Agenda

1. Agenda

2. University of St AndrewsSER Universities Scotland Circularon the provision of online PGT informationThe Proctor14 August 2014College Gate, St Andrews

3. Requirement for online PGT information By spring 2015, we need to have a functional and rich online environment to provide information about our Postgraduate Taught courses. The audience is both UK and international potential students as well as our statutory customers. In some ways this is a similar requirement to the statutory Undergraduate Key Information Set (KIS) but without the requirement to collect raw assessment or teaching and learning data.

4. Proposal for development There was no ITS investment in 2013 during SER for PGT students although it was recognised that the current online Course Search facility was sub-standard for this cohort. In addition, a decision was taken not to develop further over the summer of 2014. Now that the work on the summer 2014 “burning platforms” is drawing to a close, we suggest that the Advisory Board look at the requirements in the USS Circular and plan how best to satisfy them in the short- and long-term. Development work should be finished by 31 December 2014.

5. University of St AndrewsSER Highlights fromGap analysis reportMargaret Park (Tribal)14 August 2014College Gate, St Andrews

6. The purpose of the gap analysis Tribal was asked by the SER Programme Board in May 2014 to conduct a gap analysis of the capability of SITS software to deliver the requirements collected in 2013.

7. When and where The gap analysis was conducted on site at St Andrews in June and July 2014. Lean Central was the venue throughout the summer.The analysis was done in partnership with St Andrews operational staff working alongside Margaret Park (Tribal).The SER project documentation collected in 2013 was compared to present requirements as discussed with workshop attendees from Schools and Units.

8. Not in scope of the gap analysis The gap analysis did not examine the skills capability of St Andrews to deliver user interface design (ie, “look and feel”).Requirements for tailoring or re-skinning using Java, for example, would need to be analysed separately by other means.

9. Gaps that were analysed – SITS local configuration A gap analysis was conducted looking at the SITS configuration at St Andrews compared to what is needed for SITS product functionality as required by the individual projects.SITS upgrades have been maintained at St Andrews and the current version of the software (8.7.0) with plans to upgrade in November 2014 is sufficient to deliver the proposed SITS solutions.

10. Gaps that were analysed – Local SITS skills A gap analysis was conducted looking at the SITS skills currently available at St Andrews to develop and maintain the proposed SITS solutions.The analysis found that there is an insufficient volume and, in some instances, expertise in the use of local SITS skills to deliver the proposed SITS solution in-house.

11. Training requirements Training of St Andrews operational staff and ITS developers would be required so that the legacy of SER is sustainable in-house.Tribal could provide on-site training as part of the continuous improvement exercise envisioned at St Andrews.

12. Gaps that were analysed – Project requirements vs SITS software functionality A gap analysis was conducted looking at the previously approved SER projects in terms of the requirements gathered in 2013 (reconfirmed in summer of 2014) and comparing those to SITS product functionality.The analysis found that in all but a few known instances the current SITS software can deliver the approved project requirements in terms of functionality.

13. The projects that were analysed Only previously approved SER projects were truly analysed for gaps between requirements and SITS product functionality. Advising Paperless Admissions Curriculum Approvals Changes of Circumstance Collaborations & Study Abroad database Student Funding Administration

14. The projects that were analysed For each project, the gap analysis identified where St Andrews already has SITS software under licence to provide for the project requirements or where additional software components would need to be licenced in order to deliver the proposed solutions. In some cases it was found that St Andrews has had a SITS component for some time but has not implemented it fully or in sufficient detail to satisfy the project requirements.

15. The Tribal proposed solutions – SITS component gaps The following table of SITS software components summarises the gaps that would need bridging in order to implement the Tribal proposed solutions:

16. Additional projects that were considered In addition to the approved projects, additional requirements that were directly related and shared by projects were discussed although not analysed. These included: Document Management Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) for case management and enquiry management Interactive Workspaces (called Portals in e-Vision)

17. Document Manager Almost all of the projects has the requirement for collecting, storing and displaying documentation.The University already has and uses the SITS software component that enables these processes; however, not all users follow the same business model and there is no enterprise solution.The SITS Document Manager solution is suitable for all of the approved project requirements.

18. Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) – For individual student enquiry resolution ESD has a fully integrated interface with SITS and an API that allows integration with other systems but it is a separate software component currently used by 35 HE customers.The software is component built which means it is as customisable as required by local needs.

19. Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) – for case management Student Services is considering a case management system and staff have recently had an onsite demonstration by Ken Barrett (Tribal product expert) of Tribal’s solution – Enterprise Service Desk (ESD).

20. End of part one

21. University of St AndrewsSERProgramme benefits and why a continued Tribal partnership is beneficialClaire DohertyPrepared by the SER Operations Group (Mohammad Asadullah, Claire Doherty, Daniel Farrell, Nadege Minois and Kevin Thomson)

22. Rationale for a benefits model for SER Early on in the SER programme, the Ops Group realised that we did not have sufficient or robust information to make educated guesses at the cost-saving benefits of all the SER projects. So, instead of using the more conventional approach of benefits categorisation such as finance/risk and compliance/time saving, the SER Operations Group decided to classify the benefits of the SER projects using the four SER principles. Our first task was to evaluate the importance of each principle to apply a weighting factor if necessary. We chose 1 to mean least important and 4 to mean most important.

23. SER Programme principles prioritised as benefits

24. Conclusion of straw poll Although each attendee perceived the importance of each of the four principles differently, the overall importance of each principle is similar if the total scores are compared.

