The CETIS Special Interest Groups

1. The CETIS Special Interest Groups

2. MUSIC: Measuring and Understanding the Systems Integration Challenge in Higher and Further Education Vashti Zarach (summary from a survey done by a team at the Newcastle Centre for Social and Business Informatics), Enterprise SIG Coordinator, JISC CETIS 16th JISC CETIS Enterprise SIG Meeting University of Nottingham Fri 20th April 2007

3. About the survey • In early 2006, JISC put out a tender for aproject to investigate the extent of information systems integration • The project was given to a team from The Newcastle Centre for Social & Business Informatics led byJames Cornford • Some brief details of the project and project team are here: http://www.campus.ncl.ac.uk/unbs/sbi/Project2.asp?ProjectID=36

4. Survey methods Questionnaires • Higher Education: the questionnaires were initially sent out electronically by UCISA to contacts but response was poor so MUSIC contacted senior information systems personnel by phone, eventually getting 29 completed questionnaires [n.b. there are 114 universities in the UK according to http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/faqs/showFaq.asp?ID=2] • Further Education: MUSIC phoned IT directors and managers at 300 colleges directly, but final returns were 21 questionnaires Phone interviews • The team conducted 3 phone interviews for each institution Site visits • The project team made 5 site visits for more in depth interviews

5. Intention of the Survey • JISC commissioned the project to gain an overview of the extent of systems integration in the sector, and use this to feed into development. Project Remit • To find evidence for the extent and nature of systems integration • To explore organizational and managerial factors encouraging or inhibiting integration • To look at benefits and risks of integration

6. What is systems integration? • The project report explains systems integration as an issue which has arisen from the development of computer information systems for administration (Student Records, Finance, Human Resources, etc) and teaching (VLEs, etc) • The report says that over the last 10 to 15 years institutions have moved from using systems built in house to using systems bought from vendors, and need to make these systems interoperable

7. Why to institutions want to integrate systems? The survey lists these as the main drivers for integration: • To improve institutional information management • To support the student experience more seamlessly • To avoid duplicating and re-entering data

8. Well linked systems • 100% of institutions had links between Finance and Student Management (Student Records) • 100% had links between Library and Student Management • 95% had linked Finance and Human Resources • 91% had linked Student Management and Timetable • 90% had linked Student Management and VLE • 83% had linked Finance and Estates • 75% had linked Human Resources and Research Support

9. Poorly linked systems • Finance and Timetable or e-Portfolio • Estate and Library, VLE and e-Portfolio • Timetable and Library and Research Support • Library and Research Support

10. Other findings from the survey • Universities had more systems integration than FE colleges • Admin systems tended to be integrated together (Finance, HR, Estates, Student Management) • Teaching and learning systems (VLE/MLE, Library, Timetable, e-Portfolio, Student Management) tended to be integrated together, but less tightly than admin systems, in a hub and spoke configuration centered around Student Management (which was also at the core of admin systems integration) • The most common method for linking systems is periodic “data dumps” between systems • Very few institutions have a formal systems integration policy • Mote institutions described their integration as incomplete, with further integration intended

11. Approaches to integration • In house: DIY approach to systems and integration • Buying external systems from a small number of vendors, thereby either reducing integration issues or passing them on to vendors • Ad hoc integration using data dumps and data adaptors • Using a central hub between systems sharing data • SOA – “This approach, in which resources on a network are made available as independent services that can be accessed without knowledge of the underlying platform implementation, was generally noted as an aspiration or destination rather than a currently existing strategy.” N.B. Most institutions were in transition between various approaches

12. Barriers to further integration • Lack of resources (costs of staff etc) • Lack of in house skills (especially in FE) • Resistance from academic and service departments wanting to do their own thing and protect “their” data • Lack of representation of the system integration issue at senior level • Lack of understanding in parts of the organization about the multiple uses of data and too much focus on data being used for local purposes only

13. Risks of integration • More errors • Good integration can make integration invisible, so unappreciated by end users • Talk of integration can lead to overambitious user expectations • Integration doesn’t always result in more user engagement • Vendors can lose enthusiasm leaving organizations with large bills and unfinished work • Integration projects can spiral out of scope

14. Project’s Recommendations to JISC • 1. Provide a focus for people dealing with systems institution e.g. an annual conference • 2. Support work exploring new systems architectures and business models, inc SOA and shared services • 3. Work with vendors of HE and FE systems on their approach to integration • 4. Research end user experiences and expectations of integration • 5. Support better evaluation of integration projects and approaches

15. Final Slide • Project contacts • James Cornford (james.cornford@ncl.ac.uk) • Rob Wilson (rob.wilson@ncl.ac.uk) • Survey summarised by Vashti Zarach, Enterprise SIG (V.R.Zarach@bolton.ac.uk)