This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Business Case for Review of Student Administrative Processes'.

  
gla.exsmg/exsmg/minutes/2009-03-17/1 
   
   UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW    
 Senior Management Group  
 Minute of Meeting held on Tuesday 17 March 2009  
in The Lodge on Loch Lomond  
Present: 
Sir Muir Russell (Convener), Professor D Barlow, Professor S Beaumont, Mr I Black, 
Professor N Burrows, Professor G Caie, Professor J Chapman, Professor J Coggins, 
Professor J Conroy, Professor F Coton, Professor D Fearn, Mr R Fraser, Professor P Hagan, 
Professor N Juster, Professor E Moignard, Mr D Newall, Professor A Nolan, 
Professor S Reid, Ms S Stewart. 
In attendance: 
Mr A Scrimgeour (Clerk). 
Apologies: 
No apologies  
EXSMG/2008/70. Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 17 February 2009  
Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 17 February 2009 were approved. 
EXSMG/2008/71.  Matters Arising 
There were no matters arising. 
EXSMG/2008/72.   Researcher Development Strategy (Paper) 
The Vice-Principal (Research & Enterprise) presented Research Development Strategy 
which had been prepared by the University’s Skills Training Forum and approved by 
the RPSC in November 2008.  The strategy had been developed in response to the need 
for Universities to support and promote early career researchers (PGR and Post Docs) 
in the development of high level employability skills which were recognised to be 
important for the maintenance of the UK’s competitive edge.  The requirement to 
support career development in researchers has been formalised in the launch of a 
Concordat and the University through this strategy was committing itself to address and 
give greater coherence and visibility to these aims.  The initiative was currently funded 
by the Roberts Fund so no immediate investment of resources was required though this 
may change after 2011.   
The SMG noted the Research Development Strategy and approved it. 
gla.exsmg/exsmg/minutes/2009-03-17/1 


Senior Management Group Tuesday 17 March 2009 
 
gla.exsmg/exsmg/minutes/2009-03-17/1 

Senior Management Group Tuesday 17 March 2009 
The Project Board wished to recommend strongly that the SMG agree that the 
University proceed to implement Campus Solutions on the basis that it would deliver 
on key areas of the University strategy.  In summary, while the benefits of the new 
system would extend to Research, Finance and Human Resources, it would make its 
principal contribution to the University’s Learning and Teaching objectives and 
particularly in the area of student recruitment, student retention and progression and 
student satisfaction.  It would, they suggested also deliver efficiencies estimated to be 
the region of £1M per year and enhance management information. 
In the course of the presentation it was made clear that the timescale for 
implementation of 2.5 years was challenging but it was felt to be achievable.  Success 
would depend on a clear and disciplined approach by the University towards those 
policy issues and procedures that would determine the final configuration of the system 
and that it would remain, as a corporate body, committed to these decisions.    
The team also explained the implementation plan used by ORACLE which involved 
Conference Room Pilots, the first of which, CRP1, was aimed at producing the detailed 
design for the solution.  This was a critical phase that would require full specification 
and agreement and commitment from the University to accept the design and 
configuration.  The subsequent phases 2-4 covered the build and testing of the system, 
training and deployment of the phases.  It was stressed that achieving agreement 
timeously at CRP1 and avoiding variations to the system thereafter were critical if 
control of costs and maximum benefit from the system were to be achieved.  The Board 
was encouraged by the fact that the rigorous planning and specification of the system to 
date would pay dividends as the project entered the CRP1 phase. 
In order to carry the project forward it was necessary to establish a project team of 
around 15 people made up of key staff with knowledge of the various aspects 
associated with the student life cycle.  The facility to back fill posts vacated by project 
team members had been agreed.  This would present the first and clearest test of the 
commitment the University was prepared to give to the project as it would not be 
acceptable to establish a team ill equipped to handle the project through 
Faculties/Department releasing second or third choice members of staff. 
The second immediate challenge was to secure agreement from the SMG on the Policy 
issues highlighted in Appendix 2, which required decisions on the way forward before 
the commencement of the CRP1.  It was important too that if the SMG agreed the 
recommendations then it must also be prepared to support the Process Champions who 
were tasked with carrying the decisions through. 
Following the introduction the SMG was invited to comment. 
•  It was noted that careful thought should be given to internal communication 
plans to ensure that as the project progressed members of the University 
community were kept informed. 
•  A question was raised over the relationship with ORACLE and the extent to 
which the University was being used as a test case. 
In response it was made clear that other Universities (Derby, Manchester, 
Cambridge for example) had gone live with aspects of the system but without 
going for the comprehensive, all embracing system, Glasgow had opted for.  
There was also the reassurance that ORACLE was directly involved in the 
implementation. 
•  Questions were raised over the technical capabilities of the system and how big 
a risk they posed. 
 
