enable new joiners to become effective members of our team.

6. In order to be efficient, to plan, and to demonstrate continuous improvement, the SLT recognised that UIS would need a range of reports to be produced on an efficient and systematic basis. To avoid these being created in a piecemeal manner we intend to develop a strategic UIS wide approach for management information.

The SLT have planned a further offsite meeting on 29 & 30 September. Ed Webster Dr Martin Bellamy Dr Ian Cooper 14 September 2015

Page 8 of 12

Annex C: Service Portfolio and Catalogue Pilot Project with the School of Arts and Humanities

Purpose This paper provides an update on progress with the Service Portfolio and Catalogue Pilot project between UIS and the School of Arts and Humanities. At the April 2015 meeting of the ISC, it was expected that the final report arising from the project would be available for this meeting. This has not been possible for two reasons: Firstly, the initial launch was delayed by one month, to August 2015, in order to ensure that the service information in the catalogue was of a suitably high standard. Secondly, in order to gain sufficient breadth of input, it was decided to extend the evaluation period (considering the project’s success criteria) into the start of Michaelmas Term, when more staff and students will be present. Thus the final evaluation report will be presented to the Project Board in November, and a summary report will be presented to the January 2016 meeting of the ISC.

Action Requested Members of the ISC are asked to note the positive progress to date, and the ongoing deployment plans. 1 Project Status All project tasks are to plan. The system has been developed and populated with the IT services provided by both UIS and the School. In all, 185 UIS services have been entered in eight categories, and 98 services have been entered from across the School’s ten Departments. The creation and population of the portfolio of all UIS services (which underpins the catalogue that is presented to students and staff) has been a critical activity for UIS. During a period of very significant organisational change following the bringing together of UCS, MISD and HPCS, the creation of that portfolio of services has facilitated UIS in identifying and categorising all currently provided services, and in beginning the process of rationalising that portfolio to reduce duplication. The system was soft launched as a Beta system during August to staff within UIS and to Computer Officers within the School. It presents those services which are most relevant to the user, based on their Lookup affiliation(s), though all services can be accessed. The use of the term “Beta” reinforces the point that the system is still at an early stage and that we are actively seeking feedback from users to improve it. It is available via the UIS website at http://www.service-catalogue.uis.cam.ac.uk/ A more formal launch was then conducted with School Computer Officers and Administration staff – a total of c.25 individuals – on 21 September 2015. (The outcome was not available prior to the publication date of this paper.) Building on her work prior to the soft launch, the User Experience Specialist has continued user research interviews with the School representative groups based on the now live system, to gain further insight as to how the system could be refined.

Page 9 of 12

http://www.service-catalogue.uis.cam.ac.uk/

The management of the UIS content in the catalogue has been transitioned from the project team to the UIS Service Operations Division which has enabled the project team to focus on launch activities and planning for future phases.

2 Immediate Next Steps During October further catalogue launch activity will take place with School groups such as academics and students. This will be part of a series of wider communication activities by UIS that will launch the new UIS website and communicate the direction of UIS, and so will reach a wider audience than just the School. Additionally, the annual ITX event for all Computer Officers at the Roger Needham Building in November will include a stand that explains the catalogue. In addition to these launch events, evaluation activity will take place during October and November to assess the extent to which the project’s success criteria have been met. This evaluation will address topics such as the quality of the service definitions in the catalogue, the ease of use of the system, the extent to which the system is actually being used and the review of the rationalisation, prioritisation and enhancement of the School's service portfolio. An Evaluation Report will be discussed at the Project Board meeting in November.

3 Lessons Learnt A number of lessons have been drawn from the project work to date, and have been used to inform the forward plans (see below). Positive take outs have included:

• The comprehensive approach used to ensuring a user-centric design was unanimously endorsed by the Board as an excellent piece of work. Certain University systems are regarded by some as difficult to use by the occasional user and since the Catalogue would only be used intermittently by any one individual, ease-of-use was deemed paramount. Early interviews with a very wide range of stakeholders enabled the creation of personas that set out the expectations of key users. Tree-testing then validated the structure of the Catalogue with users prior to finalisation, and formal usability testing (including videoing people whilst they interacted with the system) has enabled the refinement of the Catalogue to the point where most new users note positively the ease of use of the Catalogue and can quickly find what they need.

• The Secretary of the School has praised the overall management and delivery of the project by all members of the team, confirming that the project has both enabled the School to understand the overall structure of IT across its faculties and departments and also opened up a structured and well-supported dialogue between UIS and the School Computer Officers.

The main formative lesson is that the challenge of creating the catalogue at the same time as the UIS organisation was being established was underestimated. Some of the service management concepts implicit in the catalogue have needed to be introduced within UIS before the content of the catalogue could be created. That said, this is a unique project taking place at a specific time in the evolution of UIS and, as noted above, the creation of the portfolio of UIS services has been a very valuable contribution to UIS’s Change Programme. The personalisation of the content to those services that are most relevant to an individual’s institutional affiliation(s) has been particularly challenging as Lookup often does not contain correct or complete information regarding an individual’s affiliations. An approach has been implemented to

Page 10 of 12

enable the launch in UIS and the School, but discussions remain ongoing as to the ultimate solution as the Catalogue is deployed more widely.

4 User Feedback on the IT Service Catalogue The feedback on the catalogue, gained through usability assessments and structured interviews, has been consistently positive. The majority of users welcomed the concept of a catalogue and recognised the value in having a central online resource for IT. The users felt that the service catalogue would make it easier for people to find the services that they need. Feedback included:

• “The catalogue looks really good. It is a really good idea. It is about time that it all comes together [IT]. It has never been easy to find anything. Now I can direct external queries about services to the catalogue which help me as well as them.”

• “A lot of new students will see it is a useful ‘discovery’ site for IT related services and support. This kind of thing would have made things much easier for me.”

• “Having the ability to use the catalogue in different ways (by category, by search, by function, etc.) means that you can approach it in a way that is familiar and relevant to you which I really like.”

5 Ongoing Deployment In parallel with the activity outlined above to complete the launch to the School of Arts and Humanities, and evaluate its success, the approach is being established to the further refinement and wider deployment of the catalogue. It is intended to deploy the catalogue next to the UAS (this is subject to final ratification at a meeting in mid-October). The UAS has very few local IT services, so this will mainly entail deploying the catalogue of UIS services within UAS. However, the user experience research that was performed with the School of Arts and Humanities will be incorporated into the engagement with UAS, to ensure that any variances in the user needs of UAS staff are identified and reflected in the system. The timescale of and approach to the launch in UAS are yet to be finalised but launch activity is expected to commence during Michaelmas Term. At the same time as working with UAS, the project team will further develop the catalogue system. This development will deliver functionality that was deferred from the initial Beta version of the system, address feedback gained from users in the School of Arts and Humanities and also deliver any necessary changes identified during the user experience activity with UAS. The further launch of the IT Service Catalogue to the other Schools, and Non-School Institutions such as the Library and Colleges, will take place during the first half of 2016. This will be facilitated by the new posts being put in place within UIS during Michaelmas Term to work with those institutions (the School posts being co-funded). Ongoing deployment as outlined above will continue to be funded from the TDF. The drawdown from the TDF during 2015/2016 to complete this roll-out is still to be confirmed. Ongoing system and content support during 2016/2017 and beyond will be absorbed in the UIS operational budget at no incremental cost.

Page 11 of 12

6 Conclusion The project is progressing well with very positive feedback regarding both how the project team has engaged with the user community, and about the system itself. We are therefore confident in moving forward to the next stage of deployment across the university. The ISC is asked to note the plans to complete the launch with the School of Arts and Humanities, and then to proceed with extending the IT Service Catalogue to other parts of the collegiate University. Richard Young 15 September 2015

Page 12 of 12

of 32

Implementing the Review of IT Infrastructure and Support (the “Review”) Progress Report and Overview of Plans for 2015/16

Summary The Review of 2011 to 2013 identified substantial opportunities to improve information services (IS) at the University, to be enabled by enhanced IS organisational capability founded on the outstanding talent and commitment of IT staff across the University. This paper sets out the high-level implementation approach. It includes an overview of the background, objectives and strategy, and also sets out the targets and measures, and the key risks and mitigations. Implementing the Review firstly involves creating the organisation and environment that enables all IT staff to deliver to their full potential. In parallel we will co-create the University’s first integrated IS

strategy, with the goals of establishing leadership in digital technologies to enable education, research and end to end student experience, and best in class support for administration and other activities. A critical element of the approach is making visible the many IS enabled innovations of individuals and institutions, and enabling their discovery, sharing and reuse. During 2014/15, we have focussed on building organisational capability, specifically: a. establishing a comprehensive IS governance framework and, b. implementing an integrated organisational structure for UIS. These significant initiatives have been progressed in parallel with: c. sustaining the existing portfolio of around 200 centrally provided information services and, d. several new initiatives, including the creation of a user focussed IS catalogue, and the

negotiation of a University wide agreement with Microsoft. In addition, in 2015/16 we will initiate new programmes of work to: e. communicate/engage with users on what is needed and how these needs can be addressed and, f. develop a cohesive community of Computer Officers across the Collegiate University, and g. develop a common delivery framework for information services. h. engage across the Collegiate University to co-create an integrated information services strategy. The ISC is invited to provide a steer on the overall approach, including any changes or additions.

1 Purpose of document This paper provides an overview of the strategic direction of Information Services (IS) at the University. It summarises:

the background to the change programme (Section 2) the strategic objectives agreed at the Information Services Committee (Section 3) the high-level strategy for implementing these objectives (Section 4) an overview of implementation programmes (Section 5), and an update on 2014/15 activities

and the plans for 2015/16 (Section 6) proposed targets and measures (Section 7) key risks and planned mitigations (Section 8)

njw40

Text Box

ISC 87

of 32

The Information Services Committee (ISC) is invited to note the overall approach and to provide a steer on any changes or additions for the academic year 2015/16. This document will subsequently form the basis of briefings to UIS staff, Computer Officers across the Collegiate University, and to institutions and users on the planned future direction of IS at the University. It will also be provided to the scrutineer to provide context for the UIS Planning Round submission. 2 Background The decisions to refresh the University’s Information Services strategy, to form UIS and to create the post of Director of Information Services resulted from the “Review of IT Infrastructure and Support” of 2011 to 2013 (hereafter referenced as the “Review”). This identified significant opportunities for improvement, concluding that:

“…We spend a great deal of money, more than most UK universities, but the quality of our

services is patchy and does not necessarily compare well with that of other institutions. The

panel concluded that many users in Cambridge might benefit from improvements in the

provision of systems and services; it was telling that more recently arrived staff and students

were first is to characterise provision as lacking facilities that they had previously

experienced elsewhere. The distributed responsibility for services provision provides for

innovative approaches, but contributes to the patchiness of services. Overall the panel was

not convinced we get the best service we could for our investment.”

The recommendations included substantially increasing the focus on user needs, the creation of the ISC and appropriate subcommittees, introducing a modular framework for services that allows for reuse, introducing minimum standards for end user computing services, and expanding central provision of services including storage and end-user compute. Improvements to IT support arrangements were also recommended, specifically that:

“The university should reform the career structures and employment arrangements of its

computing staff with urgency, with the aim of improving the mobility of individuals and the

flexibility of teams.”

Work on implementing the Review’s recommendations began in 2014, from a starting point that comprised four central IS teams all of which had different approaches and cultures, and in the region of 200 smaller teams in institutions. In general there is little in the way of standardisation of approach, resulting in inconsistent service provision and user experience, as well as gaps and duplication in the service portfolio. There are also inconsistent approaches to documentation and communication, with many relying on “word of mouth” to identify what services are available. From the perspective of the central IS teams, there was no unifying mechanism to build a coherent understanding of users’ views or of institutions’ needs; and while decisions on future direction took account of some external input there was not the basis to be confident this genuinely reflected overall needs. 3 Objectives The objectives for Information Services at the University were agreed by the ISC in April 2014 and are summarised below:

To establish an IT leadership position to enable world class excellence in the areas of research, teaching and learning, and the end-to-end student experience.

of 32

To seek best in class process and efficiency outcomes in other areas. To build close engagement with whole Collegiate University and to establish a community of

IT practitioners. To sustain delivery of existing projects and services.

The Review and the ISC have both endorsed the need for excellent IS people, both in the UIS and in the institutions across the Collegiate University. We are fortunate in having an exceptionally talented and committed IT workforce. However the previous organisational structure has not enabled people to deliver to their potential; fragmentation and lack of communication across teams has led to insular delivery approaches. A top priority objective is therefore to build the organisational capability that enables our IS practitioners to work effectively and efficiently, in a way that is informed by user needs, guided by common approaches, and underpinned by tools, shared IT services and externally sourced commodity services. This will enable faster and more efficient delivery, and increased focus on IS that directly contributes to the University’s mission. As capability builds, IS practitioners will deliver increased benefits to users across the Collegiate University. Specifically for:

Academics undertaking Research, IS will offer a growing portfolio of technology-based digital research services designed to enable researchers to increase pace, collaboration, breadth, depth and impact of research projects, and thus contributing to the increased success rate of research grant proposals.

University Teaching Officers; IS provides a portfolio of technology-based digital education services that contribute to teaching excellence and improved learning outcomes. The services provided will enable University Teaching Officers to improve student engagement and learning outcomes, and to save time on routine administration, support and assessment. Services will be kept up-to-date with internal and external developments in technology and educational practice.

Students; it is clear that the student is at the heart of the design process. From application through to alumnus, IS provides time efficient support and enablement for activities undertaken by students, including organising life at University and engaging with University administration, as well as supporting attainment of learning outcomes.

All users at the University; there is progressive improvement in the relevance, usability, completeness, integration and coherence of information services.

Institutions, there is regular dialogue on IS strategy, delivery and service improvement, resulting in new services that intercept institutions’ future needs, increased choice and flexibility, and improved performance. For those in colleges and departments it is easier to find and reuse services introduced by others, while the cost of new services is reduced. For UAS there is greater coherence in systems commissioned from different areas, with growing consistency and coherence in the use of information across the University

The IT practitioner Community across UIS and institutions there are benefits from improved support, personal and professional development, clear communication, and access to a growing range of services and data sources that can be readily discovered and piloted. There is a consistent “Service Culture” across all areas of IS provision and support.

The University leadership, there is growing confidence in the effectiveness and efficiency of the overall IS organisation, the appropriateness and practicality of information security management measures, and the ability to innovate at the earliest appropriate stage.

4 Strategy In May 2014 a number of working groups (the “Workstrands”) were established to develop the

strategy for delivering the above objectives. Approximately 200 individuals from both within UIS and across the Collegiate University were involved over a 3 month period. This resulted in over 50 recommendations which are set out in Annex A and are summarised below:

of 32

Create capability – IS people and organisation: Implement a new organisational structure that provides overall leadership for all aspects of IS, and which develops and supports IS people to focus on users, adopt common approaches (eg for new initiatives and service operations) that efficiency enable high-quality outcomes, and operate within a professional “service culture”. Develop a vibrant IT practitioner community that provides career development for individuals and job mobility across institutions. Extend the range and capacity of Institutional Support services.

Establish an effective governance framework and regular and consistent engagement with all parts of the Collegiate University, including users, PVCs, Schools, colleges and departments, UAS and other Non-School Institutions.

Increase the focus on users: ensure that user needs are considered holistically and that the service portfolio, as well as individual services, delivers a good and efficient user experience.

Adopt a service ethos: Adopt a consistent “services-based approach”; all IS activities can

be defined as a service (with published specification, performance criteria, support framework, standards/interfaces, price), including consultancy services. Services should be discoverable and reusable. The service portfolio will be proactively managed, to ensure it optimises fit with University needs and is sourced appropriately.

Establish an information services architecture for the University, with common standards for services covering data, usability, security, performance, availability, resilience, interoperability.

Use shared services and externally sourced services wherever appropriate: Adopt a shared services approach where multiple instances of services are required across the University, for example storage, hosting, and infrastructure. Source services externally where appropriate.

Establish an Information Management capability to ensure appropriate steps are taken to manage information security risks, and to enable discovery and controlled sharing of unpublished data assets.

Create an integrated Information Services strategy, to deliver the objectives set out above and to review and refresh the service portfolio. Implement an approach that enables continued refresh on an ongoing basis.

5 Implementation Implementation of the strategy is being progressed via a number of projects/activities (some still to commence) that can be categorised into two groups: Building Capability, and Sustaining/Enhancing Information Services, expanded in the subsections below.

5.1 Building Capability The initiatives in this category comprise:

Governance review: Establishing the Information Services Committee and an appropriate range of subcommittees, links to other university governance bodies (e.g. Research Policy Committee, Education Committee). The governance process is informed by regular dialogue with schools, departments, colleges, UAS and other NSIs.

The UIS Organisational Change Programme (Annex C), to integrate the four former central organisations (240 staff in total) to provide the necessary central capability for user needs focus and institutional engagement, strategic planning, sourcing and delivery of new services, and high-quality service operations, in a way where technology is coherently implemented and information is securely managed. “Softer aspects” of change are critically

important; including putting in place a career framework and ensuring individual development opportunities, the transition towards a “service culture”, and introducing flexible approaches to resourcing that enable career opportunities for staff.

of 32

Creation of a pan University IT community. IS needs to accommodate the exceptionally diverse and dynamically developing needs of Researchers and Teaching Officers across institutions of the Collegiate University. Local innovation will often be appropriate and is to be encouraged. This in turn requires first rate institutional Computer Officer capability, populated by individuals who not only help influence overall University IS strategy, but who are equipped to fully meet institutional needs by understanding and selecting appropriate central services, and supplementing these with local services. Local services can be created, quickly and efficiently, using the agreed University Information Services framework to achieve desired generic outcomes (e.g. usability, security, reusability). Computer Officers will benefit from increased professional development opportunities, access to specialist support services for undertaking a range of tasks, and increased use of central services that enables increased resource to be invested on IT services that are dedicated to their institution’s mission.

