ICT Strategy Programme Final Consultation Paul Jeffreys ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy

1. ICT Strategy Programme • Final Consultation • Paul Jeffreys • http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy • http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy/plan • http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy/plan/plan.xml.ID=route_planner (1)

2. Remit • “The overall aim of the ICT Strategic Plan is to enable colleges, departments, faculties and divisions to offer their users the best and most cost-effective ICT services and resources, to ensure that local ICT investment results in maximum benefits and to provide the best possible environment and support for academic life within the University of Oxford.” • If asked to summarise in one line:- • “… to enable academic community to determine strategic priorities in ICT, and to constrain overall financial envelope” (2)

3. Interaction with MPLS • Set of presentations/consultations:- • MPLS ASUC: 2 November 2005 • MPLS Board: 25 November 2005 • MPLS ICT Panel: 17 January 2006 • ICTC: 19 January 2006 • ICTC: 2 March 2006 • Open Meeting: 26 May 2006 • ICTC: 8 June 2006 • Members of SG: • Keith Burnett, Ken Peach, Anne Trefethen, Pete Biggs, Jim Davies, Mike Giles, • Members of WTs: • Rhys Newman, Graham Lee, Robert Taylor, Andrew Martin • MPLS been very much part of process of creating ICT Strategic Plan • Thank you for essential contributions • Now – time for MPLS to stand back and appraise the current status … (3)

4. Status and Background (4)

5. Status • Last meeting of ICTS SG, 1 June 2006: • Later than expected, meant that consultation period in TT missed • Presentation to PRAC in TT • Content fine, need to improve style and language • Over summer: • Completed Draft ICT Strategic Plan • Produced online version • Access to individual paragraphs • Numerous attempts at Summary/Consultation Document… • 14 November – momentous day! • Consultation document (circulated) agreed by PRAC • Consultation period started the next day • Closes on Friday 26 January 2007 • Final ICT Strategic Plan will be submitted to PRAC near the end HT • Consultation starts with MPLS! • Just as well this meeting was postponed.. (5)

6. Strategy - Fundamental Principles • The prioritisation and development of ICT services must be driven by Oxford’s teaching, learning, research and administrative requirements • Oxford Corporate Plan used to ensure alignment with institutional goals: http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2004-5/supps/corporate.htm • The provision of ICT services must be both flexible and responsive as requirements change • The framework for the delivery of ICT must ensure that tailored local ICT support and management is retained • The working environment of the 600 ICT Staff who are employed around the University should be one which enables them to work together more closely so that best practice is shared. A clear career development route should also be provided for ICT staff • There must be an effective mechanism to appraise centrally funded ICT provision in order to ensure that overall central ICT expenditure is contained within an agreed budget specified by the University. Priorities should be determined by the academic community and take into account local ICT requirements and planning • “Principles and processes necessary to deliver optimal, cost-effective ICT • which will satisfy the University’s performance standards” (6)

7. “Strategy developed by consensus” • An adventure! • Try something new • Bottom-up approach through set of Work Tasks (WTs) • More than fifty contributors from across collegiate University • Organic process! • Many of which – addressing top-down issues • Build scenarios • Biggest challenge:- • Bring together outputs from WTs coherently • Iterate ideas - whilst retaining shared responsibility • Strawman Strategic Plans crucial • Companion ICT Strategic Programme Formal Record • Everything available at: http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy • Available across Oxford and beyond (7)