In response it was acknowledged that as with all such projects risks were 
gla.exsmg/exsmg/minutes/2009-03-17/1 

Senior Management Group Tuesday 17 March 2009 
inherent but that the careful planning and direct involvement of ORACLE with 
its back up and resources, the risks were lessened. 
•  With regard to the maintenance of the system, it was confirmed that there was 
agreement to full maintenance by ORACLE.  It was important to recognise that 
the maintenance of any customisation would depend on who was responsible 
for the development.  Again it was the strong view of the Project Board that 
customisation should be kept to a minimum to avoid additional cost or risk and 
to ensure that there may be future scope to widen the Glasgow (generic rather 
than bespoke) solution to other institutions. 
•  Issues surrounding the cost of the project were raised. The Board's 
representatives confirmed that costs would be fixed at the CRP1 stage. 
 
Concerns were raised over the tendency for similar projects to drift and for 
costs to escalate.   
 
It was acknowledged that the track record for similar projects coming in on 
budget were low.  Again the Board members argued that because the project 
had been scoped in more detail than was normal at this stage, the potential for 
cost creep was diminished.  In addition, if the University remained disciplined 
in its approach, sticking firmly to the agreed timescales and spec then this, 
coupled with the detailed scoping work completed should lessen the risk 
further.  
 
There was further discussion over the fact that apparently no contingency had 
been built in to the budget.  The Project Board stressed the need to avoid add 
ons or delays, as both will cost money and that it should be a condition of the 
project for all parties that it be brought in at £13.2M.  Should additional 
resource be sought above this sum, then a request should be brought to a future 
meeting of SMG with a full explanation of the reason. 
•  A member asked if there was a risk that ORACLE might go out of business.   
 
It was not thought to be likely given its scale and current strength.  In the event 
that this did happen, the University would be given access to code. 
•  A question was raised over the shelf life of the product. 
 
 
 
In response it was stated that as was normal in such products there would be 
progressive software updates. 
•  Members also asked if the system would be flexible and so able to cope with 
changes in University procedures.  
 
The Board representatives confirmed that within the broad framework of the 
package, the system offer flexibility and the scope to adapt. 
 
Mention was made of the Medical Faculty system, VALE, which is used to 
allocate hospital placements.  It was confirmed that a placements management 
facility exists within Campus Solutions. 
•  Concerns were raised over the tight timescale covering CRP1, particularly 
given the scale of the operation in areas such as data migration and the 
extensive training programme that will be required. 
 
The point was made that the May start for the Project Team and July, August 
gla.exsmg/exsmg/minutes/2009-03-17/1 

Senior Management Group Tuesday 17 March 2009 
September for the CRP1 was based on working back from the desired 
completion point. 
 
The representatives of the Board did not want to underestimate the challenge, 
but a successful outcome would depend to a large extent on the level of 
commitment shown by the University and the SMG in leading the project. 
•  In this connection it was agreed that some idea of the level of support for the 
project out in the University community would be useful to gauge. 
 
 
It was suggested that views were mixed but where people took part in the 
workshops they usually left feeling more positive.  It was hoped that when 
people saw the benefit of the new system then they will be supportive.  
•  Questions were raised regarding the arrangements for establishing the Project 
Team within the next two weeks and if this was realistic. 
 
Care would also need to be taken over the long term prospects and implications 
for the project team members after the two years were over. 
 