Communication and engagement, to enhance awareness, expectations, collaboration, feedback and confidence in IS across the broader University. The initial focus will be on communication within UIS and the broader IT community. Subsequently there is a need to communicate the availability of IT services, the opportunities for IS enabled innovation in research and education, and the opportunities for IS related collaboration across the Collegiate University.

5.2 Sustaining and enhancing Information Services The initiatives in this category comprise:

Maintaining UIS’s existing service portfolio (Annex F) (with planned enhancements and some extensions). Delivery of the approximately 200 services currently provided by UIS is being sustained, and around 80 projects are underway that will deliver upgrades and enhancements.

New initiatives to address key priorities (Annex D) including the development of a new University IS Service Catalogue, the introduction of a Microsoft Enrolment for Education Solutions agreement (commonly referred to as “Microsoft Campus Agreement”), the Research Computing Pilot to identify the shared research computing services to be provided from the West Cambridge Data Centre, and the introduction of a range of Storage Services. A programme of work to improve Information Security Management is also being progressed.

Creation of a Delivery Framework (Annex E) (comprising guidance, standards and tools) to enable consistency of user experience, reduction in duplication of investment/activity and improved security outcomes. The framework will guide decisions on the types of services that should be provided as shared capabilities across the University, enabling institutional resources to be increasingly focused on IT enabled innovation directly related to their research and education missions. Additionally, the Services Framework will facilitate re-use across institutional boundaries.

Creation of an integrated Information Services strategy (Annex G): Informed by technology trends, plans of other HE institutions and relevant benchmarks, and based on input from users (Researchers, Teaching Officers, students, administrators), institutions (departments, schools, colleges, and NSIs) and PVCs we will co-create the desired future IS roadmap for each part of the University. In parallel, we will develop the architecture for future technology, and frameworks for user centric delivery and Information Security Management. Existing service portfolios will then be reviewed against both future needs and the implementation frameworks, and a prioritised investment plan developed, if possible, for consideration within the 2016 Planning Round.

Progress to-date on the above initiatives is covered in Annex B.

of 32

6 Targets and measures

6.1 Targets

The approach set out in this paper is founded on creating an improving IS people capability, a clear focus on user needs, and a common delivery and operational support strategy (that allows us to work together efficiently and effectively). We will be able to demonstrate we are being successful when:

a. We can show we understand the current and future needs of our users (academics, students administrators and others) and can describe these in terms of outcomes.

b. We can likewise show we understand the current and future needs of Schools, Departments, Faculties, those holding senior leadership positions, the UAS, other NSIs, and the 31 Colleges, and can describe these in terms of outcomes.

c. We have a clear understanding of our current services with all having published plans for enhancement or replacement and obsolescence.

d. We have an agreed future strategy (including funding model) for the service portfolio (and sub-portfolios) that demonstrably aligns with user and institutions' needs.

e. We have consolidated IT infrastructure, ensuring that resilience meets agreed University needs, and have improved reliability and efficiency.

f. We have implemented an IT skills development programme that is delivering progressively increasing benefits to both individuals and the University overall.

g. We have created and embedded a services model that is used in the majority of institutions across the Collegiate University.

h. We have built a mutually supportive IT practitioner community across the Collegiate University.

i. We have institutionalised a metrics based approach to underpin all aspects of IT operations. j. We are seeing improving results on user and staff surveys.

6.2 Measures

Measures are being developed, and we propose to introduce regular metrics reports. These will assess the performance of individual divisions, and of UIS overall (demonstrating effective inter-divisional working). Provisionally these will include the following:

a. Build & Development has increased project pace (velocity) by 20%, and more than 80% of projects are delivered on time/budget/quality.

b. Service Operations is meeting/exceeding documented customer service levels and has built a resilient service offering where single points of failure are eliminated.

c. The Research and Institutional Services, and Education, Administration and Student Services Divisions have implemented a new customer engagement model, and are showing improved delivery outcomes and customer satisfaction measures.

d. Information Management has designed and implemented an Information Security Management Framework, developed a University Information Risk Register, ensured compliance with information protection legislation, and implemented an Asset Register.

e. Departmental Operations shows improvement on metrics for personal development, for career mobility, for HR administration, and for financial management.

f. Digital Transformation can show improved outcomes on user experience measures, following initiation of an annual survey programme.

g. Staff engagement index (measured by UIS staff survey) is improving, with a goal of at least 60%.

h. Financial efficiency savings in excess of 15% are on track to be realised by 2021 in the Build & Development and Service Operations Divisions.

of 32

7 Risks The main risks to the implementation of the strategy are summarised below: A. Architecture: There is immediate pressure on the Architecture Division to guide the approach on new initiatives, for example the Microsoft Campus agreement, the Storage Strategy and the ERP strategy, before it is has had time to recruit the necessary resource. There are some indications that the amount budgeted for the division may be insufficient to recruit individuals of the calibre required.

Mitigation: Ensure new recruits are of the necessary calibre. Potentially fund some of the resource from project budgets.

B. Organisational capacity for change: an implicit planning assumption is that the new organisation will from January 2016 be capable of handling an increased workload, including University wide engagement, progressing new initiatives, and undertaking the strategic review of the service portfolio. In practice it may require a longer period of “bedding in”, and the introduction of more efficient ways of working, before sufficient capacity for the new activities can be released.

Mitigation: Develop prioritisation bandings for activities, and be prepared to relax the pace for those in lower bands should the need arise.

C. Building the required degree of organisational flexibility requires efficient recruitment processes, competitive salaries, and the early delivery of the IT career development programme. Assumptions on effectiveness of current processes suggest the potential for improvement may prove over optimistic.

Mitigation: UIS Senior Leadership Team to keep under review, and work with HR to address any shortfalls.

D. Business analysis: many new initiatives also require access to business analysis resource to guide the early thinking on their implementation. This resource is in very short supply, and there is a risk that some initiatives may be started without full specifications, potentially leading to the need for costly rework.

Mitigation: Use the staff development review within UIS (currently underway) to identify development needs, and provision development activities accordingly. Continue to supplement with additional contract staff in the meantime.

E. Efficiency savings: sustaining the UIS organisation requires attainment of 15% cost reduction in Build & Development and Service Operations. While a number of opportunities for smarter working (e.g. automated testing, improved helpdesk software, more flexible resourcing) have been identified and the early savings are on track, there is a risk that the full savings will not be attainable given the increased scope of activity.

Mitigation: UIS Senior Leadership Team to keep under review, and invest in further tooling as necessary.

F. Availability of new funds for investment: the engagement with institutions on future requirements, and the review of infrastructure resilience may well identify the case for increased investment in IS. As of the time of writing, additional funding has neither been requested nor allocated.

Mitigation: Engage widely across the Collegiate University to build support, and explore alternative funding options, both internal, and external to the University.

of 32

G. Security and/or operational issues: until the information security management programme and the review of service resilience have been further progressed, it is possible that substantial operational issues will emerge that will require prioritisation of senior staff from progressing strategic initiatives to resolving immediate situations. This includes any known service issues/risks.

Mitigation: Ensure continued focus on addressing recommendations from the cyber security audit report and on developing and implementing the information security management framework. Reprioritise resource to deal with any issues that arise, recognising the impact on other work programmes.

of 32

Annex A: Objectives by Workstrand

WS1 UIS Services and Engagement

A Regular consultation with all institutions comprising the Collegiate University

B UIS service provision and strategy informed by user feedback and requirements

C Service Catalogue - Put in place a multi-level definition of the services available to user communities, accessible by role, institution and activity

D Service Portfolio - Put in place a Service Portfolio framework to underpin service commissioning, maintenance and retirement

E Increased benefits through adoption of services from inclusive catalogue

F Continue to maintain the three current UIS Desktop Services in line with the emerging Desktop Strategy and unify the associated support provision.

G Engage with other Desktop Services providers within the University.

H Develop and formalise strategic end-user computing implementation roadmap. Once agreed, design, procure and build the new “Desktop” service(s).

WS2 Community and Capability

A

That the UIS work with the Schools and Colleges to help ensure that suitable IT governance structures are in place to oversee the interaction with UIS and that appropriate coordination arrangements exist, including School IT Coordinators to meet the dual requirements of School IT coordination and UIS engagement

B The UIS should work with the Schools to determine the terms of reference for a cross School IT Committee

C

The UIS will produce a catalogue of federated services and form a proactive engagement team to provide a customer focused account management function associated with federated service delivery to Departments & Institutions across the Collegiate University

D The UIS will increase the resourcing of its institutional support team in order to provide effort and expertise to institutions via an on demand model to help cover staff absence and additional requirements arising from project activity etc

E The UIS will investigate mechanisms to provide assistance with the management of local IT staff where deemed useful by the institution

F The UIS will increase IT support for the creation and promotion of an active and engaged IT practitioner community across the Collegiate University

G The UIS will enable and promote a career development and job mobility programme for IT practitioners across the Collegiate University

WS3 UIS Operations

A Put in place unified policies and procedures necessary to operate a university department formed from the joining of three disparate organisational units. (Scope: HR, Finance, Planning, Comms., H&S, Building Management)

B Establish appropriate governance structures for the proper regulation and provision of IT, both across the University and within the UIS.

C Improve the career mobility and flexibility of working for IT staff across the University, via standard role descriptions, career pathways, and facilitated moves

WS4 Architecture

A Creation of UIS Architecture team with sufficient depth and breadth of knowledge to achieve recommendations of IT review

B Establishing an architecture community within the wider University

of 32

C Formal governance of common University architecture

D Catalogue of architectural services consisting of UIS, wider University and approved external offerings.

E Delivery of technical infrastructure offerings (e.g. Infrastructure as a Service, Platform as a Service, Storage as a Service) that are either used directly or form the basis of wider UIS services.

F Managed documentation for application components, interfaces and data interchange standards

G Mechanism for maintaining a list of approved external services

H Common University directory services, authentication, IT security procedures

WS5 Build

A A build capability that is optimised to provide highly responsive, high quality Information Systems development services that are both efficient and cost effective.

B A portfolio of modern, sustainable and supportable IS technologies that enables the UIS Build Capability to deliver efficient and effective services.

C The implementation of defined methods, standards and processes, covering the full end-to-end development life cycle, that are compliant with industry best practice.

D To create a challenging, stimulating and rewarding environment that develops and supports all UIS Build Capability staff in the delivery of efficient and effective Information Systems.

E A UIS Build Capability that is accepted as a trusted partner and has a strong relationship with the wider University IT functions and the communities they support.

WS6 Service Operations

A We should adopt common processes and the associated tooling (software) across UIS.

B We should adapt and adopt the ITIL® Service Management Framework across Service Delivery and Operations within UIS.

C We should consolidate our 1st line support points into a single (functional) Service Desk.

D We should create Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for all our services so that we are able to define deliverables and measure performance against expectation.

E We should introduce Operational Level Agreements (OLAs) within UIS so that we are able to define the interdependent relationships among internal groups working to support the SLAs.

F We should implement common service metrics across all services thus enabling performance to be compared which in turn can help inform where investment is required.

G We should create a dedicated 2nd line support function.

H We should rationalise the number of operational machine rooms in line with the University Data Centre policy.

I The Network Support function should be provided consistently throughout UIS.

J We should develop out training provision to meet University and user requirements

K We should rationalise our current Institution Support offerings and then expand to meet growing demand. In parallel we should create enough capacity to be able to service ad hoc requirements.

of 32

L We should rationalise systems where duplication exists (as appropriate) and then undertake to eradicate Technical Debt.

M We should streamline and converge current User Administration processes and aspire to manage all accounts from one place.

WS7 Information Management

A

The UIS proposes to lead in producing, maintaining, and promoting the use of a comprehensive Information Management Framework throughout the University. It will be done in conjunction with those who already have delegated responsibility in this area e.g. the Library and UAS *

B Act as Information Management Risk Management lead on behalf of the University *

C The UIS will lead in building Information Management networks across the University in order to provide platforms for support and dissemination of information and requirements gathering *

D Lead in identifying and supporting information asset owners and enabling the publication of assets in the University Information Catalogue

E UIS will provide advice, services, systems and technologies that enable and support the University in the appropriate storage, management, retrieval and sharing of data, in the confidence that it will be held securely.

F UIS will play a leading role in designing, developing and recommending IT security policies for the University. All such policy proposals will be submitted to the appropriate University bodies for approval and promulgation.

G

UIS will provide domain expertise in the IT sphere for regulatory and information compliance, complementing the work of the University's Information Compliance office. All data will be processed in accordance with the Law, Statutes and Ordinances of the University and the Rules and Guidelines issued by the Information Services Committee.

H

UIS will provide expertise in forensic incident handling so that incidents involving computer data are managed in such a way as to obtain reproducible and verifiable results that can be relied upon in a legal setting, including internal HR investigations through to a court action.

I

All UIS services are operated in accordance with the Law, Statutes and Ordinances of the University and the Rules and Guidelines issued by the Information Services Committee. Where personal data is processed we make clear what information is held, for how long, who may access it and for what it is used.

J

UIS in conjunction with others will develop a catalogue of key data sources to facilitate and encourage collaboration in teaching, research, and administration across the wider university. This asset will assist and inform the University’s

approaches to risk management and support the development activities of Workstrand 4 in building an information architecture.

K

Everyone is responsible for information security and ensuring that any processing of data is done in accordance with the law, the Statutes and Ordinances of the University, and the Rules and Guidelines of the ISC. The University will provide appropriate training to ensure that they are equipped to fulfil their obligations in this area.

L Develop mechanisms for feeding back into UIS after engagement activities

of 32

Annex B: Progress in 2014/15 and summary of plans for 2015/16

1 Building capability

1.1 IS Governance Framework (near complete)

Progress to date: The Information Services Committee was established in May 2014 and meets six times per annum. Sub-committees have been established for User Needs, Research Computing (High Performance Computing), Teaching and Learning (TLSSG), Business Systems (BSSC), Information Security Management (ISMSG), and Network Management (JNMC). The previously established sub-committees for Student Systems, Finance Systems and HR Systems report into the BSSC. Additionally a regular Schools-UIS engagement meeting has been established which is attended by Schools’ Academic leads and IT coordinators. There is regular engagement with

colleges via the Colleges IT Managers Group (CITMG). Plans for 15/16: The new governance structure comprising the ISC and six subcommittees will be maintained. The University Card Committee will be re-formed, under BSSC. Consideration will be given both to whether to formalise the status of the Schools-UIS liaison meeting and, in conjunction with the Bursars IT Committee, establishing a governance structure for engagement with colleges that involve Bursars, Senior Tutors and IT fellows, in addition to Computer Officers. 1.2 UIS Organisational Change programme – Underway and on-target for completion of

Phase 2 in December 2015

Progress to date: Following completion of the Workstrands in 2014, the UIS Interim Leadership Team designed a new integrated structure for UIS that comprises seven divisions. The seven division design was agreed by ISC in November 2014. Subsequently, in July 2015, it was also agreed (by the General Board and Regent House) to form an eighth unit in UIS: the Digital Transformation Consultancy. Of the seven divisions, two are “demand side” and focus on engagement with the University; these

are Education Administration and Student Services, and Research and Institutional Services (which incorporates the High-Performance Computing Service). Four “supply-side” divisions will develop

“centres of excellence” in undertaking projects (Build/Development), Service Operations,

Architecture, and Information Management. The Departmental Operations division is responsible for the operation of UIS as an institution, and covers planning, performance management, finance, recruitment, policies and building management. The Digital Transformation Consultancy will primarily work in support of the two demand side divisions, supporting academic leadership in digital strategy development, and using user centric design approaches in defining new services. It will also lead in surveying users to develop user satisfaction metrics, and understanding of future requirements. The new UIS divisional structure was implemented in May 2015 when all 240 staff were assigned to one of the eight units, albeit with minimum change beyond assigning staff into the new structure. Detailed design work then began on their future structure of the eight units. Following completion of initial design work at the end of July, staff consultation began on August 4 and will continue through to November. The consultation process enables input on the planned organisational design, and enables individuals to discuss personal preferences and changes to future roles. The objective is for all units to have moved to their new structures by December 2015. Prior to implementation of the May 2015 changes, Service Owners were identified for each of the >200 service instances in the current portfolio, with these individuals confirming that delivery to the University would not be affected by the changes. This approach has proved successful and will be repeated prior to implementation of the next phase of organisational change in December 2015.

of 32

An overview of the new UIS organisation is provided in Annex C. Plans for 2015/16: The new structure of the UIS divisions and the Digital Transformation Consultancy is on target for implementation by the start of 2016. Beyond that there will be further investment in improving ways of working; this will comprise:

Investment in people, to build individual and organisational capability. Based on the review of individual development needs currently underway, investment plans will be developed to address skills gaps. In addition it is proposed to form a UIS IT Academy to provide a training capability to bring new graduates and school leavers into IT roles. We will also introduce a “flexible resourcing” model that will ease the interchange of staff between work areas,

assisting with both individual development, and enabling resources to be allocated in accordance with University priorities.

