Our ref: FOI Review 2011/21 – F0177506
25 October 2011
Mr Wolfram Bayer
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mr Bayer,
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – Review Outcome
I write with regard to your request for a review of the University’s response to your Freedom
of Information request (Our Ref FOI 2011/223-F0166064). Your areas of concern relate to:
1.
David Newall on numerous occasions has claimed that the implementation of this
system will result in saving of £500,000 per year. You now tell me that you do not know
that annual cost of MyCampus. Without knowing the annual cost of MyCampus how did
David Newall know that there would be an annual saving of £500,000? Please speak to
him as he must have known the recurrent cost of MyCampus before making such a claim.
2.
Replying to another FoI request:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/61508/response/157150/attach/2/Response
%20F0130074.pdf you released the following information: “Campus software maintenance
– following purchase of the above licences a software contract then provides support from
Oracle including the provision of ongoing new releases. The annual cost of this
maintenance is £264,473 per annum.” You now say that the support cost is £160,000 per
year. Which figure is correct?
3.
I have found it very difficult to believe that you have not budgeted for the
consultancy costs.
Finally, a while ago you claimed: “The Project Board, chaired by David Newall,
Secretary of Court, has responsibility for costs and these are recorded and monitored in
accordance with the governance structure.” See:
http://whatdotheyknow.com/request/working_practices_for_student_li#incoming-26837
Considering the fact that you cannot account for the cost of this project I wish to
suggest that the project Board, chaired by David Newall, have failed miserably.
Your first point asks how, without knowing the annual cost of MyCampus, David Newall
knew that there would be an annual saving of £500,000. You will know from your reading of
responses to other FoI requests that the figure of £500,000 was an estimate based on an
analysis of selected areas where savings were expected to be made. Similarly, any figure
based on a comparison of annual costs prior to the transition and anticipated costs for the
reworked range of processes that would be carried out annually once Campus Solutions was
implemented, would also be an approximation.
The second point you raise is about annual licence costs. Please accept apologies on behalf
of the University, as the response that you should have received was that there are no
annual licence costs, since a one-off licence fee amounting to £758,095 was paid at the
commencement of the project for the perpetual right to use the software. No further
licence fees are due, unless there is an increase in staff numbers (Full Time Equivalents)
which is not envisaged in the foreseeable future. The figure of £160,000 (including VAT)
provided to you was the sum budgeted as at September 2011 for 2011-12 for the software
maintenance contract for Campus Solutions, which covers support from Oracle including the
ongoing provision of new releases. The figure of £264,473 provided in response to another
request in March 2011 was based on the actual cost of the software maintenance contract in
the two financial years from 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2010. Since the amounts were
incorrectly added together, the actual expenditure over that period was £284,473 rather
than £264,473.
I have noted the comments you make in your third and final point. I am satisfied that the
response sent to you on 27 September meets the obligations of the University under the
terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
I confirm that this letter signifies the end of the University’s internal procedures. If you
remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this review you can appeal to the Scottish
Information Commissioner. You must submit your complaint in writing to the Commissioner
within 6 months of receiving this response to review letter. The Commissioner may be
contacted as follows:
Scottish Information Commissioner
Kinburn Castle
Doubledykes Road
St. Andrews
Fife KY16 9DS
Tel: 01334 464610
Email: xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Please be advised there is a right of appeal to the Court of Session against the
Commissioner's decisions, but only on a point of law.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Anne B Mitchell
Corporate Projects Manager