It was agreed that the Project Team was a critical element of the project and 
that if the SMG agreed to go ahead, every effort should be made to support the 
Project leaders in making the necessary arrangements. 
•  It was noted finally that the final contract has still to be signed.  It is currently 
with D&W for comment. 
Following this discussion the Principal then asked the SMG if it was prepared to 
support the project and stand by it to ensure success.  The SMG agreed. 
He sought assurances that all members would be positive and co-operate in the 
formation of the project team.  To this end he asked SMG to agree that the project team 
of 15 be assembled over the following two weeks and brought into the project in May.  
The SMG agreed.  He asked to be alerted at the earliest if any problems were 
encountered. 
The Principal then stressed that it would be the collective and individual responsibility 
of the SMG members to get Faculties and departments on board. He sought members' 
full commitment to the project and to the Project Team and Process Champions.  The 
SMG agreed. 
He emphasised the point that there could be no room for cherished systems and that 
everyone must buy into standardisation of processes and must work rigorously to meet 
the target timeline identified by ORACLE to avoid additional costs wherever possible. 
In turning to Appendix 2 the Principal asked the SMG to go through each one of the 
Processes and recommendations and to agree/or reject so that if agreed matters could 
be progressed. 
•  Academic Structures (Process Champion – Professor Andrea Nolan) 
There were no perceived problems.  Recommendations were agreed 
•  Student Record Maintenance  (Process Champion – Professor Andrea Nolan) 
It was noted that 1-SR 005/007 and attendance monitoring could be difficult, 
but it was currently under discussion.  The recommendations were agreed. 
•  Course and Programme Management  (Process Champion – Professor Andrea 
Nolan) 
Recommendations were agreed. 
gla.exsmg/exsmg/minutes/2009-03-17/1 

Senior Management Group Tuesday 17 March 2009 
•  Admissions (Process Champion – David Newall) 
It was noted that there was already a considerable level of centralisation in 
admissions but that there still needed to be full agreement relating to 
centralised PGT and the effective balance between centre and Faculty 
/Department in selecting for PGR.  With the assurance that Deans will have to 
back the decision it was agreed. Recommendations agreed. 
•  Registration and Enrolment (Process Champion  - Dr Carol Clugston) 
It was recognised that there will be tension in this area given the conditions that 
all teaching space would be centrally allocated.   Recommendations agreed. 
•  Progression (Process Champion – Professor Paul Hagan) 
It was noted that this policy area may be difficult to achieve given the variety 
of practices across the University.  However, with the caveat that greater 
standardisation should be the goal, the proposal was agreed. 
•  Assessment  (Process Champion – Professor Paul Hagan) 
Recommendations agreed. 
•  Exam management  (Process Champion – Christine Lowther) 
Recommendation agreed. 
•  Graduations (Process Champion – Christine Lowther) 
Recommendation agreed 
•  Research (Process Champion – Dr Carol Clugston) 
Recommendations agreed 
•  Reporting (Process Champion – Professor Neal Juster) 
 
Recommendation agreed 
•  Student Profile (Process Champion – Christine Lowther) 
Recommendation agreed 
•  Student Financials (Process Champion – Robert Fraser) 
Recommendations agreed. 
It was agreed that CRP1 should be completed in September 2009 given SMG’s 
agreement that policy issues identified in Appendix 2 did not constitute any major 
hurdles. 
Finally it was agreed that a lot of PR should be undertaken through MyGlasgow and 
other outlets to publicise the project positively and to encourage people to be involved 
in its development.  It will be important to try and engender a sense of excitement 
based on the potential of the Campus Solutions to improve many of the systems and 
service currently operating on Campus. 
EXSMG/2008/76.   Staff Survey (Paper)  
The Director of Human Resources reported on the outcomes of the latest Staff Survey.  
He highlighted the improved response rate of 32% which was well up on the 2007 
response rate of 20%.  Overall the results gave good grounds for encouragement with 
scores in virtually all KPIs up (none were down) on 2009 compared to 2007 and with 
no D category (Urgent actions needed) entries against the HSE Well being (Stress) 
measures, 7-factor scores.  Having said that he noted that there were significant 
performance variations across Faculties and he intended, as before, to visit each Faculty 
to discuss in more detail the specific results for each. 
It was agreed, given the generally positive outcome of the survey, that an article would 
be posted on MyGlasgow with some indication of the value of the survey in  
gla.exsmg/exsmg/minutes/2009-03-17/1 


Senior Management Group Tuesday 17 March 2009 
 
 
gla.exsmg/exsmg/minutes/2009-03-17/1