Investment in tooling, to improve efficiency and quality in Build & Development, Service Operations, institutional engagement and potentially Architecture and Information Security Management.

Developing and embedding processes; frameworks will be documented to provide for consistency in approach of managing relationships with institutions, managing services, developing new services, and developing capability.

1.3 Creation of a pan University IT community

Progress to date: As mentioned in section 1, the Review recommended urgent reform to the career structure and employment arrangements of computing support staff, with the aims of improving the ability of individuals, and the flexibility of teams. This was based on an analysis of the IT support available across the University which concluded that:

IT staff were frequently working long hours; they were often managed by people who have no IT background; isolated individuals or teams were under pressure; some are experiencing stress that results in reduced jobs satisfaction; networking is highly appreciated; there was an expressed need for individual development for, and mobility of, IT staff.

A proposal has been developed to initiate a project for the creation of a pan University IT community. Planning and implementation is expected to commence in 2016.

Plans for 15/16: From January 2016, we propose to retain certain members of the UIS Change Team to undertake a new project to develop the IT community. This initiative will be sponsored by the Deputy Director of Research and Institutional Services. With the goal of ensuring that Computer Officers are well equipped to sustainably deliver the best possible outcomes to users and to institutions, the project will assess how best to:

ensure that individuals are engaged in helping to shape a common agenda for IS at the University, that is “co-owned” by the broader community;

ensure that all have the necessary skills and knowledge of the University strategy and service portfolio, and

create a sense of community where all feel supported (i.e. not isolated) and able to engage in support from specialists in the centre;

eliminate the “them and us” that currently exists in some quarters; enable the University to develop future senior IT capability internally; introduce standard job descriptions to enhance mobility; provide access to information, services, support, and development programmes; consider how social media can provide improved mechanisms for networking and

collaboration over and above the existing Techlink seminars and ucam-itsupport mailing list.

of 32

1.4 Communication, to enhance awareness, expectations and confidence in IS across the broader University

Progress to date: there has been relatively modest activity to date: updates on the UIS website on the organisational changes planned, and presentations at the VC’s Heads of Department evenings

during the Easter term. Plans for 15/16: Successful delivery of the objectives and strategy outlined above will need to engage Researchers, University Teaching Officers, students and administrators across the Collegiate University. The programme brief is still to be developed, and provisionally will seek to build an appropriate level of understanding within the key target audiences of:

what you can expect of Information Services overall, and the role of your local Computer Officer, the Service Catalogue, and how you can influence the agenda,

in the context of: IS objectives and strategy: the opportunity, the benefits of change. People are at the centre of the strategy: The focus on users and developing IS practitioners;

building a collaborative and collegiate IT organisation within UIS and across institutions; cultural change programme: becoming the kind of organisation we need to be.

Delivery and approach: What has been achieved so far, the forward plan, how we are going to work together.

The communication programme will consider how best to engage with the following audiences:

staff in UIS, members of the ISC, and Heads of Institution, the broader University IT community, users, schools, colleges and departments.

2 Sustaining and enhancing Information Services

2.1 Maintaining UIS’s existing service portfolio (with planned enhancements and some

extensions)

2014/15 summary: The most serious incident during the year was a loss of external network connectivity that affected the entire Collegiate University on 17 July 2015. This resulted from the flooding of the Central Network Hub, an equipment room in the basement of the David Attenborough Building. The outage began at approximately 2:30am and persisted until approximately noon, when service was restored from a backup connection at the West Cambridge Data Centre. The West Cambridge Data Centre was formally opened by the Chancellor in March 2015 and now hosts equipment for UIS and a growing number of institutions. Take up has been faster than expected, and assessments of opportunities to increase the efficiency of space utilisation, and the case for kitting out the fallow equipment room (Hall 4) are underway. Service enhancements introduced during the year include the new Online Software Ordering and Delivery System, and upgrades to the telephony system to support videoconferencing and instant messaging, and to enable users to access their University telephone extension from smart phones and other devices via the Internet. There has been continued growth in many other services, for example the Managed Cluster Service, and the Granta Backbone and Wi-Fi networks. Business Systems have been sustained, with upgrades delivered on schedule as agreed with the Student Systems, Finance Systems and HR Systems committees.

of 32

Notably, the year has seen a significant number of service impacting issues, some of which related to lack of resilience in infrastructure (e.g. power, network connectivity, an earlier flooding incident), others of which indicate shortfall in procedures (e.g. deficiencies in testing procedures resulted in service issues impacting both CamSIS and the support provided for online exams). Plans for 2015/16: Urgent work is underway both to deploy fully resilient “active-active” diversely

routed connections into the Janet network, both operating at 20Gb per second. This is targeted for completion in October 2015. Additionally work has been initiated to relocate the Central Network Hub from the second basement level of the David Attenborough Building (now proven to be prone to flooding) to a second-floor location. Deployment of Moodle, the pan University Virtual Learning Environment, is continuing to all departments, for completion by Michaelmas Term 2016. An extended range of Research Computing services will be introduced, with the goal of, by September 2016, increasing the number of departments using these services by 20%, and increasing processing and storage capacity by more than 100%. The ongoing work programmes to enhance and systems support Student Systems and those for HR, Finance and Research Administration will continue. Work will commence on the significant upgrade of CamSIS to migrate to PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Release 9.2. Further migrations of institutional equipment into the West Cambridge Data Centre will be undertaken, and a programme to rationalise both institutional and UIS servers will be initiated. A review of infrastructure resilience and project development and test standards will be undertaken, to build consensus on the appropriate service and quality outcomes for University (probably in tiers), to develop an upgraded design and an implementation plan, and identify the costs and timescales for transition.

2.2 New initiatives

Six new initiatives have been launched in parallel with the organisational change programme, with the goal of enhancing IS provision during 2015/16. These are:

Service Catalogue project: Initially being piloted with the School of Arts and Humanities, the Service Catalogue will provide a user and institution specific view of relevant local and central IS services. Information is provided for both for non-technical users and Computer Officers, with links to on-line fulfillment where available. Opportunities for extending and rationalising service portfolios will be undertaken as part of the deployment; the catalogue is also intended to enable collaboration on new services between individuals with similar interests.

ERP Strategy refresh: To develop the future strategy for the University wide systems, taking account of user needs across the Collegiate University as well as industry trends.

Microsoft Campus Agreement: To put in place a University-wide license for Microsoft operating system software and office productivity software. This will enable provision of Microsoft Office to students and staff, and subsequently the introduction of a University wide directory service that will facilitate controlled sharing of information across institutional boundaries. This will also underpin the refresh and rationalisation of the University end user compute platforms.

Research Computing Pilot (Biomedical Campus): To demonstrate to research groups that shared research computing services provided from the West Cambridge Data Centre can provide a viable (and preferable) alternative to local provision, and understand the range of service requirements.

Storage Strategy: To introduce a range of University-wide storage services from a common shared platform, to provide file sync and share services (including or similar to Dropbox),

of 32

large-scale research storage (including for the Digital Humanities) and administrative storage.

Information Security Management Framework. To develop a consistent approach to information security management. This is initially to be used in assessing and mitigating the risks of information loss/compromise faced by the University’s Business Systems, and

subsequently to deploy the framework to institutions, and then to individuals. Progress to date and plans for 2015/16 on the above (and two others that are currently on hold) is provided in Annex D.

2.3 Creation of a Delivery framework

Progress to date: Not started Plans for 2015/16: A proposal on the approach for creating future services will be developed by the Architecture Division, with the goal of increasing pace, re-use, and reducing the cost of new services. The scope will include infrastructure services (e.g. hosting, storage), common enabling services (e.g. identity management), data standards, and supporting tools (development, test, project management, service management etc). Skills requirements for local IT staff will be identified. A recommendation, together with cost benefit analysis will be brought to the ISC for consideration. Further information is provided in Annex E.

2.4 Creation of an integrated Information Services Strategy

Progress to date: Not started Plans for 15/16: We will undertake a review of the Information Services across the Collegiate University with the objectives of:

ensuring IS service portfolios meet the needs of users and institutions, and that evolution plans will meet PVC and other strategic priorities;

enabling UIS’s customers to drive for “world-class digital leadership” in mission related information services, with a focus on research, education and student experience;

providing a unifying agenda for IS staff across the university; enabling development of a coherent delivery approach (covering user experience, common

architecture, enabling reuse, cost effectiveness, a “single source of truth” information model) that is prioritised based on the University’s needs and benefits delivery;

ensuring sustainability of services and the support model; releasing resources from commodity activities to provide increased capacity for supporting

the University’s research and teaching mission. We will, if possible, aim to complete the above programme of activities by the end of the Easter Term 2016 so that implementation alternatives can be considered and included in the 2016 Planning Round. The assessment of the financial case will consider alternative implementation scenarios such as current budgets, unconstrained funding and a hybrid funding model, (e.g. involving core funding to cover upfront investment and a pay-as-you-go service consumption model). A summary of current UIS services is provided in Annex F, and a summary of the proposed approach is provided in Annex G.

of 32

Annex C: Overview of the UIS organisation The UIS structure is comprised of 8 units; 7 divisions and the Digital Transformation Consultancy, as depicted in the below diagram. UIS Structure

Of the seven divisions, two are “demand side” and focus on engagement with the University; these

are Education Administration and Student Services, and Research and Institutional Services (which also incorporates the High-Performance Computing Service). Four “supply-side” divisions will

develop “centres of excellence” in undertaking projects (Build/Development), Service Operations, Architecture and Information Management. The Departmental Operations division is responsible for the operation of UIS as an institution, and covers planning, performance management, finance, recruitment, policies and building management. The Digital Transformation Consultancy will primarily work in support of the two demand side divisions, supporting academic leadership in digital strategy development, and using user centric design approaches in defining new services. It will also lead in surveying users to develop user satisfaction metrics, and understanding of future requirements. The organisational design is founded on the principle of establishing three roles that will recur throughout the organisation; relationship managers, service owners, and service managers.

Relationship Managers will co-create and own UIS’s strategic and delivery agenda for each

of its major customers. This will involve establishing constructive relationships, understanding current needs and future institutional strategy, informing the institution on relevant technology trends, and being the escalation point for any issues institution needs to see resolved.

Service Owners will perform a strategic role for each service, identifying a clear value proposition, and specifying all aspects of the service needed to deliver this. Service owners will be expected to take account of the needs of all UIS’s customers and users.

Service Managers have an operational role, ensuring that the service is meeting agreed requirements, identifying upgrades needed to sustain the service outcomes, as well as opportunities for improvement. Service managers will produce regular reports on service performance that will be reviewed by both Relationship Managers and Service Owners.

An overview of the role and structure of each division follows.

Director UIS

Research and Institutional

Services

Education, Administration & Student Services

Architecture Build & Development

Service Operations

Information Management

Departmental Operations

Digital Transformation

of 32

1 Research & Institution Services Purpose

To develop and implement a comprehensive world leading research computing service strategy that enables accelerated innovation and discovery across the entire University

Build a close working partnership between UIS and our customers within Schools, Faculties, Departments and Colleges across the University with the aim of:-

Helping to drive IT strategy at school level, increase coordination of IT services across departments and improve the communication of IT needs from schools/departments to the UIS

being the outward face of the UIS to Departments, Schools and Colleges, providing a strong IT service account management function from UIS to its customers, ensuring that customer needs are met with a “can do – proactive” engagement style and that

escalations are dealt with quickly and effectively

To drive the development of an active pan Cambridge IT practitioner community – job mobility, career development, knowledge exchange

Goals

Customer engagement model designed and implemented - end of December 2015

Research computing services strategy developed by end of 2015, with significant new services started by mid-2016

Service delivery metrics for both research computing and customer engagement activities determined and implemented within 2016

of 32

2 Education, Administration & Student Services Purpose

Build a close working partnership between UIS and our customers working in education, administration and student services across the University

Ensure customers’ operational and strategic needs of UIS are understood, prioritised and

addressed

Support our customers in maximising the benefits of their investment in IT

Goals

All Divisional Roles filled Customer engagement model designed and implemented Customer satisfaction measures designed, ready for implementation in 2016

Proposed Metrics

Activity metrics Engagement model implemented, with regular formal structured dialogue, in all in-scope institutions, at all agreed levels

Output metrics Percentage of in-scope institutions:

With agreed and on target UIS delivery plan for which services meet agreed service levels with agreed and on target UIS service improvement plan with agreed and on target IT Training Delivery plan, underpinned by an IT Training

Needs Analysis For which their strategic plans are demonstrably reflected in the University’s IT

strategy

Outcome metrics User satisfaction measures covering education, administration and student services Senior manager satisfaction measures with IS services provided to their Division or

Department Staff effectiveness improvements resulting from IT training

Percentage of planned benefits achieved following delivery of projects

Deputy Director

Service Owner Teaching & Learning

Service Owner Student System

Services

Relationship Manager Academic Division

Business Consultant

Administrative Officer

Relationship Manager HR & Finance

Relationship Manager Research Office

Relationship Manager Estates Management

Relationship Manager NSIs

of 32

3 Architecture Purpose

To ensure an appropriate and proportionate Enterprise Architecture to underpin the development, cohesion and operation of World Class IT Services to the Collegiate University.

Goals

To document the 'As Is' architecture of University IT systems and services across key dimensions (e.g. enterprise, application, infrastructure, data/information, integration and security) in order to:

Inform and anchor the high level design of future initiatives within the context of current capability,

Identify threats against and opportunities for service improvement including, but not limited to, user experience, enhanced security and cost reduction.

Develop a 'To Be' architecture that;

Eliminates gaps and weaknesses present in the “As Is” architecture

Enables and supports the development and implementation of the IS strategy

Enables a cohesive user experience

Makes appropriate use of external services

Minimises duplication

Reduces cost where possible and/or enables cost optimisation

Is based on sound architectural principles and is documented along with appropriate Policies, Standards, Procedures and Guidelines in a manner that is accessible throughout the University IT community.

Provide the high level design for new initiatives, with 'sign off' accountability as part of the governance process throughout development, delivery and operations through formal roles on project boards.

Define system security compliance requirements in collaboration with the Information Management Division and then;

Produce and execute a prioritised System Accreditation Plan for UIS systems, and for major “upstream” and “downstream” systems operated outside UIS.

Act as 'lead sponsor' for the architecture community of practice, ensuring this is supported, vibrant and value adding

Deputy Director Chief Architect

Infrastructure Architect

Application Architect

Data Architect

Integration Architect

Security Architect

of 32

4 Build & Development Purpose

Undertaking IT Systems development and providing IT development services across a significant number of technologies, and to the broad University IT community.

Providing

Information Systems development services to the University, in a way that ensures new initiatives deliver a consistent and excellent user experience.

Tooling, build and test processes including Business Analysis and Project Management. Offering support and review services and a third line support role.

Implementing defined methods, standards and processes (covering the full end-to-end development life cycle) which are cognisant of industry best practice.

Goals

A build capability that is optimised to provide highly responsive, high quality Information Systems (IS) development services, which are both efficient and cost effective

A portfolio of modern, sustainable and supportable IS technologies The implementation of defined methods, standards and processes, covering the full end-to-

end portfolio lifecycle, cognizant of industry best practice To create a challenging, stimulating and rewarding environment that develops and supports

staff in the delivery of efficient and effective IS A Build capability that is accepted as a trusted partner and has a strong relationship with the

wider University functions and the communities that they support

Deputy Director

Head of Enterprise and Mid-range systems

Enterprise Systems

Student Systems

HR Systems

Finance Systems

Mid-Range Systems

Teaching and Learning Systems

Research Systems

Head of Development Services

Web Development Services

Project Development

Development Services

Head of Programme and Project Office

Programme/project management

Business Analysis

Delivery Office

Head of Systems Assurance

Quality Assurance

Testing Services

User Centric Design Office

Information Systems

Admin

of 32

5 Service Operations

Purpose Originating, maintaining, updating and developing the operational service to customers of all

IT offerings contained within the UIS Service Catalogue.

Delivering Network that supports the University’s entire telephony network, the entire computer network

for both academic and administrative use, and its connection to the wider internet. Service Desk (help desk) to deal with all types of IT queries Managed computer systems for students, teaching and administrative staff Institutional support Range of customer services including training, videoconferencing, assistive technology,

photography, finance and staff systems Range of University business systems – finance, CamSIS Annual IT exhibition, monthly seminars to inform wider University IT staff Hosting facilities from the West Cambridge Data Centre

Goals

A single Service Desk entity Energy-efficient management and maintenance of West Cambridge Data Centre Effective management and growth of Network Support To create a challenging, stimulating and rewarding environment that develops and supports

Service Operations staff in the delivery of efficient and effective Service Operations services

Proposed Metrics

Financial efficiency savings of 15+% over the transition period Meeting and exceeding customer service levels Building a resilient service where single points of failure are eliminated Achieving a motivated, skilled and appropriately “tooled” workforce

Deputy Director

Head of Frontline Services

First Line Services

Desktop Services

Second Line Services

Head of Infrastructure

Infrastructure Systems

Enterprise Applications

Head of Data Centres and

Hosting Head of Networks

Backbone Network

Network Installations

Real Time Communication

Network Systems

Network Services

Security Manager Specialist Services Training Services User Administration

of 32

6 Information Management Purpose

Protecting the University, staff and students from reputational, financial and personal damage due to loss of data or security breaches.

