ICT Strategy Programme University of Oxford Higher Education Strategy Meeting

1. ICT Strategy Programme • University of Oxford • Higher Education Strategy Meeting • Professor Paul Jeffreys • http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy • http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy/plan (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.” (2)

3. Agenda • Why? • What? • How? • Conclusions • What learnt? (3)

4. Background and Why? • So why does anything need to change? (4)

5. Background • History: • Unfinished IT framework dating from 1999 • Internal audit found IT provision to be good in 2004 • In many units the service is good; but not all • Summer 2004, ICT Strategy commissioned • September 2004, new V-C requested ICT Strategy (and asked to address common desktop) • Developing an ICT Strategy recognised as particularly tricky:- • No genuine existing University ICT Governance • University Governance structure under change • Only ‘rudimentary’ Information Strategy • V-C, Gartner, IBM, others - all stress that change is needed • “In less than 3 years – uncompetitive” • Yes – but why?! (5)

6. Why? • At number of levels: • IT support: • Replication of services (tens of email servers, idle clusters..) • Unequal quality of service • Functionality (eg college/department) • Best use of resources • Overall service: • Optimise security • ‘Best practice’ • Means of reaching agreement (wifi, Directory Services, calendar, authentication..) • Management and investment: • No ability for University (academics) to set/agree ICT priorities • No ability to create 5-year plan for expenditure • No ability for value-added (eg digital preservation, knowledge management) (6)

7. Why? • At number of levels: • IT support: • Replication of services (tens of email servers, idle clusters..) • Unequal quality of service • Functionality (eg college/department) • Best use of resources • Overall service: • Optimise security • ‘Best practice’ • Means of reaching agreement (wifi, Directory Services, calendar, authentication..) • Management and investment: • No ability for University (academics) to set/agree ICT priorities • No ability to create 5-year plan for expenditure • No ability for value-added (eg digital preservation, knowledge management) • All important – but these four are fundamental… Can also answer question from perspective of “Council”:- • VfM • Optimise ICT as a whole • Ability of academic community to define ICT spend priorities • Ability to constrain central ICT spend while adequately funding mission-critical services • Reduce replication • Make best use of 600 IT staff (7)

8. Devolved ICT Framework • Absolutely fundamental characteristic • All Universities have a devolved ICT framework to some extent • Likely that Oxford one end of the spectrum • Central Service Providers: • Three main providers • Not well integrated • Hundreds of units (departments, institutes, ..) across the University • 39 Colleges • In terms of support to users, central computing services responsible up to the front door – autonomy behind the front door • Devolved framework: • Great strength • Local support with local expertise • Restrictive • Constrained in what is possible • -> Have to be creative, collegiate! (8)

9. What? • Fundamental changes or what? (9)

10. 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 (10)

11. V-C’s Oration – October 2005 • “ ICT is an integral component of the fabric of the University because it underpins our research, teaching, and administrative activities. Our current and continuing investment in ICT across these activities is significant and requires careful monitoring. In order to meet the relevant objectives in the Corporate Plan, an ICT Plan will be developed this year detailing the principles and processes necessary to deliver optimal, cost-effective ICT which will satisfy the University’s performance standards.” • NB - Not a plan to implement ICT change (yet) (11)

12. What would be delivered? • Continued emphasis on subsidiarity • Continued emphasis on mobility • combines wireless networking, integration of personal devices, and location-independent access to Oxford systems • Access to information and resources which are integrated and personalised for learning, research, or administration • Improved communication of events, expertise, and availability of resources across Oxford • Enhanced and more responsible management of information sources and data repositories • Secure data storage and access at a personal and organisational level • Support for coordinated and flexible desktop computing • Continued development of new ICT services driven by user needs • Greater reliability of ICT systems, with round-the-clock availability • Cost savings on the purchase of ICT components • Continued collaboration between, and better career development for, IT support staff across Oxford (12)

13. How? • Can you ‘develop strategy by consensus’? (13)

14. V-C’s launch of ICT Strategy exercise – Sept ‘05 • Three main points, summarised as follows: • The University’s draft corporate plan includes a firm commitment to developing a coherent ICT strategy by April 2006. • Secondly, there would never be sufficient resources to meet all of the University’s aspirations. This underlined the importance of using, to the best possible effect, resources provided for support activities such as ICT. • Finally, one of the University’s great strengths is its federal structure and none of the thinking behind the establishment of the ICT Strategy Steering Group challenges the federal nature of the University. Indeed, conversely, there is scope for a more coherent ICT strategy and set of policies to underpin the enhanced fulfillment of individual aspirations. (14)

15. “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 • All information related to WTs available on the web • 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 (15)