25. What each SER principle means to us in terms of benefits

26. Simplification • Cyclical process review / continuous improvement • Process-led technology (do not strap/bolt in ITS) • Eliminate hoops • Increase service delivery / pace • Clarify cross-unit communications • Promote institutional change • Decrease cost / increase revenue • Improve customer service • Improve data quality • Expose problems • Increase creative capacity • Better management of resources

27. Visibility & Transparency • Hold fast to golden sources: minimise or eliminate local copies • Provide re-usable data for management information • Improve decision making and quality of decision • Provide more information for analysis • Clarify inter-departmental communications • Give better control for less fragmentation • Improve audit preparation / self-monitoring • Write better documentation including semantics and meta-data • Less shooting down of each other’s ideas • Encourage self-improvement • Improve data quality through aeration • Expose gaps / problems in systems and business processes

28. e-Enablement • Reduce or minimise sutures between systems (ie, keep the bonnet closed to end users) • Encourage a move towards standards and structured data • Paper-lite delivery to encourage the Green Agenda • Mobile device and web promoted developments • Easy and ready (24/7) access • Commonality in design and features • Sex up the image (do away with the clunky) • Promote innovation and modernisation • Permit customisation so the system caters for the user • Be ahead of the game by listening to users/feedback • Make staff feel part of the developments (eg, workspace designs)

29. Adaptability & Flexibility • Design for the repeatable / prototypical • Decrease cost of repair / maintenance • Ensure that process flows are delegable • Upgradable / maintainable while in circulation • Insist on reliability • Design for friendly interactions to encourage use • Responsive to external changes • Infrastructure needs to be recoverable and not staff dependent • Work towards individual customisation at surface • Always be scalable

30. Do the SER projects bring the identified benefits? And are the SER principles applicable to non-SER projects?

31. Case study 1: Paperless Admissions

32. Case study 2: Online Matriculation

33. “Time spent on…” – some bad institutional habits • …resolving individual student cases (going “round-the-houses”) • …researching full information on different systems • …answering enquiries without monitoring response rates • …manually correcting data between systems and in local files • …uploading / scanning documents that become invisible to most users • …maintaining system interfaces since we hold data in different places • …diagnosing system-to-system problems • …developing and testing but never going live in time • …finding / creating work-arounds (creative space to get the right answer vs. quick fixes from lack of time/permission to be creative at work) • …reporting (lack of e-enablement) • …waiting on responses because of bottlenecks created by too few experts

34. Time saving benefits for staff • Staff know that they can work quicker (save time), more accurately (increase quality) and more creatively (be ahead of the game). • Staff know that if systems permitted, we can achieve greater improvement without continually expanding staff complement. • Staff want to benefit from the correlation, ie, by freeing up a percentage of staff time and saving money, the University will be in a position to re-invest. Re-investment needs to be in the areas of professional development, self-improvement and the continuous improvement of processes and services.

35. Why would a SITS user at St Andrews want to argue for staying with Tribal?

36. The SITS benefits from a user’s perspective • Tribal are market leaders in this area, providing SITS software for more than 70% of the UK HE/FE sector, expanding in Australia/NZ, South Africa, Ireland and North America • A reputable and well-known 3rd party supplier so conversations in statutory areas are easier (eg, HESA, UCAS) • Nine of the Scottish HEIs are Tribal customers and there is a strong user community and knowledge base among colleagues in Scotland • The product is well-supported (MySITS helpdesk & Forums)

37. We already know SITS very well (first installation in 1999) and we already have most of the technology required although it is unutilised or not customised • Range of experts and beginners among staff in Registry, Finance, Student Services which means that up-skilling and training are easier • Well-established SITS Internal User Group for information sharing and decision making • We have a strong voice in the SITS user community – Scottish and North England Regional User Group, Executive User Group, various UK Working Groups and Special Interest Groups

38. Reciprocal reputation for Tribal and St Andrews in a partnership arrangement so that we maintain a competitive market edge • Cost benefit if all student administration tools were to be built on a single platform • Cost benefit as ongoing Tribal consultancy would become less of a dependency as staff become specialistsand are able to maintain systems and developments

39. End of presentation twoQ & A

40. University of St AndrewsSERDelivering SER and beyond Steve Bott (Tribal)14 August 2014Master’s RoomHebdomadar’s Block

41. Where delivery of SER will take you Improved performance Informed decision making Better processes

42. A fast-paced, pragmatic delivery style • Uncomplicated, easy to use tools & techniques • Clear and compelling case for change at each/every project stage • Greater clarity within project communications • Single template for benefits/project tracking to inform prioritisation and resource planning decision so that everyone ‘sees’ the same information at every stage of a project • Project delivery supported by a transition towards a Continuous Improvement culture • Creates ‘belief’, builds team ethic and delivers an in-house problem-solving capability A revised governance structure • Responsibility for delivery and decision-making placed closer to the work How Tribal can help you to deliver SER

43. Fast-paced, pragmatic delivery style

44. Option 1 – Iterative/Time driven Iterative methods evolve an entire set of deliverables over time, completing them near the end of the project Project actions are resourced to meet fixed deadline • Contractual • Legislative • Academic calendar • To support dependent project that has fixed deadlines Option 2 – Agile/Continuous improvement Agile methods complete small portions of the deliverables in each delivery cycle (iteration) Project team complete actions as fast as possible within resource availability and BAU cover Agile Project Management

45. Greater clarity within project communications

46. Project Delivery Template – Decision Making

47. Project Delivery Template – Project Management

48. Project managers Often have difficulty in influencing the pace of delivery Seen as ‘outsiders’ by project team Have a different reporting line • Slows down communication • Different agendas and priorities • BAU will always take priority Role is passive Project management accountability retained within project team Placed as close to the point of improvement/change as possible Actions are driven by personal/team needs, gains and benefits Role is active Project Management

49. Project delivery supported by a transition towards a continuous improvement culture

50. Programme planning meets pragmatism Continuous Improvement Plan ? From Here To Here Act Do Check