Making it clear: what you can do and how you can do it safely, legally and within the confines of the

Statutes and Ordinances, who to contact for help, information risks are identified, understood and managed

Enabling research by providing the ability to discover information and data that already exists within the University for re-use.

Enabling staff and students to confidently conduct their studies, research or work clear that they have the knowledge and information they need to do so safely.

Goals Ensure compliance with information protection legislation and security expectations of

funding bodies Develop a University Information risk register Design and implement the University Information Security Management Framework Implement an information loss reporting framework Build an Information Management community of champions Implement an Asset register

Proposed Metrics

Compliance Number of ‘health check’ assessments completed Spread across the university

Risk Register (Online) Number of risks reported Number of mitigation plans put in place

Information and Security Management Framework Uptake of the framework, numbers using it

Breaches Number of people accessing the online reporting tool Number of incidents/breaches reported

Community Number of people joining the community Spread across the university

Asset Register Number of assets recorded in the register Number of people searching the register

Awareness (training on Compliance, Risk, Framework, Incidents & Breaches and the Asset Register) Number of people attending awareness training by type Number of attendees by institution Number of attendees split between staff and students

Deputy Director

Implementation Manager Policy Compliance Officer Security Policy Officer Reporting Analyst

of 32

7 Departmental Operations Purpose

Departmental Operations provides the enablers for cultural cohesion, delivering the services that enable UIS to act as a hub for professional development and networking. By doing so, IT professionals from around the Collegiate University will have access to peer learning, development opportunities and training offerings to make the most of services in their context and to generally support the identification of useful new initiatives in IT.

Goals

Introducing appropriate internal and external governance structures, policies and procedures for the operation of the UIS in: HR – Personnel Administration Financial Management Strategic and Business Management Supplier Management Health and Safety Building Services Emergency Planning Risk Management Communications

Providing UIS staff and the wider University IT community with better prospects and

progression by: Standardising Role Descriptions – IT skills framework Training – Career Paths Mentoring/Shadowing Offering Work Experience on Projects Job Swaps/Secondment Opportunities Job Board Brokering Opportunities

Deputy Director

Finance Administration Buildings and Maintenance Planning and Performance Communications

of 32

8 Digital Transformation Purpose

Develop a deep understanding of user needs across the Collegiate University Produce a Digital Education Strategy for the University

Potentially to

Lead the development of innovative new digital products Spearhead the overall digital transformation of UIS Provide digital product and service design expertise to support cross-business projects

Goals Develop a deep understanding of user needs across the collegiate University

Lead the development of innovative new digital products Spearhead the overall digital transformation of UIS Provide digital product and service design expertise to support cross-business projects

Produce a Digital Education Strategy for the University Create a Digital Education Strategy with TLSSG Incubate and provision deployment projects for strategy implementation Introduce user satisfaction data collection for all UIS services and user behaviour metrics for

at least one service. Provide analysis and interpretation. Recruit Digital Advisory Board and organise UX awareness-raising events for UIS and the

collegiate University Identify and deliver UX demonstrator project that makes clear the value of the approach

Head of Digital Transformation

Event Coordinator User Experience Lead

Analyst User Researcher 2FTE

User Interaction Designer Visual Designer

Content Lead

of 32

Annex D: New initiatives Six new initiatives have been launched in parallel with the organisational change programme with the goal of enhancing IS provision during 2015/16. Progress to date and plans for 15/16 on these, and two others that are currently on hold is provided below. Progress to date Plans for 15/16

Service

Catalogue

A joint project was launched with the School of Arts

and Humanities in January 2015 to develop a pilot

service catalogue;-this has been under evaluation

at the school since July 2015.

The objectives of the Service Catalogue project are:

1. To increase take-up of services, by providing a

single ‘digital place’ where all services are

described in user outcome orientated terms.

2. To enable institutions to review the completeness

and coherence of the service portfolio, and thus

inform decisions on enhancement and

rationalisation.

3. To enable discovery and sharing of innovative

new services created by individuals and institutions.

The project with the School of Arts

and Humanities will be completed

by end December 2015, and

(subject to satisfactory outcomes)

the catalogue will then be

deployed at institutions across the

University during 2016. This will

involve local deployment and

review projects, firstly to capture

locally provided services for

inclusion in the catalogue, and

secondly to undertake an

assessment of fit with user needs,

and opportunities for

improvement/rationalisation.

ERP strategy

refresh

A review of strategy for Enterprise Systems

architecture for the next 2 to 10 years has been

initiated; this will both address the needs of the core

administrative functions and also provide an

integrated design that will improve user

experiences, facilitate information flows and

improve wider knowledge sharing. The Discovery

workshops have completed, drawing out high level

user needs, as have several vendor presentations.

Other HE institutions in the UK and the USA will

also continue to be engaged by phone or visit to

glean their experiences in this area.

The review of strategy for

Enterprise Systems architecture Is

due for completion by the end of

Lent term 2016. The business

case and implementation proposal

will subsequently need to be

developed.

Microsoft Campus

Agreement

The level of service required by the University has

been specified, and commitment sought from

colleges to participate in the agreement.

Confirmation has been received from 27 (of 31),

and from the theological Federation. The tender

process is currently underway, with the goal being

to prioritise deployment of Microsoft office 365 to

students at the start of the Michaelmas term, and

then to make Microsoft software available to staff.

Following conclusion of the

agreement, Microsoft Office 365

will be deployed to all students,

and Microsoft operating and office

software made available to all staff

in participating institutions. There

will also be consideration of the

introduction of a pan Cambridge

directory structure which has the

potential to considerably ease the

controlled flow of information

across institutional boundaries.

The introduction of Microsoft

OneDrive will be considered, as

will other services that can

leverage the products licensed

within the package.

of 32

Research

Computing Pilot

(Clinical School)

A project is underway with in excess of 10 research

groups on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to

provide various research computing services from

the West Cambridge datacentre. These include

existing high-performance computing and storage

services, and also a pilot of the new “virtual server

service” that is being used to demonstrate that

workloads can be migrated from servers at CBC to

WCDC. The pilot is set to validate that the smaller

datacentre proposed for the new Capella building

will be viable, and is due to complete by end 2015.

The outcome will be used as input to defining a new

range of research competing services, together with

their support model.

The pilot will be concluded, into

review conducted amongst

participating research groups to

inform the definition of future

university wide research

computing services.

Storage strategy Work is continuing on the introduction of a range of

storage services for the University, to be

underpinned by a common storage platform. A

project manager has been selected. The Microsoft

enterprise agreement will provide university with

access to Microsoft OneDrive, which needs to be

impacted on the strategy to determine how best to

provide file sync and share and other related

services.

The common storage architecture

will be defined, and the first “front

end” services deployed.

Information

security

management

framework:

The objectives and a high-level plan have been

developed and agreed at the ISC. The new

information security management subcommittee

has been formed under the chair of the Registrary,

with the first meeting taking place in July. The initial

objective is to have completed and assessment of

the risks (and current mitigations) to the University

wide systems by end 2015, with this initial work also

to inform development of a risk assessment

framework that can then be used by institutions for

assessing and managing risks to local information

assets.

The risk assessment and

mitigation planning for University

wide systems will be concluded.

Proposals will be brought to the

information security management

subcommittee on the university’s

information security management

framework, and the mandate of the

senior information risk owner. The

engagement programme with

institutions will continue

introducing the new framework

and supporting deployment. An

information loss reporting

mechanism will be introduced, and

regular reports on incidents and

risk exposures will commence.

User experience

platform pilot

On hold pending availability of resource and

conclusion of the Microsoft Campus Agreement.

tbd

End User

Compute

strategy

On hold pending conclusion of the Microsoft

Campus Agreement

tbd

of 32

Annex E: Objectives for IS Delivery Framework Service Framework In order to enable re-use and to increase the consistency of the approach used to create services, we propose to create an “Is Delivery Framework”; this is intended to reduce cost and timescales for

creation of new services (increasing agility in service provision), as well as to ensure a consistent approach to security, re-use (integration) and usability. A key assumption underpinning this strategy is that the University will move towards greater consistency in its approach toward managing, sourcing and supporting information services; and that this will be underpinned by the IS Delivery Framework comprised of common services (e.g. directory and security), technical infrastructure offerings, an approved list of external services, standards and managed documentation for application components, interfaces and data interchange standards, and a supporting governance framework. The framework will enable services to be combined, for example with some applications providing functionality “as a service” to other applications. By adopting open standards, exposing appropriate Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and by enabling loose coupling of services (meaning services can attach, detach and re-attach to each other as they need), services can then be reused in different contexts and combined as needed. It then becomes possible to exchange data and share services across research groups and institutional boundaries. Services exposed in this way become “discoverable”, and the availability of discoverable reusable services can then reduce the implementation time and costs for new projects, with the benefits increasing over time as the range of reusable services grows. Over time it becomes possible to select from the available range of services, and to add new components, to provide the functionality of what would otherwise be very large software applications. Services (to end users) can be discovered through the new service catalogue, and automatically fulfilled using the online ordering system. Services (to other services) can be discovered through the service catalogue and consumed through their API. Since, in a loosely coupled service oriented architecture, services are typically consumed over a network, it is then possible to complement and supplement internal services with, where they meet security and other (non-functional) requirements, services sourced from public cloud providers or from emerging education community cloud providers such as JISC.

of 32

Annex F: Categorisation of current UIS services UIS currently offers approximately 200 instances of service, which have been reviewed by the Service Catalogue project and grouped into 60 services. There is, however, significant duplication in current offerings. The table below depicts the service architecture with the bracketed numbers indicating the number of offerings currently available within each service line. eg. Teaching & Learning Tools comprises Moodle and CamTools and is shown as Teaching & Learning tools [2].

Service Category Service Type Service Provided

Help, support, training & policies Training Instructor-Led IT Training [2] Online Training Self-Taught Loan Library Link to UTBS under HR Admin Systems Link to Training/Teaching Facilities under Teaching & Learning

Help & support Service desks Support for disabilities Specialist technical support

Support for institutions Institution IT support Institutional network services Federated services [2] Institutional strategic services [3] Link to Techlinks Link to Specialist Technical Support

Information management & security

Asset registration Information risk assessment Information management & security guidelines

Consultancy Consultancy services to be decided The Techlink Scheme [2]

University systems & management reporting

Research administration Research administration Research Costing Service Research information Services [5]

Finance administration Support Finance Administration Student Administration Graduate Funding

Student & Alumni Administration Data Interfaces (technical) Timetabling

Human resources administration

Support Recruitment [2] Administer HR & Payroll [3]

Common administrative services

Document management [2] Online application forms Management reporting Event Management

Teaching & learning services Teaching Facilities & tools Teaching facilities Teaching & Learning tools [2]

Library services School services only Email, telephony & collaboration Email, calendar &

collaboration

Email & calendar [7] Finding & sharing information [6] Link to the Techlink Scheme

Telephony Telephones [7] Audio conferencing

AV & media Link to Audio conferencing (via Telephony) Video conferencing services [2] Photography & illustration Media streaming [2]

of 32

Service Category Service Type Service Provided

Research support, data & computing

Servers, data storage & backup

Physical hosting [3]

Research Computing High Performance Computing [2] Research computing consultancy

Research Support

Research facilities Digital humanities [3] Link to research grant admin services

Devices, applications, connections & printing

Wireless & network services Wired & wireless networks [8] Infrastructure [2]

Remote & mobile device access

Remote access [2] Mobile Devices [3]

Desktops & applications Managed desktops & applications [4] Printing Professional print services [2]

Self-service printing User accounts & security Identity management Accounts & passwords [4] Security University card

Information & infrastructure protection [6] Development & website services Website services Website components [8]

Website creation & migration [3] Website hosting [2]

Development services Business analysis User experience Development Software testing service [4] Project management

of 32

Annex G: Developing the integrated information services strategy With the objectives of

ensuring IS service portfolios meet the needs of users and institutions, and that evolution plans will meet PVC and other strategic priorities.

enabling UIS’s customers to drive for "world-class digital leadership" in mission related information services, with a focus on research, education and student experience.

providing a unifying agenda for IS staff across the university. enabling development of a coherent delivery approach (covering coherent user experience,

common architecture, enabling reuse, cost effectiveness, single source of truth information model, and is prioritised based on the University’s needs and benefits delivery

ensuring sustainability of services and support model releasing resources from commodity activities to provide increased capacity for supporting

the University’s research and teaching mission, we will undertake a review of the Information Services across the Collegiate University. The review will be informed by guidance that will be developed by the Architecture, Information Management, Service Operations and Digital Transformation Consultancy divisions, and will consider areas such as:

common technology, data and application architecture common approach to security user centric focus reviews of existing service portfolios to determine “continue, change, deprecate identifying opportunities for ”new services or new service portfolios when appropriate.

UIS’s new Relationship Managers and the Digital Transformation Consultancy will play a critical role

in the process. There will need to be dialogue with all user communities, PVCs and institutions; this will need to include an “explore” phase to bring participants were common knowledge base on

technology trends, investments and plans at other HE institutions, and benchmark comparisons. Provisionally, this can be organised as follows:

UAS (building on the ERP strategy refresh) four user panels, focused on students, researchers, teaching officers and administrators.

Volunteers for user panels to be identified through a user survey. all five PVCs or their nominees (building on the reviews of Digital Education Strategy and

Research Computing Strategy that are currently being initiated) 10 groupings of schools, colleges, and NSIs, (Library, museums, and UIS).

In all cases there will need to be a structured sequence of workshops and conversations that results in consensus on the "ideal" three to five-year IS roadmap for each constituency in the Collegiate University. It is anticipated that this dialogue will deliver input on the 8 services categories, covering requirements both for improvements to services and for new services. Alternative sourcing options will also be considered. The input obtained will then be used by Service Owners to develop plans for each “Service Type”.

The service catalogue has identified approximately 25 service groupings for example “teaching

facilities and tools”, “wireless and network services”, and “student administration”. As part of this

work we propose to review Service Owner allocations, so that a single Service Owner is allocated for each of the 25 service types. A summary of current UIS services is provided in Annex E. This UIS architecture division has a crucial role to play in the identification of opportunities where common pan University services can enable accelerated innovation, improved user experience, enhanced efficiency or deliver other benefits.

of 32

The output from the strategy planning exercise will be discussed and agreed at ISC. We will aim to complete the above programme of activities by the end of the Easter term 2016 so that implementation alternatives can be considered and included in the 2016 planning round. The assessment of the financial case and alternative implementation scenarios (for example current budgets, unconstrained funding and a hybrid funding model, (eg involving core funding to cover upfront investment and a pay-as-you-go service consumption model that also generates some additional funding for further investment.) This initiative will be sponsored by the Director of Information Services, with the Chief Architect being the programme manager

UIS Planning Round 2015 Funding Proposal

1.0 Summary This paper sets out the UIS funding proposal for the development of IT services and the operation of the UIS over the next few years, with the implications for the Planning Round submission 2015.

At this stage the ISC is asked to give a high-level steer on the proposed approach (including potential new initiatives). The input received will be incorporated into the formal planning round submission which the ISC will be invited to endorse at its November meeting.

The planning assumption used in the paper is that the capacity of UIS to undertake projects and sustain operations is held broadly constant, whilst the capability of the organisation is expanded. The ISC is asked to note that following increased engagement with the various constituencies around the University, there are strong indications of a significant increase in the appetite for IT services (new initiatives) and as business cases are developed there will be cases for increasing capacity, subject to the provision of additional funding.

The UIS has included two principal types of requests in its proposal for new initiatives: specific projects that are well defined and have been subject to detailed analysis, where the costs are expected to be fairly accurate, and more speculative ‘placeholder’ estimates for emerging strategic initiatives, which whilst they may still be important are less well defined and their costings are more imprecise, subject to considerable guesswork and to some extent depend on the scope of the project undertaken.

The UIS requests that the ISC give guidance on which individual initiatives are required and should be included, as well as the overall level of additional project funding that it might be prepared to support in this Planning Round, to help guide the UIS on the scope that can be entertained for the projects that are of a more elastic nature.

2.0 Introduction University Information Services was formed at the end of March 2014 and unites the former University Computing Service (UCS), Management Information Services Division (MISD) and High Performance Computing Service (HPCS) within one institution. Additionally, from August 2015, the UIS also incorporates the work and staff of the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies (CARET) unit, formerly a part of the University Library.

During Financial Year 2014-15, the finances of the UIS were merged within a single new department within the UFS. However, as the allocations for the individual components had already been determined separately for 2014-15 from previous Planning Rounds, the operation of the budgets were kept largely distinct within UFS and managed independently on a ‘business

as usual’ basis, until the revised organisational structure was put in place in spring of 2015. Following this, a new financial accounting structure has been designed, based around the new

of 26

internal divisional structure of the UIS, and new divisional budgets loaded up for this year’s Financial Year 2015-16.

For Planning Round 2015, a unified UIS submission will be presented, representing the overall planning and resource requirements for the new UIS organisation as a whole, along with a combined Annual Report for 2014-15 and a unified Risk Register for the organisation.

3.0 Baseline Funding The approach taken to estimating the financial budgetary requirements for the UIS over the period covered by the Planning Round has been to consider the existing operational and development costs needed to run the existing services in the past and use these to model the future requirements based upon the standardised growth parameters allowed for in the Planning Round 2015 planning guidelines. Using the Planning Round modelling assumptions of 1% annual growth in CHEST allocation and project funding, 1% annual growth in staff costs and 2% growth in non-pay expenditure, the projected operating costs are summarised below, with more detail given in Appendix C. Cost recovery income has been modelled using 3% growth per annum, which represents both the standard inflationary increases in costs and an element of expansion in take-up of services, which is representative of the level typically seen in recent years.