16. Work Tasks • Each WT given an initial remit: • Undertook ‘Landscape Survey’ to see if anything missing • Each WT – chaired by member of ICTS Steering Group, half members SG • First task of each WT was to refine its remit, set membership • Each WT: • Met 4-5 times • Had membership of c. 10 • Documented activities • Contributed to specific parts of Strawman Strategic Plan • Everything related to WTs available on the web • Gantt chart defined interdependencies between WTs, coordinated through programme manager • Degree of risk, but really effective • One WT given responsibility for regular round of consultations to ensure University of Oxford was fully aware of developments • ‘Scenarios’ proved to be very popular and uniformly liked (16)

17. A: Description and Goals endorsement and Gazette Publication B: Ongoing Consultations C: University Strategic Objectives and Plan D: ICT Requirements for Collegiate University E: Federated Environment and Governance F: ICT Consultant and Team Interface G: External Research H: Large Scale Investments I: Timescales and Costs for Collegiate University J: Development of Strategic Plan K: Long Term Future-Stating Work Tasks http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy/worktasks/ (17)

18. 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 (18)

19. (19)

20. Is the process viable? • ‘Strategy by consensus’ has delivered a powerful set of proposals • Requires good relationships before starting the exercise • Requires appropriate leaders in the WTs • Strawman – essential; test ideas • If you make everything accessible on the web, if you consult widely (there were c. 40 different consultations), if you actively seek feedback • > Don’t we surprised if you receive a lot of input! • MUST deal with it • Ultimate measure of success – still waiting to see… • Good support from team • Good contributions from across University • Strategy not seen as threat • Preparing ground for change as we develop plan (20)

21. Conclusions of Programme • How did it all coalesce? (21)

22. 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-Committee 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. This is a critical part of the plan and is to be found in 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 - described in section 7 Online document – accessible by paragraph (22)

23. 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. (23)

24. 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 (24)

25. 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 (25)

26. 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 (26)

27. 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 (27)

28. Section 5 • Creation of 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 • To develop an effective 5-year Plan, we need a consistent methodology… • Recommendations • R21. Define an approach and a set of principles to develop a 5-year University ICT Budget and Priority Plan covering the services funded centrally • R22. Enable users across the collegiate University to specify priorities for central ICT investment; the Plan should be updated yearly, and should offer a single consolidated view of central ICT investment • R25. Establish processes to appraise expenditure on ICT in teaching, learning, research and administration, to measure total cost of ownership, to prioritise expenditure on new central ICT projects, and to establish and keep within a specified budget • Benefits • Single consolidated view of ICT investment by the University with spending priorities specified by the academic community; • Ability to ensure that adequate resources are available so that high-priority ICT services are effective, robust and reliable, and to ensure that the total central ICT investment is correctly managed. (28)

29. Proposed new 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 to provide leadership and coordination for ICT strategic planning and implementation Section 6 (29)

30. 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; (30)

31. Additional Comments • The JISC Framework for Information Systems Management and Governance Self Assessment Toolkit - proved to be a useful guide • 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 relatively clean bill of health • Gartner consulted on a regular basis (Marti Harris) • Had advice from many other Universities (UK, US and NZ) • Manchester (Mark Clark) and Auckland (John Hosking) - in particular • Welcome further feedback from this Symposium! (31)

32. Lessons? • What do I take away? (32)

33. PWJ analysis (1) • Development of an ICT Strategy needs high level sponsorship • Change must be supported from the top • An ICT strategy has to be adapted to meet local requirements • Local culture, approach, conventions are crucially important • The ICT Strategy cannot be driven by the service providers • Great care must be taken with language used • An ICT strategy can only be developed with respect to the prevailing conditions; and must be realistic in its aspirations • First phase ambitions must be defined clearly • Expectation must be managed • Developing a Plan needs new dedicated resource and (at least) one person to own the activity • Must not be seen as being driven by one of the service provider units • Strategy by consensus is possible/essential • Focused on ability for academic community to set ICT priorities • Risk analysis: delay vs likelyhood of achieving full consensus (33)

34. PWJ analysis (2) • Corporate memory important for reasonably long-term strategic planning (‘can anyone remember how this started?!’) • If the ICT services provided centrally do not have converged governance, capability to improve and optimise is limited • Academic champions are required within the Strategy programme team • Crucially important to have bridge between centre and academic university • Trusted on both sides • A truly open and consultative approach requires significant investment • Important to respond to all feedback • Scenarios very important as part of user requirements process and for communicating the potential end-benefits for the user community How much specific to Oxford – how much generic? (34)

35. … and finally – current status • BUT - perhaps too early to be drawing grand conclusions!? • Draft ICT Strategic Plan is complete; online version • About to complete a final round of consultation across Collegiate University • If all goes well, will be signed-off by University in January 2007 • Create new ICT governance structure • Create ICT Forum • Begin implementation phase • Success of ICT Strategy Programme will be measured through the improved services enjoyed by users (35)

36. End of presentation • http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy/ (36)