8. Conclusions of Programme (8)

9. Draft ICT Strategic Plan - contents • Executive Summary • Document Route Planner • Purpose • 1. User-Oriented ICT Requirements • 2. Strategic ICT Requirements • 3. Oxford ICT Structure • 4. Integration of Enterprise Activities • 5. The ICT Budget and Priority Plan • 6. ICT Structure for Coordinated Decision Making • 7. ICT Strategy Implementation -- Phase 2 • Conclusions • Appendix A: ICT Investment – Five Year Roadmap • Appendix B: Terms of Reference of the PRAC Sub-Cttee Structure • Appendix C: Role and Responsibilities of the Director of ICT • Appendix D: Organisation Structure for ICT Projects • Appendix E: Scenarios for Success • Appendix F: Glossary • Appendix G: Consultations and References First two Sections describe the current state of ICT services across the University and provide the context for the recommendations which follow Sections 3-5 set out the case for ICT change in Oxford In order to effect this change, a new structure for the governance of ICT is required, which includes the creation of a new sub-committee of PRAC and a new post of Director of ICT; Section 6 Assuming that a new structure and the other recommendations are approved, it will then be necessary to move on to the implementation of the plan; Section 7 Online document – accessible by paragraph (9)

10. Single consolidated view of ICT investment by the University with spending priorities specified by the academic community Create a definitive 5-year expenditure plan for Oxford’s central ICT investment Ability to set ICT priorities in order to constrain overall central expenditure while at the same time ensuring that ‘mission critical’ applications are appropriately resourced Section 5 highlight (10)

11. Proposed new converged governance structure for ICT across collegiate University Principal elements of the structure are : ICT Sub-committee to the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee GPC for more detailed work User Forum to ensure engagement with ICT users across the University Architecture Group Post of Director of ICT single point of contact for ICT providing leadership and coordination for ICT strategic planning and implementation Section 6 highlight (11)

12. Additional Comments • The University of Oxford internal auditors assessed our ICT Strategic Plan against the National Computing Centre’s and JISC’s best practice guidelines and we received a clean bill of health • Received advice from many other Universities (UK, US and NZ) • Manchester (Mark Clark) and Auckland (John Hosking) - in particular • Gartner consulted on a regular basis (12)

13. Questions – in MPLS context (1) • Is the strategy the correct one for the collegiate University and will it deliver the ICT services which you would expect in a leading international University? • Open question - relates to the entire ICT Strategic Plan and its recommendations; does MPLS identify a change of emphasis needed? • Is the proposed ICT decision-making structure sufficient to ensure that the academic community can set ICT strategic policy and priorities? • Appropriate MPLS representation? • Appropriate MPLS strategic input and control? • Does the ICT Strategic Plan provide the right balance between a devolved ICT structure and a coordinated approach to the development of ICT services? • Tricky balance, attempt to keep all the advantages of a devolved structure while also benefiting from coordination/standardisation; is it correct? • Will central ICT services provide environment to maximise return on MPLS investment? (13)

14. Questions – in MPLS context (2) • Does the ICT Strategic Plan provide appropriate mechanisms to ensure that services within the three-layer model described in the Plan can work together? • Will MPLS be able to make sure the central services deliver what you need? • Does MPLS support the Architecture Group? • Does MPLS believe the new structure will make it possible to determine which applications/services should go where? • Does the ICT Strategic Plan provide a basis on which the collegiate University can identify overall central ICT expenditure, set the priorities for ICT investment and do so within the context of competing priorities and financial constraints? • Does MPLS believe it will be able to specify ICT policy and strategy? • Does MPLS believe it will be able to specify priorities for central ICT expenditure? • Does MPLS believe it will be able to constrain central ICT expenditure? • Does MPLS believe the new converged governance will ensure central ICT projects deliver? (14)

15. End of presentation • Questions • http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy/ (15)

16. Section 6 continued • Recommendations • R28. Develop a committee structure as proposed which should provide strategic direction for ICT, determine ICT policy and agree the priorities for central ICT investment. The committee structure will also ensure mission-critical ICT services are resilient and reliable; identify and manage risks; ensure Oxford complies with relevant legislation; and put in place quality assurance standards for optimal ICT operational delivery • R31. Establish an Architecture Group to develop and maintain an interoperability framework for Oxford together with the monitoring of ICT projects' adherence to appropriate standards • R32. Create a User Forum with a cross-section of Oxford ICT users • Benefits • The new structure will be able to establish the academic requirements and so determine the strategy and policy framework for ICT across the University. It will also formulate, review and oversee the University’s programme of ICT projects; • The Director of ICT will be able to promote ICT across the University, to provide leadership and coordination for ICT strategic planning, to ensure that mission-critical services are delivered and to implement the ICT Strategic Plan; (16)