Income and Expenditure

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Income:

CHEST Allocation £13,621k £13,690k £13,827k £13,966k £14,105k £14,246k

Project Funding £2,793k £2,836k £1,653k £1,668k £1,683k £1,698k

Cost Recovery £7,720k £7,952k £8,190k £8,436k £8,689k £8,950k

Total Income £24,134k £24,478k £23,671k £24,069k £24,477k £24,893k

Expenditure:

CHEST costs £13,210k £13,379k £13,550k £13,723k £13,899k £14,077k

Project costs £2,447k £2,472k £1,287k £1,300k £1,313k £1,326k

Charged Service costs £7,780k £7,936k £8,095k £8,256k £8,422k £8,590k

UIS Funded Transition costs £426k £1,181k £1,058k £742k £425k £253k

Total Expenditure £23,864k £24,967k £23,989k £24,021k £24,058k £24,246k

Balances:

UIS General Balances b/f £5,065k £4728k £3,629k £2,691k £2,215k £2,102k

Total UIS Surplus/(Deficit) £270k (£490k) (£319k) £48k £419k £647k

Total Sink Funds c/f £2,263k £2,491k £2,730k £2,868k £2,931k £2,994k

UIS General Balances c/f £4,728k £3,629k £2,691k £2,215k £2,102k £2,210k

Total UIS Balances c/f £6,991k £6,120k £5,421k £5,083k £5,033k £5,204k

4.0 Summary of Proposals (incremental to baseline funding) Below are the major proposals requiring confirmation of funding for the Planning Round 2015 period. Some of these are projects or programmes that have been presented and agreed in

of 26

previous Planning Rounds but which need confirmation of continued funding levels or changes in scheduling. A number of new requests are also presented to enable the transition of the newly formed joint department to a unified UIS organisation, with the capability to deliver the improved levels of service envisaged by the recommendations of the IT Review, as well as to carry forward a number of existing completed projects to operational status. The proposals are outlined in more detail in Appendix A and B of this paper.

UIS – Planning Round 2015 Funding Requests 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Agreed in PR2014: ISC Priorities: TDF [A.1.0] £800,000 £800,000 £800,000 £800,000 Capital Funding Grant [A.2.0] £156,000 £158,000 £159,000 £161,000 CHRIS Development [A.5.0] £408,000 £412,000 £416,000 £420,000 CamSIS Development [A.6.0] £510,000 £515,000 £520,000 £525,000 CamSIS PeopleSoft Upgrade [A.7.0] £360,000 £120,000 CUFS Development [A.8.0] £250,000 £255,000 £255,000 £260,000 ERP Systems Strategy Refresh [A.11.0] £250,000 Research Grants Life Cycle Mgmt [A.10.0] £95,000 West Cambridge Data Centre [A.13.0] £1,100,000 £1,100,000 £1,100,000 £1,100,000 Microsoft Campus EES Licence [A.16.0] £510,000 £520,000 £530,000 £540,000 Addition to Baseline Allocation: Electronic Docs. Mgmt [A.15.0] £37,000 £38,000 £38,000 £39,000 Moodle [A.9.0] £185,000 £187,500 £190,000 £192,500 Research Systems Administrator [A.14.0] £37,000 £38,000 £38,000 £39,000 New Requests for PR2015:

ISC Priorities: Room Booking [A.12.0] £75,000 £50,000 £50,000 Addition to Baseline Allocation: Additional Oracle Licensing Costs [A.3.0] £107,402 £120,313 £133,696 £147,566

Possible New Initiatives to be considered by ISC – firm costings: Audio Visual Creation/Storage [B.1.0] £100,000 £100,000 Content Management (DRUPAL) [B.3.0] £54,000 £54,000 £55,000 £55,000 Server Room Network Upgrade [B.12.0] £100,000 £100,000 £100,000 £100,000 Gartner Subscription [B.7.0] £102,000 £107,000 £112,000 £117,000 HPCS Capital Sink Fund [B.8.0] £1,500,000 £1,530,000 £1,560,000 £1,590,000 HPCS Staff Chest Funding [B.8.0] £500,000 £505,000 £510,000 £515,000 WCDC Commission Hall 4 [B.13.0] £975,000 £44,000 £44,000 £44,000 Wireless Network Expansion [B.14.0] £200,000 £200,000 £200,000 £200,000

Possible New Initiatives to be considered by ISC – placeholder estimates: Digital Lecture Capture [B.4.0] £500,000 £500,000 £500,000 £500,000 Digital Transformation Consultancy [B.5.0] £220,000 £222,000 £224,000 £226,000 ERP Systems Implementation [A.11.0] £500,000 £750,000 £250,000 £250,000 Flexible Working UIS Academy [B.6.0] £50,000 £50,000 £50,000 £50,000 Identity Management [B.9.0] £150,000 £80,000 IT Infrastructure Resilience [B.10.0] £1,000,000 £1,000,000 Online Examinations [B.11.0] £500,000 £500,000 £500,000 £500,000

of 26

5.0 Organisational Structure Following the formation of the unified UIS in April 2014, a programme of intense activity was begun, to identify the strategic priorities and objectives that the new organisation would need to achieve to meet the aspirations for the future of IT in the University as set out in the Review of IT Infrastructure and Support finalised in February 2013.

The overall vision has been to create units that can achieve increased efficiency and coherence in the design and delivery of IT services, through the rationalisation of processes, organisational structure and the adoption of standardised methodologies. It is expected that this will lead to significant improvements in the delivery of IT services to the University as a whole, and greatly improve the liaison and coordination with other IT staff, service providers and users across the departments and Colleges. A seven divisional model has been devised, each headed by a Deputy Director, with each responsible for a particular functional component in the delivery of IT services to the University. With the absorption into the UIS of the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies (CARET), which was supressed during summer 2015, much of their existing work and staff have been absorbed into the UIS divisional structure. However, building on the visionary work of CARET, a Digital Transformation Consultancy unit is being established within the UIS to assist the University in developing its digitisation strategies in targeted areas.

In creating this new organisational design, it became apparent that a number of additional staff would be needed, albeit some only temporarily. The capability to deliver these new objectives will need additional resourcing, as many of the existing staff members of the joint organisation are fully engaged in providing the existing services and facilities to the University, which will need to be maintained as the UIS moves to the new way of working. In due course, as the new organisation becomes more efficient, it is anticipated that staff savings may be possible through natural wastage, or by releasing resource from existing work to increase capacity for delivery of additional services.

Initially, four new Deputy Director positions were recruited to in the spring of 2015, to head up new sections of the organisation, completing the new senior management team. Additionally it is estimated that a further seventeen additional members of staff will be required to enable full delivery of the range service capabilities identified by the IT Review, with some additional fixed-term appointments during the early transition phase. The transformation process will also require investment in additional systems and licensing to put in place the internal infrastructure to support the new organisational structure and processes, and additional consultancy and contract resource may also be required on a temporary basis to manage the project professionally.

5.1 UIS Baseline Resourcing

5.1.1 Additional Staffing and ‘Tooling’ Costs

As agreed by the ISC last year, the addition of extra staff needed to improve the capability of the UIS to deliver the University’s vision will be phased in over the first two years. Some of this extra cost will be met in the interim from the overall £2m of Transition Funding set aside centrally to implement the new UIS. This will be supplemented by additional funding taken from the UIS’s own reserves.

of 26

Following re-organisation, it is expected that as efficiencies are realised, it is anticipated that there will be staff savings through a process of natural wastage and holding non-essential posts vacant. With an assumed saving of 1.5% of staff costs per annum, and a sustained cost recovery income growth, it is predicted that the additional funding needed initially to support the additional UIS staff will be offset entirely by staff savings after seven years.

Investment will also need to be made in areas such as the service and information catalogue, the IT career development framework, and project and service operations methodologies (eg ITIL). It was estimated that additional transition funding of £800k would be needed for this during 2014-15 and 2015-16.

In Planning Round 2014, it was agreed by the RMC, endorsed by the ISC, that the UIS could use the remaining £1,151,000 of the Transition Fund, as well as £800,000 of the Technology Development Fund Reserve, for its transition phase, with the remainder made up from the UIS’s

own reserves. This additional funding will not all be needed in one tranche, and it is proposed that its provision be phased as below:

Additional Re-organisational Costs

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

FTE 4.5 15.5 23 20 17 17 17

Staff Cost £426,000 £1,347,000 £1,391,000 £1,244,000 £1,097,000 £1,097,000 £1,097,000

Staff Savings (1.5% pa) (£166,000) (£167,000) (£169,000) (£170,000) (£172,000) (£174,000)

Cum. Savings (£166,000) (£333,000) (£502,000) (£672,000) (£844,000) (£1,018,000)

Staff Funding Required £426,000 £1,181,000 £1,058,000 £742,000 £425,000 £253,000 £79,000

Other costs £327,000 £620,000

Total Phased Funding

£753,000 £1,801,000 £1,058,000 £742,000 £425,000 £253,000 £79,000

Transition Fund £574,000 £577,000

TDF Reserve £179,000 £621,000

UIS Reserves used £0 £603,000 £1,058,000 £742,000 £425,000 £253,000 £79,000

6.0 New Initiatives In addition to the ‘business as usual’ funding requests outlined above, the following new initiatives have been identified as providing expanded services and facilities in areas recommended by the IT Review, and from interest shown through engagement meetings with the University during 2014-15. Further details are on these priorities are given in Appendix B.

The ISC is invited to recommend which of these options should be included for funding in this year’s Planning Round Submission. Initial project funding for some of these initiatives might be found from the TDF, or the remaining TDF Reserves. A summary of the estimated costs involved for each can be found in the table presented in section 4.0.

Audio Visual Creation, Management, Storage and Access Controls Central Network Hub Relocation

of 26

Content Management Support (DRUPAL) Digital Lecture Capture Digital Transformation Consultancy Flexible Working and the UIS Academy Gartner Subscription HPCS Capital Sink Fund HPCS Staff funded from the Chest Identity Management Rationalisation IT Infrastructure Resilience Online Examinations Server Room Network Upgrade Software Repository (GitHub) West Cambridge Data Centre – Commissioning Hall 4 Wireless Network Expansion

7.0 Minor Works and Capital Building Project A number of the initiatives proposed within this Planning Round Submission will entail Minor Works projects. These are listed below, and further details for some of them can be found in Appendix B.

7.1 CNH to Zoology Following repeated flooding of the Central Network Hub (CNH) in the sub-basement of the Attenborough building, it is recommended that the CNH be moved to a location less prone to flooding. A suitable site has been identified in the Zoology Department, and negotiations successfully concluded for its use. A Minor Works project will be submitted during 2015-16 to proceed with the relocation of the CNH, at an estimated cost of £500,000.

7.2 IT Resilience As part of this work, a number of vulnerable locations for IT infrastructure will need either relocating or minor works programmes to improve their resilience. This work includes the relocation of network equipment currently housed in basements, such as at Mill Lane or on the Sidgwick Site. A budgetary figure of £100,000-200,000 for each location might be needed for the necessary minor works involved.

7.3 PandIS to RNB Within two years, it is expected that the UIS will need to relocate its Photographic and Illustration Service from the New Museums Site, where it currently occupies space on the fourth floor of the Cockcroft Building, to the Roger Needham Building. Given the very specific requirements necessary for the unit: dark rooms, large format printing, studios, chemical stores, and photographic developing units, this is expected to require considerable structural work needing to be done to the Roger Needham Building to accommodate them. It is estimated that this will cost between £500,000 and £1,000,000 for minor works during 2016-17 to prepare for this move.

of 26

7.4 RNB Space Re-Organisation As the UIS evolves its organisational structure, it is expected that minor structural work may be needed to reconfigure its departmental office space to best allow for divisional and inter-divisional working environments. A number of minor works, each of the order of £100,000 may be requested over the course of the next few years.

7.5 WCDC Commissioning Hall 4 The West Cambridge Data Centre currently has a fourth hall which is not fitted out, but could be commissioned when the need for additional space is required. Given the current interest in departments moving their equipment into the WCDC, it is expected that this additional space may be needed in 2016-17. Minor works costing an estimated £1,000,000 will be necessary to prepare this hall for operational use.

7.6 Relocation of the UIS The UIS has been informed that the future plan for the West Cambridge Site has the Engineering Department taking over the Roger Needham Building where the UIS is currently located. On the timescale of five to ten years therefore a Capital Building Project will be necessary to relocate the UIS to alternative accommodation elsewhere on the West Cambridge Site or some other suitable location.

Dr M.C. Bellamy Dr S. Kearsey 21 September 2015

of 26

Appendix A – Routine Operation

This appendix gives more in-depth detail of some of the major ongoing or necessary ‘business

as usual’ projects that are expected to take place during the timescale of the Planning Round 2015 planning horizon, and any funding consequences that they will entail.

1.0 TDF The Technology Development fund, overseen by the UIS and administered at the Director’s

discretion, is critical to funding many of the short term or one-off development projects carried out by the UIS. In line with previous years, it is therefore requested that £800k per annum be included in the ISC’s Priorities to make provision for this fund. Of this £160k is routinely allocated to the Build and Development Division as a fund for development opportunities required for the University’s small to medium sized enterprise-wide systems.

TDF Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 £800,000 £800,000 £800,000 £800,000 £800,000 £800,000

2.0 Capital Fund A grant from the Capital Fund is used to fund the replacement and refresh of many of the services provided by the UIS that are free to all members of the University, including email, web-search, Raven, public training facilities, domain-name services etc. It is assumed that the agreed annual Capital Fund grant afforded to the UIS will continue to be provided, as outlined in the following schedule.

Capital Fund Grant 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 £153,000 £155,000 £156,000 £158,000 £159,000 £161,000

3.0 Oracle Licensing Costs Many of the University’s critical enterprise systems are founded upon Oracle databases which are covered by an enterprise-wide licence for Oracle within the University. However, the cost of this licence is tied to the number of FTEs declared in our HESA returns, and with recent expansion of staff numbers within the University over the last few years, the annual cost of licensing Oracle for the University has risen significantly over the last two years. The UIS therefore proposes that an estimate for these rising costs be included as part of the Planning Round submission and included in the UIS’s Chest Allocation, to provide the necessary additional funding to enable the University to maintain its licensing of Oracle as it continues to expand in the future.

HESA FTE Count 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

FTE 8,463 8,618 8,639 8,645 8,854 9,466 FTE Inc. 155 21 6 209 612

of 26

Looking at the last five years increases in FTE count in the HESA reports, it can be seen from the table above that the average annual increase is just over 200 staff per annum.

Each year, Oracle look at the previous year’s FTE count and if it has increased then we have to pay a one off licence cost for the additional FTEs, followed by an additional support and maintenance cost in subsequent years. Taking the recent years’ actual costs (in italics), and assuming an annual increase of 200 FTEs and price inflation of 2%, the estimated additional costs incurred over the Planning Round 2015 period are as follows.

Additional Oracle Licensing Costs 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Licences £143,797 £47,932 £48,891 £49,869 £50,866 £51,883 Support £15,066 £47,020 £58,511 £70,444 £82,830 £95,683 Total £158,863 £94,952 £107,402 £120,313 £133,696 £147,566

4.0 JISC Fees Following the restructuring of JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), which provides the Higher Education community with many of its essential resources, including JANET and the online digital collections resource, the annual fees for Higher Education establishments have risen considerably, and now include a combined subscription cost for all JISC services. It has been agreed that the University will pay these annual fees centrally, with the UIS recouping the JANET (networking) portion of the charge (~£300k) from departments and Colleges. The estimated schedule of charges over the Planning Round period is expected to be of the order of those given in the table below, and it is understood that a central fund has been set aside to pay for these costs outside the UIS. Provision for these payments has therefore not been included in the UIS Planning Round submission this time.

JISC Fees 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 £416,945 £516,927 £530,000 £541,000 £551,000 £562,0000

5.0 CHRIS (HR System) & HR Systems Development The continued development and operation of the CHRIS personnel system & the HR systems development roadmap will require funding over the period of this planning round. At present a separate administered fund is used to provision this work, with £404k allocated to it in 2015-16. Provision for this was outlined annually at a similar level in PR2014. The UIS requests that this continues to be increased annually in line with pay costs over the remainder of the planning period to fund this service, as these represent the majority of the costs this funding covers. There are ongoing developments within the CHRIS system to cover legislative and statutory changes, including reporting, as well as a significant number of new initiatives. Identified initiatives covered by this funding are shown in the table below, many of which have started and have already delivered significant efficiency benefits.

of 26

Development Theme

Online Web Recruitment Web based recruitment and online administration system

Temporary Employment Service (TES)

Back Office Administration Services

Senior Academic Promotions On-line services for applicants/FPC secretaries and committees

Staff Review & Development Integration with Career Pathways

Employee Self Service (ESS) All the services will be provided via a single access point. It will appear as part of other services but will be a separate entity for development purposes Grading On-line services for the current processes

On-boarding Improved data collection services for new joiners and leavers

Recruitment Interview administration.

Occupational Health On-line referrals

Absence Management On -line absence recording services

Leave Booking On -line leave requesting/approval services

Workflow and Case Management Development to support all on -line services

The CHRIS system requires that upgrades are undertaken twice a year which leads to re-configuration and testing.

CHRIS & HR Systems Development 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 £400,000 £404,000 £408,000 £412,000 £416,000 £420,000

6.0 CamSIS (Student System) The continued development and operation of the CamSIS student records system will require funding over the period of this planning round. At present a separate administered fund is used to provision this work, with £505k allocated to it in 2015-16. The UIS requests that this continues to be increased annually in line with pay inflation over the remainder of the planning period to fund this service, as these represent the majority of the costs that this funding covers. There are ongoing developments within the CamSIS system to cover legislative and statutory changes, including reporting, as well as a significant number of new initiatives to support business process or to update functional areas, as agreed at the Student Information Systems Committee on 22 July 2015.

CamSIS 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 £500,000 £505,000 £510,000 £515,000 £520,000 £525,000

7.0 CamSIS PeopleSoft Upgrade The next upgrade to the Student System (People Tools 8.54 and Campus Solutions 9.2) offers the opportunity for us to move away from most of our customisations to out-of-the-box options. Alongside realising greater benefit from the Oracle maintenance fees, this approach could also

of 26

release resource to focus on activities outside of the development and ongoing support of customisations. Additionally, moving closer to the vanilla product would over time make it easier for us to consider other options such as moving to cloud based offerings (or other systems) at a suitable point in the future.

It is essential that the system is kept up-to-date; to remain supported by Oracle, take advantage of new technology and functionality, and to offer the best service. The 9.2 upgrade is a mission critical project that will encompass a large proportion of resource in the Student Systems team.

It is important to note that Oracle have not released any technical details relating to this upgrade other than stating that it is ‘complex’ therefore the funding request is based on

comparison with other Oracle Upgrades (such as CUFS R12) rather than on analysis of the actual work involved.

CamSIS PeopleSoft Upgrade 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£360,000 £360,000 £120,000

8.0 CUFS (Finance System) The CUFS finance systems development was funded up to and including 2014/15 by the Finance Division from its general CHEST allocation and is was managed by the Finance Division. In PR2014 it was agreed that from 2015/16 the fund would be split 50/50 between the Finance Division and the UIS with any brought forward balance moving to the UIS. The UIS requests that this be increased annually in line with pay costs over the remainder of the planning period to fund this service, as these represent the majority of the costs this funding covers. The UIS and the Finance Division have started a Programme of work to deliver a vastly improved Information Delivery Framework to enable CUFS users and others to easily obtain financial information for operational or planning needs. The development funding will primarily be used to complete this work.

UIS CUFS Development 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£250,000 £252,500 £255,000 £257,500 £260,000

9.0 Moodle (Teaching and Learning) The Teaching and Learning Steering Group (TLSSG) requested MISD to develop proposals for implementing a new University-wide Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) to enhance the teaching and learning experience for students and academics and provide the types of services commonly found in within the Russell Group, the Ivy League and universities worldwide. A pilot service was put in place during 2013-14 and has proved extremely popular. The continued development and support of a production Moodle platform on which many of the University’s

departments content is presented will require ongoing investment over the period of the current planning round. There are currently 64 Departments using Moodle with 1,400 courses, this is projected to rise to 67 Departments (all teaching Departments) during 2016 with 3,000 courses, and will remain at that number through 2017 with 6,000 courses. The funding requirement for this, originally highlighted in the ISSS PR2013 paper, was expected to be in the region of £228k for 2015-16 with £185k rolled up into the UIS allocation from 2016-17 onwards to continue

of 26

to provide an ongoing supported service. The UIS would now request that this be increased annually in line with pay inflation costs over the remainder of the planning period to fund this service, as these represent the majority of the costs this funding covers.

Moodle 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Agreed in PR2014 £227,000 £228,000 £185,000 £185,000 £185,000 £185,000

Modified for PR2015 £185,000 £187,500 £190,000 £192,500

10.0 Research Grants Life Cycle Management In previous Planning Rounds, funding was allocated to the ISSS Priorities list for work on the Research Grants Life Cycle Management Programme outlining a new approach to the systems supporting the processes in managing Research Grants in the University of Cambridge. Research Grant income is a significant proportion of the University income so it is fundamental that any system is able to manage the increasing complexity of the whole Research Grant process. It must provide the appropriate information throughout the lifecycle of the Research Grant and enable the Research Grants to be effectively managed individually and collectively. A principle requirement is that the information contained within the solution is easy to extract and that both management and transaction reporting is part of the delivered solution. A review in 2011 of the Financial and HR system strategies (the FHR review) determined that administration support systems for managing Research Grants had been neglected over recent years as other systems have developed, and a programme of work should be initiated to address the needs of the research community. The ISSS Research Working Group made a number of strategic recommendations in their paper presented to the ISSS (ISSS Paper 270) in May 2011. The ISSS Information Strategy, paper 330, 19 January 2012 reinforced the recommendations in the previous paper (ISSS 270). UIS requested that the original funding programme be delayed by a year in Planning Round 2014, and the remaining funding for 2016-17 is now requested.

Research Grant Life Cycle Management 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£265,000 £95,000

11.0 ERP1 Systems Strategy Refresh and Implementation As a result of a review in 2011 of the Financial and HR system strategies (the FHR review) the Steering Group proposed that work should be undertaken to understand how all of the major University systems can interact with each other within a strategic framework. The ISSS Information Strategy, paper 321, 15 March 2012 reinforced the recommendation and this was approved. In Planning Round 2014, the funding shown in the table below was agreed to undertake this Strategy Refresh review and implement the first project(s) arising from the strategy.

1 ERP ‘Enterprise Resource Planning System meaning for the University of Cambridge CamSIS (Oracle

PeopleSoft), CUFS (Oracle e-Business Suite) and CHRIS (MidlandHR iTrent)

of 26

However, clearly it would be surprising if the implementation projects resulting from the Strategy Review are likely to be limited to the few projects that can be accomplished in 2016-17. At this stage in the strategy review work, it would be premature to attempt to estimate the cost of future recommendations, but it may be advisable to include placeholder budgets for the years further out, to set expectations with the ISC and the University more widely.

Whilst not wishing to pre-empt the findings of the strategy work, we can nevertheless make a number of planning assumptions to enable us to establish reasonable placeholder budgets. Currently these might be:

CUFS is not replaced as our core financial system of record CamSIS is not replaced as our core system of student record CHRIS is replaced as our core HR and payroll system Additional capability to augment the core systems of record is achieved through using

flexible, cloud-based solutions that integrate closely with the core systems Additional capability to integrate the core systems is achieved through exploiting

integration technology, and potentially providing overlays to ensure seamless, simple user experiences for occasional users.

The largest single item would be the replacement of CHRIS, an approximately two year project for which a reasonable budgetary placeholder might be £500,000 per annum. Costs for the additional cloud-based systems and integration capabilities might require a reasonable budgetary placeholder of £250,000 per annum over the next four years.

We would therefore wish to revise our request for 2016/17 from £250,000 to £750,000 in anticipation of these additional costs, and give notice that the additional indicative sums given in the table below may be needed over the period of Planning Round 2015.

ERP Systems Strategy Refresh 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Agreed in PR2014 £170,000 £250,000

ERP Systems Implementation Requested in PR2015

£500,000 £750,000 £250,000 £250,000

12.0 Room Booking The University’s estate of lecture, teaching, and meeting rooms has a typical occupancy of

under 50% and a frequency of use around 40% leading to space utilisation rates of approximately 20% based upon a survey conducted by Estate Management in 2009. To place this in context, HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) consider space utilisation below 24% as poor. There is approximately 25,000 m2 teaching/seminar space (not including Colleges) of which about 18,000 m2 is in schools, there is nearly enough space for every undergraduate student to sit down at the same time. The estimated annual cost of this space was £ 281per m2 in May 2010.

Benchmarked against the other Universities in within the Russell Group in 2010, the University ranked second worst for space utilisation. The University below Cambridge (Liverpool) has

of 26

since introduced a central coordinate system in response to this, which leaves Cambridge firmly at the bottom of the league table.

The Resource Management Committee (at its meeting of 12 May 2010) responded to recommendations endorsing the principle of an active room management system, and agreed that a project should be initiated. RMC and PRC are looking for significant improvements in the utilisation of these University assets. The Teaching Space Utilisation Working Group (TSUWG) was constituted, Chaired by Professor Young and this group has been meeting regularly.

A consultant’s report was produced in 2013 after an extensive requirements and information

gathering exercise involving many University staff. This report was made available to the wider University as part of an open consultation. After reviewing the findings of the report and the feedback from the consultation the TSUWG asked for a tendering exercise to be undertaken to determine what solutions might be available to the University. The tendering will take place during Lent and Easter terms 2015-16 and this process is funded from the TDF. Should this exercise determine that there is a suitable software solution then it is expected that the agreed funding of up to £100,000 from Planning Round 2014 be required in 2015/16 for purchase and installation of the system, and £25,000 agreed for 2016-17 is now requested. Once the system is in operational service, there will need to be funding provided to roll out and support the system and its use across the University, and so a further £50,000 operational and development support cost is requested from 2016-17 to 2018-19 to embed the system.

Room Booking 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£100,000 £75,000 £50,000 £50,000

13.0 Data Centre The West Cambridge Data Centre has now been completed, and its utilisation over the next year will be increasing, as further groups from across the University join the initial occupants (UIS, HPCS and Cambridge Assessment) in moving their systems into the facility. A decision has been taken to centrally fund this component of the operating costs for the future, albeit with some undetermined portion of this provided by research grant and external income. For the first year, a sum of £1.1m was allocated in the 2013 Planning Round for the University’s component

of the annual operating costs during 2014-15. In the 2014 Planning Round the UIS was awarded £411k to replenish expenditure from these funds during 2014-15. However, the actual net expenditure during 2014-15 was £644k, resulting in a net reduction in allocation to the Data Centre operating funds for 2015-16 of £233k.

The UIS asks for confirmation of an ongoing central allocation of £1.1m per annum throughout the planning period, with the actual allocation year by year being dependent on expenditure in the previous year, and the amount of unused funding carried forward from the previous year.

West Cambridge Data Centre 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£1,100,000 £1,100,000 £1,100,000 £1,100,000 £1,100,000 £1,100,000

of 26

14.0 Research Systems Administrator Funding for a post to support the research systems services was approved in Planning Round 2014, but it was identified as an ISC Priority. As this is an ongoing operational commitment to cover the development and maintenance of a portfolio of Research Office systems, we propose that this funding be rolled-up to the UIS’s CHEST Allocation as an uplift to its baseline funding to secure the support for this post for the future.

Research Systems Administrator 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£37,000 £37,000 £38,000 £38,000 £39,000

15.0 Electronic Document Management The University’s Electronic Document Management system is a service provided by UIS which

is currently in use for Graduate Applications, Finance Trust Funds, Research Grants and Pension. Over a million records are held within the document management system, which has recently undergone a significant upgrade. The service continues to expand, with other large parts of the UAS (HR and EM) considering using it. As the service has moved from project status into live operations, recurrent funding for its support was approved in Planning Round 2014, but it was identified as an ISC Priority.

As this is an ongoing operational commitment to cover the development and maintenance this service for the University, we propose that this funding be rolled-up to the UIS’s CHEST Allocation as an uplift to its baseline funding to secure the support for this service for the future.

Electronic Document Management 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£37,000 £37,000 £38,000 £38,000 £39,000

16.0 Microsoft Campus EES Licence An aspiration of the IT Review that the UIS provide a baseline level of personal computing available to every member of staff and student throughout the University is a goal that most would welcome.

A critical step towards achieving this outcome, as proposed in last year’s UIS Planning Round

2014 submission, and subsequently endorsed by the ISC, is for the UIS to negotiate and obtain an enterprise-wide Campus licence (Enrolment for Education Solutions) for Microsoft software, which would allow every machine in the University to be covered to use core operating system components and applications, and cloud-based 365 Office products and services to be freely available to both staff and students.

An agreement covering the requisite access licensing for operating system upgrades and Microsoft Office provision for staff and students is expected to cost approximately £500k per annum, and continued funding of the necessary license costs at this level is requested in this year’s submission, with account taken for inflationary cost increases.

Microsoft Campus EES Licence 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£500,000 £510,000 £520,000 £530,000 £540,000

of 26

Appendix B – New Initiatives

This appendix describes a number of proposals that will require additional funding but can be considered as strategic priorities to expand the capacity of the existing services provided to the University over and above the existing service provision.

1.0 Audio Visual Creation, Management, Storage and Access Controls There is an increasing demand for the provision of enhanced audio visual services to help support teaching and learning, research and both internal and external communications. These requirements span assistance with the creation and procurement of media, compliance with license terms, ownership and copyright, digitisation of existing media, conversion of media formats, storage, high availability streaming services, and access controls.

This project would provide an enabling platform for a number of the objectives within the Digital Education Strategy. One of the priority areas is to provide media storage and streaming services for areas such as the University Virtual Learning Environment (Moodle). Based on statistics from both the Moodle and CamTools systems, it is expected that between 100,000 and 250,000 media items could be incorporated into course material. Currently media is being stored directly within Moodle which has several disadvantages including impacting system performance, requiring more storage capacity (the storage issue is cumulative due to the rolling 5/6 year course archive) and impacting usability. The usability issue arises because Moodle will simply store media content in the format and resolution in which it was uploaded (e.g. Adobe Flash) which can prevent it being accessed on certain devices, or mean that that the resolution is unsuitable affecting the user experience. Since the Moodle application itself supports responsive web design and can adapt to the device being used, the issue with native media uploads is more obvious. Moodle cannot also handle some of the license restrictions (e.g. geographical restrictions, single concurrent viewing) that some media content providers require.

However a media streaming service will usually convert uploaded content into several media formats and resolutions and display the most appropriate version depending upon the device being used greatly enhancing the user experience. Through the collection of metadata about the media item in conjunction with appropriate access controls, the streaming service is better position to comply with license restrictions.

Audio Visual Creation, Management, Storage and Access Controls 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£100,000 £100,000

2.0 CNH Relocation The relocation of the Central Network Hub from out of the basement of the Attenborough Building is recommended. In its present position it has be flooded twice in one year and it is proposed to move it to a second floor room in Zoology to avoid further risk of basement-flooding causing the loss of critical University IT systems. The estimated cost of this is £500,000, and a proposal is currently being prepared to go to the Minor Works Committee, with funding being sought outside of the Planning Round 2015 submission.

of 26

Relocation of CNH 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£500,000

3.0 Content Management (DRUPAL) The UIS has invested TDF funds over the last three years on an extensive rollout of the selected Content Management System (CMS) and the Project Light University ‘brand’

templates. During this time the UIS has taken responsibility from the Office of Communications and External Affairs for the support and enhancement of the Project Light Templates and has made these available throughout the University. The UIS has migrated or created a number of web sites from a variety of ‘unsupported’ CMS sites to the preferred CMS which is DRUPAL. There is a pipeline of development work over the next five years and beyond to create new web sites for areas that want to exploit the capabilities of the CMS and in some cases large complex sites are being created to service a fundamental need (e.g. UIS Service Catalogue, Research Office Information Portal). The UIS has created a ‘toolbox’ that allow Computer Officers and

Administrative staff to develop their own CMS website in a way that is consistent with the University standards and supportable by the UIS. All of the UAS Divisional Websites are going through either migration or enhancement. The TDF funds being used to support a Fixed Term Contract (FTC) developer who is leading this initiative ran out at the end of 2014/15. The UIS can extend the FTC for another year with some risk using various sources of funds specific to the current work (e.g. Service Catalogue TDF) but to secure this fast paced growing service the UIS needs to secure the recruitment of a FTE developer. The funding being proposed to cover the stipend costs going forward of, ideally the current developer, or if he were to leave a replacement.

Content Management Developer 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£54,000 £54,000 £55,000 £55,000

4.0 Digital Lecture Capture The General Board Education Committee is looking likely to recommend an Education Strategy that calls for substantial deployment of support for lecture capture. An estimate of the cost of such support suggests it will require an indicative annual budget of £500,000 from 2016-17 onwards if this is adopted as University policy.

Digital Lecture Capture 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£500,000 £500,000 £500,000 £500,000

5.0 Digital Transformation Consultancy The Digital Transformation Consultancy unit within the UIS anticipates offering User Centric Research and Design services to the UIS and other parts of the University, in line with the expectations of the User Needs Committee. Current funding is £280,000 per annum, arising from income transferred to the UIS at the suppression of CARET. Estimated staffing for a minimum team is around £500,000 per annum. The ISC is asked to support the provision of additional funding of £220,000 per annum in the UIS’s Chest Allocation to fund the activity at

of 26

this level from 2016-17 onwards. There are indications that the User Needs Committee is expected to support a call for this level of funding for this activity.

Digital Transformation Consultancy 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£220,000 £220,000 £220,000 £220,000

6.0 Flexible Working & the UIS Academy

In order to meet its assigned goals the UIS needs to both improve services and service delivery, and cut overall costs over a number of years. The only way to achieve this is to optimise the approach to building, deploying and maintaining all of the services it is responsible for. For an organisation such as the UIS working with the University of Cambridge this essentially means ensuring that we can get absolutely the best out of all of the resources we have available. This requires a number of initiatives aimed at improving motivation and output, reducing risk and ensuring that any project has the best chance of success because the delivery team comprises the right number of the right people. This implies creating an excellent understanding of the talent we have and having the ability to assembly dynamic teams quickly to respond to University demands. This creates an additional risk in that the UIS may become a victim of its own success and take on too many varied tasks. To mitigate this risk we must ensure that we can match the size of the organisation closely to the current tasks and this means that we need to be able to boost staff numbers (and reduce them again) quickly and controllably, and with people with known skills. With such a complex organisation there is no single approach that will achieve what is required, and hence a hybrid approach, with a number of complementary initiatives being employed, is key to success.