17. Scenarios for Success • http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy/plan/plan.xml.ID=appE • Brief scenarios intended as illustrative examples of: • benefits which might result from the identification and prioritisation of shared ICT services for Oxford • their implementation within a coherent information environment • Scenarios derive their priorities from user feedback and connect those requirements with the ICT priorities given as outputs • Roles represented by scenarios: • Undergraduate Student • Graduate Student • Part-time Taught Postgraduate Masters Student • Researcher • Lecturer • Department Administrator • Head of Division/Department • IT Support Officer • College Alumni Officer (17)

18. Section 1 • Summarises the changes that have been requested by users • Principal aspirations include: • Easy access to the network for members and authorised visitors; • A single method for accessing online resources, from any location and at any time; • Systems to support teaching, research and administration which talk to one another, are continuously available, and can be tailored for, and evolve with, individual requirements; • A means to determine the technical feasibility for new requirements (e.g. plagiarism detection, secure electronic submission); • Secure online storage for personal files and a digital repository for the outputs from research, teaching and administration; • Improvements to Oracle Financials, including an efficient purchasing interface, more flexible general ledger reporting, and better grants reporting; and • Provision of training and support associated with each ICT service or development. (18)

19. Section 2 • Consider Oxford’s strategic ICT requirements to achieve the objectives of the University as set out in its Corporate Plan • In order to benefit from local ICT provision within a devolved ICT structure, there must be: • improved coordination and interoperability • Oxford must be in a position to respond effectively to statutory requirements • Recommendation • R3. Recognise that Oxford’s devolved ICT infrastructure should be a heterogeneous but coordinated set of ICT services, some run centrally, some locally and many shared • Benefits • ICT policy and investment determined by research, educational and administrative needs • An ICT framework capable of underpinning world-class research using innovative ICT to improve efficiency, functionality, and communications (19)

20. Section 3 • A proposal to refine and develop Oxford’s devolved ICT structure • Identify three distinct types of ICT provision and principles which determine allocation • ‘local’ (within college or department and generally provided without central ICT funds) • ‘standards-based shared services’ • ‘enterprise-wide services’ (central service provision) • An ICT Forum which will coordinate and represent all ICT staff in the University and report into a new Co-ordinated ICT Decision Making structure (20)

21. Section 3 continued • Recommendations • R9. Refine the devolved Oxford ICT structure through the application of a three-layer model comprising local services, standards-based shared services and enterprise-wide services • R12. Specify and implement the required standards for interoperability so that local units will be able to make judgements regarding the most cost-effective means of delivering services to their users within the three-layer model • R14. Create an ICT Forum in which all IT support staff within Oxford are represented, coordinated, and allocated a small but sufficient budget in order to develop a secondment scheme and fund other small-scale relevant activities • R15. Develop the structures necessary to enable Oxford to benefit from coordinated purchasing of ICT hardware, software, and consumables • Benefits • Agreed set of principles and criteria for the development, maintenance and evaluation of ICT services • Value-for-money gained through improved support for coordinated purchasing of ICT hardware and software and a reduction in the replication of services (21)

22. Section 4 • Oxford’s enterprise applications (i.e. those that operate across the University) to interconnect seamlessly and effectively and to interoperate with local applications. • Recommendations • R16. Ensure the integration of enterprise and shared ICT services through the development of an over-arching interoperability policy, including both organisational and technical aspects • R17. Base the interoperability of enterprise systems on standards agreed via an Architecture Group (part of a new Governance structure) • R20. Develop supporting structures for the planning and management of ICT projects, including the definition and use of appropriate methodologies • Benefits • Procurement of centrally-provided systems which match the requirements defined by the part of the collegiate University sponsoring the activity; • Availability of University-wide services which provide a single means of accessing online systems and resources for students and staff, whether part-time or full-time and whether or not they are resident in Oxford (22)