Without adopting such a hybrid approach the UIS will fail to meet its immediate goals, but, more seriously, will be placed in a position where it will not be able to support the long term strategic plan for the University. The likely effect of this will be to push core IT service provision out into the Schools and Departments with the related fragmentation and inefficiencies associated with such a move growing, thereby increasing overall IS costs to the University.

In the short term cross-team flexibility and the ‘hard shoulder’ resourcing model will provide

the UIS with the ability to assemble the efficient and agile teams required to build high quality solutions to tight timescales. After the initial period the UIS Academy will also be able to feed into this level of flexibility, but it will also provide part of a strategic long term staff recruitment and retention framework that will be essential to the long term health of the organisation and the services that it provides.

The adoption and integration of the suggestions in this brief will effectively mitigate against most, if not all, of these risks and will, eventually lead to a streamlined but more effective organisation that is better prepared to respond to changing needs and requirements whilst ensuring that key services and capabilities are properly resourced and supported.

The investment will create the UIS Academy as an internal ‘on the job’ Teaching & Learning

service. First year recruits may be graduates or come from schools, 6th forms or Colleges and will be deployed through a flexible resourcing approach to provide capacity within

of 26

development projects. The ambition is for the investment to also help the Academy to grow and attract external funding from suppliers such as Microsoft/Oracle etc., the Government Skills Funding Agency, an Alumni Donor or Private Initiatives e.g. The Tech Partnership. It is expected that a positive ROI will be realised after two years when it will become normal to use staff from the UIS Academy to fulfil capacity rather that day rate contractors or developers in demand within the IT market and therefore attracting high salaries. A Business model for the UIS Academy will be presented during 2015/16 before the 2016/17 investment is drawn down.

Flexible Working & the UIS Academy 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£50,000 £50,000 £50,000 £50,000

7.0 Gartner Subscription The University has benefitted from a Gartner subscription which provides three “seat” holders

with access to analyst support, including reviewing and commenting on proposals, and in the first year an on-site workshop on the ERP systems strategy work. Nineteen analyst enquiries were undertaken between June 2014 and August 2015. As an additional benefit at this level of subscription, all staff and students of the University are eligible to access the library of Gartner research documents at no additional cost. In the period June 2014 to August 2015 2,681 documents were viewed including significant activity by students at the Judge Business School. Gartner have informed us that our level of usage is significantly greater than other higher education institutions.

To provide UIS leadership with support on current activities we propose that a subscription to the Gartner service at the current subscription level is continued.

Gartner Subscription 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 £92,000 £97,000 £102,000 £107,000 £112,000 £117,000

8.0 HPCS Chest Funding The Research Policy Committee (RPC) and the Information Services Committee (ISC) have now constituted the High Performance Computing Service Strategy Group (HPCS-SG) which reports to both RPC and ISC. The role of the HPCS-SG is to provide management oversight of the UIS HPC Service, to represent the interest of users and to advise the RPC and ISC on the strategic development and delivery of high performance computing including providing comment on the provision in the Planning Round for High Performance Computing resources.

The HPCS-SG discussed the sustainability of the current full cost recovery MRF funding model for the HPC service whereby the HPCS recharge all costs of HPC usage to research grants using grant. The HPCS-SG has noted that that research council policy has shifted away from FEC funding models for HPC and that as a result HPCS sustainability is now drastically reduced to levels not able to maintain our current UK leadership position in HPC provision. The HPCS-SG notes that all our comparator research led institutions fully finance HPC resources via central funds meaning that HPC investment is more strategic being better aligned with the research priorities of the University and safe guarded at competitive levels of resourcing.

of 26

In order to maintain our leadership position with this vital research enabling technology the HPCS-SG has formed a working group to undertake a review of the current HPC funding model and investigating a transition to a hybrid funding model for HPC. This hybrid model defines a baseline “core” resource level to be funded by the chest to maintain HPC resources at a

minimum level to be on par relative to top comparator institutions. This base line funding will then be supplemented by grant income to provide increased resources to paying users increasing the overall infrastructure base hence maintaining our leadership position. In this way the hybrid model keeps the best elements of our current cost recovery model which encourages grant income wherever possible reducing the cost to the chest to minimum levels whilst at the same time providing base line central funding to bolster resources maintaining our leadership position and allowing a more strategic prioritisation of resources to drive strategic research domains within the University.

The funding model review working group will report back to the HPCS-SG at the start of November with detailed recommendations allowing consideration of a funding request in the current 2015 planning round. The HPCS-SG asked the UIS to including a place holder in the current UIS planning round submission to fund the baseline core resource level which is currently estimated at £500K staff PA and £1500K capital equipment per annum.

HPCS Staff Chest Funding 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£500,000 £505,000 £510,000 £515,000

HPCS Capital Sink Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£1,500,000 £1,530,000 £1,560,000 £1,590,000

9.0 Identity Management Currently the UIS has a number of systems supporting various aspects of identity management. Still more exist elsewhere in the wider university. The CamSIS system supports student and teaching identities, and the CHRIS system supports staff and other individuals receiving payments, and these overlap with no built-in identification of common identities. Meanwhile, we lack systematic, authoritative sources for College staff, or staff of other bodies associated with the University.

At the same time, we have a number of systems consuming this data, activating and deactivating accounts, supporting authentication and access control: the Raven web authentication system, various email systems, various desktop systems etc. Many of these are in need of review and possible refresh. Alongside this, there will be a need for an additional authentication system based on Microsoft Active Directory to support the University's and Colleges' use of the Microsoft EES agreement.

A review of the University's Identity Management architecture is needed, involving at least:

a determination and analysis of the authoritative data sources, identification of gaps in our authoritative sources where current practice is "ad hoc", the (currently implicit) rules for processing the identity data,

of 26

a detailed requirements capture of the very complex needs of the wider university for the use of this data,

outlining a system for managing the data flow in a coherent, managed fashion, and agreeing formal rules for how this aggregate data may be used by the University.

Identity Management Rationalisation 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£150,000 £80,000

10.0 IT Infrastructure Resilience To avoid the risk of a loss of critical University IT systems, it is recommended that a programme of work be undertaken improve the resilience of the University’s core IT infrastructure and

services. For example, all core network equipment currently hosted in basement rooms (e.g. Mill Lane, Sidgwick) should be moved to higher ground.

The cost of this is to be confirmed, but is estimated as possibly requiring up to £1,000,000 per annum for two years.

IT Infrastructure Resilience 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£1,000,000 £1,000,000

11.0 Online Examinations The General Board Education Committee is looking likely to recommend an Education Strategy that calls for substantial deployment of support for online examinations. An estimate of the cost of such support suggests it may require an indicative annual budget of in the region of £500,000 from 2016-17 onwards if this is adopted as University policy.

Online Examinations 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£500,000 £500,000 £500,000 £500,000

12.0 Server Room Network Upgrade The equipment making up the core backbone of the CUDN, in addition to many of the POPs supported within departments and Colleges, is in the middle of a two-year programme of being upgraded. Provision for this cost has already been made in the CUDN sinking fund, and no additional funding will be required.

However, the CUDN network equipment in the Roger Needham and the Soulsby machine rooms is out of date and needs replacing to bring it up to the standard defined by the WCDC. This is necessary to mitigate the risk of equipment failure, resulting in the failure of IT systems dependent on these networks.

Although the CUDN sink fund was set up to replace CUDN equipment on a rolling basis, the CUDN funding at the time, and consequential CUDN surplus put into the CUDN sink fund, were based on a model which only included upgrading the old UCS Arup Machine Room. This is

of 26

now insufficient to provision the network maintenance for the WCDC, the Soulsby Room and the Roger Needham Machine Rooms together, and further funding will need to be sought.

The opening of WCDC also provides a centralised facility for machine room hosting which was previously funded entirely by each department. The decision to offer the WCDC’s facilities to

departments at zero-cost means that there is now a hole in the budget to cover the network provision which had previously been covered by the departments themselves and for which there are now insufficient funds within the WCDC or CUDN budgets to fund as a recurrent cost.

The CUDN funds are insufficient for ongoing future expenditure of this type, so additional funding will need to be sourced. This could be from an increase in CUDN charging (estimated at ~25%), which will require appropriate consultation with relevant committees, eg JNMC. Alternatively a new ISC Priorities fund could be established for this purpose, for which the following estimated budget will be needed.

Server Room Network Upgrade 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£250,000 £100,000 £100,000 £100,000 £100,000

13.0 WCDC Commission Hall 4 The original plans drawn-up for constructing the West Cambridge Data Centre included detail of a fourth Hall. To date, Hall 4 remains an empty shell with no infrastructure present. The medium-term ambition of the plan was to seek to open Hall 4 as soon as practically possible in order to increase capacity at the WCDC, to allow increased customer take-up. The fit-out of Hall 4 was specifically excluded from the scope of the warrant raised to complete phase 1 of the WCDC.

As well as networking, Hall 4 will require fire suppression, power and cooling systems to be provisioned. This is a major project, the impact of which should not be underestimated, as it has the potential to be disruptive to the existing live facilities as there will need to be work carried out on the “live” infrastructure services.

The fitting out of Hall 4, is now necessary to increase the capacity at the West Cambridge Data Centre, to meet the considerable increased customer demand for housing departmental equipment seen over the last year. The estimated cost of this is £975,000. Once Hall 4 comes into production, it is estimated that an additional £200,000 per annum to pay for the additional operating costs will be needed. It is requested that this be added to the current £1,100,000 operating costs currently allocated for the running of the WCDC.

WCDC Hall 4 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£975,000 £44,000 £44,000 £44,000 £44,000

14.0 Wireless Expansion £320,000 per year is received for purposes of seeding a free wireless service throughout the University. The take-up and demand for roll-out has been phenomenally popular, much more so than originally envisaged by the University. There is a long waiting list for departments and

of 26

Colleges requesting wireless surveys, the pre-requisite to having wireless equipment installed, as the UIS only has one member of staff dedicated to this task.

In order to increase the rollout and support, and develop the system appropriately, an increase of £200,000 per annum in Chest Allocation is requested over and above the £320,000 per annum already received. This £200,000 is to fund two additional staff posts (to complete wireless surveys and install and maintain wireless equipment) plus provide better functionality:

Free public wifi pervasively across the network Enterprise wireless administration and monitoring Increase deployment to the city centre public wireless in line with the University’s

engagement with the city and county councils. The breakdown of the £200,000 is: Wireless Survey Manager (to manage deployment, allocation, logistics, planning and integration of wireless service)

£52,000 (Grade 8 fully costed)

Wireless Technican (to complement existing sole wireless technician, principally to provide wireless surveys, also troubleshooting.

£34,000 (Grade 5 fully costed)

Airwave management software procurement £60,000 Year 1, £15,000 Year 2 onwards 4 x Wireless controllers for wireless access points (APs) to improve resilience from (4 live + 1 hot spare) to (4 live + 4 hot spares)

£4,000 (for provision of 4 APs)

Public Self-Service ID (SSiD) on all UIS wireless APs allowing visitors simple wireless access with no login credentials required

£50,000

Additional hardware needed across University estate as wireless is rolled-out further

Covered by savings in Year 2 onwards of Airwave management software cost

The strategic benefits to the UIS and University of investing an additional £200,000 per annum into the wifi service are:

Extension of existing free public wifi across more of the University with resulting customer satisfaction from finding University facilities are of status which befits a Russell group university

Removal of wireless survey backlog (currently estimated at twelve months) Income generation to UIS from provision of wireless surveys to Colleges (daily charge

£300) Income generation to UIS from rental income from installation of APs into Colleges Improved resilience in AP provision with 4 hot spares for the 4 live APs Improved response time in attending to any wireless queries or issues across the estate.

Approval is sought from the ISC on this matter.

Wireless Expansion 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

£200,000 £200,000 £200,000 £200,000

of 26

Appendix C – UIS Income and Expenditure

UIS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY

ACTUALS FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Expenditure:

Chest Allocation:

Staff costs £9,576k £9,671k £9,768k £9,866k £9,965k £10,064k

Operational expenditure £3,341k £3,408k £3,476k £3,546k £3,617k £3,689k

Annual Operating Cost £12,917k £13,080k £13,245k £13,412k £13,581k £13,753k

Equipment expenditure £293k £299k £305k £311k £317k £324k

Total £13,210k £13,379k £13,550k £13,723k £13,899k £14,077k

Project Funded:

Project expenditure £2,447k £2,472k £1,287k £1,300k £1,313k £1,326k

Total £2,447k £2,472k £1,287k £1,300k £1,313k £1,326k

Cost Recovery Funded:

Service expenditure £7,780k £7,936k £8,095k £8,256k £8,422k £8,590k

Total £7,780k £7,936k £8,095k £8,256k £8,422k £8,590k

Transition - UIS Funded:

Extra staff costs £426k £1,347k £1,391k £1,244k £1,097k £1,097k

Cum. staff savings (1.5%pa natural wastage) (£166k) (£333k) (£502k) (£672k) (£844k)

Total £426k £1,181k £1,058k £742k £425k £253k

UIS Total Expenditure £23,864k £24,967k £23,989k £24,021k £24,058k £24,246k

of 26

ACTUALS FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Income:

Chest Allocation:

Staff costs £9,743k £10,266k £10,369k £10,473k £10,577k £10,683k

Non-Pay £3,501k £3,046k £3,107k £3,107k £3,138k £3,170k

Annual Operating Budget £13,244k £13,312k £13,445k £13,580k £13,715k £13,853k

Equipment £377k £378k £382k £386k £390k £394k

Total £13,621k £13,690k £13,827k £13,966k £14,105k £14,246k

Project Funding:

Capital Fund £153k £155k £156k £158k £159k £161k

CamSIS Funding £500k £505k £510k £515k £520k £525k

CHRIS Funding £400k £404k £408k £412k £416k £420k

Transition Funding £574k £577k

Project Funds £411k £415k £419k £423k £427k £432k

TDF £575k £160k £160k £160k £160k £160k

TDF Reserve £180k £620k

Total £2,793k £2,836k £1,653k £1,668k £1,683k £1,698k

Cost Recovery:

Service Income £7,720k £7,952k £8,190k £8,436k £8,689k £8,950k

Total £7,720k £7,952k £8,190k £8,436k £8,689k £8,950k

UIS Total Income £24,134k £24,478k £23,671k £24,069k £24,477k £24,893k

Total UIS Surplus/(Deficit) £270k (£490k) (£319k) £48k £419k £647k

of 26

Balances:

UIS General Balances b/f £5,065k £4,728k £3,629k £2,691k £2,215k £2,102k

Surplus/(Deficit) £270k (£490k) (£319k) £48k £419k £647k

Net Tel. Sink Transfer (£325k) (£325k) (£330k) (£230k) (£233k) (£237k)

Net GBN Sink Transfer (£101k) (£102k) (£104k) (£105k) (£107k) (£108k)

Net CUDN Sink Transfer (£182k) (£183k) (£186k) (£189k) (£191k) (£194k)

UIS General Balances c/f £4,728k £3,629k £2,691k £2,215k £2,102k £2,210k

Tel. Sink b/f £1,646k £1,447k £1,390k £1,340k £1,184k £949k

Tel. Transfer in £325k £325k £330k £230k £233k £237k

Tel. Capital Exp. (£524k) (£382k) (£380k) (£386k) (£468k) (£477k)

Tel. Sink c/f £1,447k £1,390k £1,340k £1,184k £949k £709k

GBN Sink b/f £402k £468k £570k £673k £778k £885k

GBN Transfer in £101k £102k £104k £105k £107k £108k

GBN Capital Exp. (£35k)

GBN Sink c/f £468k £570k £673k £778k £885k £993k

CUDN Sink b/f £631k £348k £531k £717k £905k £1,097k

CUDN Transfer in £182k £183k £186k £189k £191k £194k

CUDN Capital Exp. (£464k)

CUDN Sink c/f £348k £531k £717k £905k £1,097k £1,291k

Total Sink Reserves c/f £2,263k £2,491k £2,730k £2,868k £2,931k £2,994k

Total UIS Balances c/f £6,991k £6,120k £5,421k £5,083k £5,033k £5,204k

Confidential

Programme Name: Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme

Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme - ISC Paper Page 1 of 10

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme

INTERIM REPORT TO THE INFORMATION SERVICES

COMMITTEE v1.0

Authors: Sally Barker, Programme Manager, Cambridge Libraries Connect

Version: v1.0 Final

Date: 12th September 2015

njw40

Text Box

ISC 89

Confidential



Purpose of paper

The purpose of this paper is to:

1. provide the ISC with the current position of the Cambridge Libraries Connect Programme.

2. seek approval from the ISC to receive the next programme report, which will include a recommendation of award for the programme to move to the negotiation stage with the chosen supplier, via email, and to confirm their response to the recommendation via email.

Confidential



Table of Contents

Section Title Page

1. Background ................................................................................................... 5 2. Tender Process and Evaluation Process .................................................... 5 3. Programme Update ....................................................................................... 7 4 Project Expenditure ...................................................................................... 9 5 Programme Milestones ................................................................................. 9 6 Approval Sought ......................................................................................... 10

University of Cambridge IT Career, Skills and Development Framework – Project outline

Purpose of this paper This paper provides a project pre-initiation overview of activity proposed to develop a University-wide IT community.

Action requested ISC members are asked to endorse the proposed scope of a project to develop the University IT community, to be funded from the Technology Development Fund (TDF) Reserve.

1 Background In the 2012 IT Review, the panel made the following recommendation:

Recommendation E1. The University should reform the career structures and employment arrangements of its computing support staff with urgency, with the aim of improving the mobility of individuals, and the flexibility of teams. - pg31

This was based on the analysis of the IT support available across the University, in Departments, Schools, Colleges and the centralised functions of MISD and UCS. In leading up to this recommendation, the Review highlighted that:

• IT staff were frequently working long hours • They were often managed by people who had no IT background • Isolated individuals or teams were under pressure with increasingly broad requirements

being made of them, whilst lacking capacity to keep up to date with developments elsewhere in the University

• Some were experiencing stress that resulted in reduced job satisfaction • Networking was highly appreciated • There was an expressed need for individual development for, and mobility of, IT staff

A recent (September 2015) staff survey in UIS indicated that c61% of responses believed that there were not sufficient career progression opportunities. Whilst this may not be representative of the IT community as a whole, it appears in keeping with some of the Reviews findings.

2 Project Objective – the creation of a pan University IT community The IT support provided across the Collegiate University needs to accommodate the exceptionally diverse and dynamically developing needs of institutions and of Researchers and Teaching Officers. Local innovation will often be appropriate and is to be encouraged. This in turn requires first rate institutional Computer Officer capability, populated by individuals who not only help influence overall University IT strategy, but who are equipped to fully meet institutional needs by understanding and selecting appropriate central services, and supplementing these with local services. A key objective is to enable local services to be created, quickly and efficiently, using the agreed pan university delivery framework to achieve desired generic outcomes (e.g. usability, security, reusability).

Page 1 of 4

njw40

Text Box

ISC 90

Computer Officers will benefit from increased professional development opportunities, access to specialist support services for undertaking a range of tasks, and increased use of central services that enables local resource to be prioritised on IT services that are dedicated to their institution’s mission.

3 Project approach With the goal of ensuring that Computer Officers are well equipped to sustainably deliver the best possible outcomes to users and to institutions, the project will initially engage across the collegiate university to identify desired future outcomes. Potentially these could include:

• ensuring that individuals are engaged in helping to shape a common agenda for IT at the University, that is “co-owned” by the broader community

• ensuring that all have the necessary skills and knowledge of the University IT strategy and service portfolio, and

• creating a sense of community where all feel supported (i.e. not isolated) and able to engage in supports from specialists in the centre,

• eliminating the “them and us” that currently exists in some quarters, • enabling the University to develop future senior IT capability internally • introducing standard job descriptions to enhance mobility • providing access to information, services, support, and development programmes • considering how social media can provide improved mechanisms for networking and

collaboration over and above the existing Techlink seminars and ucam-itsupport mailing list The project will therefore seek to achieve the following:

1. Confirm the current state and desired outcomes; 2. Develop proposals for a route map to deliver the enablers to achieve the recommendations

of the Review; 3. Deliver the year one enablers, thereby laying a foundation for the end state position.

Areas for review Project interventions End state aspiration

• Networking opportunities • Knowledge sharing

platforms • Knowledge sharing content

and frequency • Levels of job mobility • Levels of IT training spend • Attrition rates and causes • Levels of IT Officer time

spent on supporting projects outside their own institution

• Shared resources

• Adoption of a common language to define skills and development requirements – SFIA

• Generic job families with job descriptions

• Central database to locate people with key skills

• Central skills analysis leading to targeted training initiatives

• Provision of platform(s) to share community know-how – physical and digital

• Development of a set of protocols to facilitate individual staff mobility between institutions

• Every IT Officer has a development plan

• The University invests centrally in the key skills to support the IT strategy

• Experts in the IT community can be readily identified to support problem solving

• IT Officers have a clear line of sight to career opportunities

• Institutions are able to enter into meaningful collaborative arrangements with respect to IT resource and personnel

• Talent is ‘home grown’ by means of an IT graduate scheme operating across the University

Page 2 of 4

It is anticipated that the results of the initial review will provide some of the baseline measures from which the success of the project can be determined, and the business case can be proven.

4 Project resource The resource requirements at this early stage of scoping the project are thought to be:

• Project Manager – 1FTE, additional cost for one year • Career Development Manager – 1FTE, in UIS structure from January 2016, funded • Communications Support – 0.2FTE, additional cost for one year • Development or Procurement Support – ad hoc, to be confirmed subject to solution

agreed for a skills database It is therefore assumed that a budget of circa £90,000 should be allocated to staff costs for the year of the project, with a further circa £60,000 (to be confirmed) for the creation of appropriate IT tools that will facilitate staff mobility, skills mapping, training needs analysis and career planning. Both costs would be funded from the TDF Reserves.

5 Interfaces The expected interfaces for the project are thought to be:

• A representative cross section from Schools, Departments, Colleges and NSI at technical (IT Officer) and leadership (senior administrators/academic) levels

• UIS – Research and Institutional Services Division • UIS – Departmental Operations Division • Trades Union partners • HR Division – PPD • HR Division – Grading and Reward • Legal Services

6 Indicative project plan Phase 1 – Engage (January – March 2016)

• Engagement with interested parties • Current state review resulting in data pack • Benchmarking activities • Determine measures for success • Confirm prioritisation for required interventions, and develop phased plan for development

and deployment

Phase 2 – Design (April – May 2016) • Design the initial interventions, with a detailed deployment plan

Phase 3 – Deploy (June – September 2016) • Deploy the initial interventions

Phase 4 – Evaluate and embed (October – December 2016) • Measure impact of the results of the initial interventions, and take corrective action as

appropriate • Design second phase interventions detailed deployment plan • Handover from project team to end state ownership

Page 3 of 4

7 Risks Initially identified risks are that:

• The poor design of early enablers will undermine the ability of the University to access the benefits of later initiatives;

• Attempting to deliver too much at one time will subvert the adoption of some enablers, and therefore slow overall progress;

• Certain enablers (e.g. generic job descriptions) might be seen as threatening amongst some stakeholder groups thereby undermining the speed at which the University and individuals will be able to access the benefits aspired to;

• Without establishing an adequate engagement momentum, or adequately deploying enough of the key enablers, that the exit of the project team will cause the overall initiative to slow/stall.

Ed Webster Marina Aldridge Paul Calleja 22 September 2015

Page 4 of 4

Information Services Governance Update


Established and operational

Business Systems Subcommittee

Established and operational

HPC Strategy Group Established and operational

Teaching and Learning IT Services Subcommittee

Established and Operational

User Needs Committee


Student Systems Committee

Student Systems Committee revised and approved

HR Systems Committee

HR Systems Committee revised and approved

Finance Systems Committee


University Card Committee

Draft Terms of Reference attached for approval by ISC/Business Systems Subcommittee

Joint Network Management Committee


IT Purchasing Group Established and Operational

Dr S. Kearsey Page 1 of 3 September 2015

njw40

Text Box

ISC 91

University Card Committee

In June 1999, the University Card Working Party recommended the introduction of a University Card to staff and students of the University, which was rolled out in October 2000. A University Card Management Committee was set up at this time, reporting regularly to the Council on policy and operational issues connected with the Card. In 2009, it was proposed that this should be replaced by a University Card Committee (UCC), reporting to the Information Strategy and Services Syndicate (ISSS), and a revised Terms of Reference were drawn up and agreed. Since then, business for the Committee has fallen away, and the group has not met for several years. There has recently been interest across the University in reviewing the technology used for the card system, which is now beginning to look quite antiquated and insecure. The UIS is keen to engage with University on the possibly of replacing it and extending its capabilities, and proposes that the University Card Committee be resurrected as a forum where this engagement can be formally managed and coordinated. It is therefore proposed that the University Card Committee be reconstituted with the Terms of Reference attached, reporting to the Business Services Sub-Committee instead of the ISSS, and that a fresh membership be sought for the Committee. S. Kearsey 14 September 2015


University Card Committee Terms of Reference

The University Card Committee (UCC) is constituted by the Business Services Sub-Committee (BSSC) of the Information Services Committee (ISC) to oversee the use of the University Card and related systems. It will:

1. Determine policy with respect to the University Card and monitor adherence to any such policies, determine changes to and needs for new controls and measures to ensure secure and appropriate use of the University Card.

2. Oversee the specification, installation and maintenance and administration procedures of the University Card to ensure it is used appropriately and maintains the required levels of security.

3. Oversee the usage of the University Card to monitor any misuse or fraudulent use of the card and determine appropriate actions in response to any occurrences on such matters.

4. Coordinate the use of the University Card within the University (departments and Colleges) to maintain a unified approach to the development and use of the card.

5. Oversee the costs associated with maintaining and issuing the University Card and determine appropriate charges for the Card.

6. Provide a forum to review the strategy and development of the University Card, its uses, fitness for purpose, technologies and associated systems, and its integration with other enterprise-wide and identity management systems

7. Provide an annual report to the BSSC on the levels of service and indicators of performance

required for delivery and maintenance of the University Card and recommend the action to be taken if performance is below standard.

Constitution: i. 2 Departmental representatives, 1 Sciences, 1 Arts & Humanities ii. 1 College representative iii. 1 Library representative iv. Head of University Security v. 1 Estates Management representative vi. 1 Finance Division representative vii. 2 UIS representatives, 1 technical, 1 managerial viii. 2 Student representatives, 1 undergraduate, 1 post-graduate

Chair: Appointed by the BSSC from the committee membership Secretariat: Provided by the UIS Reporting: To the BSSC


UIS Performance Dashboard* – September 2015 Overall RAG rating Previous month

Service Delivery - top 12 Overall service RAG GREEN Unplanned downtime Helpdesk calls

Service Month 12 Mnths Month 12 Mth RAG Hermes 0 3.3hr N/A N/A GREEN Web Hosting 0 1hr N/A N/A GREEN Managed Cluster 0 1.3hr N/A N/A GREEN CUDN/GBN 9.5hr 9.5hr N/A N/A AMBER Wireless 0 11.25hr N/A N/A GREEN Telephone System 0 2.5hr N/A N/A GREEN Research Systems 0 0 N/A N/A GREEN Cambridge Website 0 4hr N/A N/A GREEN Finance Systems 0 17hr 1,218 7,514 GREEN HR Systems 0 10hr 480 2,578 GREEN Student Systems 0 50.2hr 366 2,800 GREEN HPCS 0 21.33hr 174 1,610 GREEN

Project Delivery - top 12 Overall projects RAG GREEN Deployment date Budget

Project Plan Forecast Plan Forecast RAG Uni Moodle 01/07/15 01/07/16 £228k £240k GREEN Janet/EastRN 2nd 31/12/14 31/10/15 £80k £80k AMBER GRAD Applic. Form 26/10/14 01/10/16 £130k £130k GREEN ERP Systems Strategy 01/03/16 01/03/16 £170k £170k GREEN HR TES System R1 30/06/15 30/11/15 £65k £65k GREEN X5 Upgrade 30/06/15 10/12/15 £75k £75k GREEN NWC Accom. System 30/06/15 30/06/16 £300k £300k GREEN HR Staff Rev. & Dev. 30/11/15 30/11/15 £65k £65k GREEN 2nd GBN Addenbrks 31/12/15 31/12/15 £150k £150k GREEN A&H School Project 31/08/15 30/11/15 £167k £167k GREEN Performance Testing 31/07/15 31/12/15 £50k £50k GREEN CBC Rsch Comp Pilot 31/12/15 31/10/15 £50k £50k GREEN

HR and Finance (Apr-Sep) Overall RAG GREEN RS EA AR BD SO IM DO UIS Total RAG

Headcount 12 4 2 91 118 5 21 6 259 GREEN New joiners 4 8 1 4 1 1 19 GREEN Resignations 4 3 1 8 GREEN Retirements 2 2 GREEN

Annual Budget (Actual 2014-15) Chest funding £16,414k GREEN Recharges £7,720k GREEN Total budget £24,134k GREEN Actual spend £23,864k GREEN Budget - forecast £270k GREEN Change vs previous Estimate -£537k GREEN

New initiatives Overall RAG GREEN Project Status Delivery Budget RAG A. End User Compute Review On Hold 05/15 TBD AMBER B. UXP Prototype Project On Hold TBD TBD GREEN J. Researcher Time Sheets Initiation GREEN K. CamSIS Upgrade Initiation 09/17 £840k GREEN L. Finance Reporting Framewrk Initiation 09/17 £250k GREEN F. Staff HESA 2015 Initiation GREEN G. UAS Websites (New) Initiation GREEN

* Changes highlighted

Annex: UIS Initiatives at AMBER or RED status

Project Delivery Overall projects RAG

Deployment date Budget

Project Plan Forecast Plan Forecast RAG

Janet/EastRN 2nd 31/12/14 31/10/15 £80k £80k AMBER

ICE Saturn 2 31/12/15 31/12/15 £70k £70k AMBER

Open Access Support 28/02/15 30/06/15 TBD TBD AMBER

MWS 3.0 Implmnt 01/04/15 TBD £0k £0k AMBER

End User Comp. Revw On Hold 05/15 TBC AMBER

Storage Review 31/10/15 31/10/15 £50k £50k AMBER

Service Delivery

CUDN/GBN AMBER

Project Notes Janet/EastRN 2nd Installation delayed by supplier - JANET ICE Saturn 2 Developer resigned

Open Access Support UIS picking up from CARET

MWS 3.0 Implmnt Implementation Plan Needed

End User Comp. Revw No PID in place

Storage Review No clear plan for deployment

CNH Flooded 17th July

9.5 hours loss of connection to Internet. Room still vulnerable to similar events.

Projects Exited Status Budget

Committee DB V2 Complete £0 UFS Datamart Reorg. Complete £0 MML Exam Marking Complete £0 Special Needs Exams Complete £8k PandIS Relocation Complete £110k DC UIS Migration (from RedStone) Complete £0 EDM Complete £200k PostDoc Research & Dev. Phase 1 Complete £0

Information Services Committee Higher Education Data and Information Improvement Programme The Higher Education Data and Information Improvement Programme (HEDIIP) “has been established to redesign the Higher Education (HE) information landscape in order to arrive at a new system that reduces the burden on data providers and improves the quality, timeliness and accessibility of data and information about HE” (http://www.hediip.ac.uk/). HEDIIP is currently running a number of interrelated projects, such as:

• replacing subject coding system; • introducing Unique Learner Number (ULN) as the main student identifier in HE

returns; • developing a standard HE data set; • establishing a collective HE data governance structure; • improving HE data capability.

Furthermore, in conjunction with HEDIIP HESA are starting their own “Change in Approach to the Collection of Higher Education Data” (CACHED) programme of change (https://cached.hesa.ac.uk/). The outcomes of all these projects will change substantially the way HE institutions report the data to statutory bodies, resulting in a move to in-year HESA collections coupled with removal of statutory returns to other bodies (HEFCE, NHS). Thus, they will have significant impact on the University’s data collection, management and reporting processes and it is important to monitor their developments and take steps to prepare for the forthcoming changes.” PRAO; September 2015

njw40

Text Box

ISC 93

Update on the approval of expenditure from the TDF

Purpose of this paper This paper provides a highlight of funding approved from the TDF and TDF Reserves under the delegated authority of the Director of Information Services.

Action requested Members are asked to note the projects for which funds have been allocated.

1. Background TDF funds are awarded for small to medium sized IT projects and feasibility studies, where funding is not otherwise available. It is not to be used as a source of funds for recurring costs, including licence purchase.

2. Approved expenditure The following outlines expenditure approved between 15 June 2015 and 23 September 2015. TDF34 Service Catalogue Project, phase 1 rebaseline

Description Extension to previous funding of £133,900 under TDF29, to support the delivery of the Service Catalogue project, providing additional time to complete work for the system launch and subsequently undertake a system evaluation.

Funding profile 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total 28,500 £28,500

Participants UIS

Anticipated outcomes

Extension of original project duration to provide time for the implementation of required functionality in the beta release; time and resource to obtain user feedback from constituent user groups in order to determine whether the project has been successful.

TDF35 Data Centre research computing (CBC)

Description Extension to previous funding of £50,000 under TDF26, to provide ongoing technical support resource to support the CBC Pilot project.


Participants UIS


Supported delivery of proof of concept pilots to ensure that the overall project receives necessary the necessary feedback to inform the nature of any future research computing provision from the West Cambridge Data Centre.

1 of 2

njw40

Text Box

ISC 94

TDF36 Project Manager – storage services

Description Provision of a project manager for two years to support the definition and development of storage services by UIS for the University.

Funding profile 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total 62,000 62,000 £124,000

Participants UIS


Successful delivery of a project to deliver to the University a range of storage services.

TDFR21 Project and programme tooling

Description Project and programme management process and governance tooling to implement defined methods, standards and processes, covering the full end-to-end portfolio life cycle, which are cognisant of industry best practice, including flexible resourcing. Allocated from the agreed £800,000 budget for UIS tooling.


Participants UIS


Tools, including documentation and templates, for UIS to use in the definition, delivery and reporting of projects and programmes.

Dr Ian Cooper 23 September 2015

1 This is an allocation against the TDF reserve funds

2 of 2

university of cambridge information services committee agenda › committee › is › meetings ›...

Documents