The paper version submitted to PRAC contains the Executive Summary and a list of the Recommendations and Principles.
Notes
2. Provided mainly by Oxford University Computing Services (OUCS), Business Services and Projects (BSP) in Central Administration, and the Oxford University Library Services (OULS).
3. ‘Holistic’ in the
sense of considering the requirements of the collegiate
University.
4. A new ICT governance structure
for prioritisation, coordination, optimisation and delivery;
described in detail in
Section
6.
5. Including the
services provided by OUCS, BSP and OULS.
6. Described in section
6.
7. It
should be stressed that the CDM structure will not have
responsibility for, nor interfere with, ICT policy and
decisions made within Divisions and Colleges.
8. By ‘ICT’
we mean Information and Communications Technology. ICT encompasses
any use of computing systems and networks to support teaching,
learning, research, and administration within Oxford.
9. By ‘Oxford’ we mean the collegiate
University, and the word is used interchangeably with this
throughout the Strategic Plan.
10. Provided mainly by Oxford University Computing Services (OUCS),
Business Services and Projects (BSP) and the Oxford University
Library Services (OULS).
11. Quote taken from ICT Strategy
Steering Group Terms of Reference.
12. To appreciate how the strategy was
developed by consensus see a companion report, ‘ICT Strategy Programme Record’, available via
http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/strategy/record/. More than 50 members of the collegiate University worked over a period of 8 months to develop an ICT Strategic Plan which was owned by Oxford, and where there was a strong emphasis on reaching consensus before moving forward. The ICT Strategy Programme Record reports the information and evidence received on which the directions of the Plan were built.
13. The term
‘core activities’ will be used elsewhere in the ICT
Strategic Plan to represent the set of activities which define
Oxford.
14. The ‘Oxford ICT
Structure’ is used to refer to the devolved and distributed
organisation of decision-making, resource allocation, service
provision, and support staff within Oxford.
15. Excluding central ICT
service providers and Colleges.
16. ‘Subsidiarity’ – as defined in the
Corporate Plan, “the notion that decisions should be taken at the
lowest level appropriate to the matter in hand. Thus, for example,
deciding what to research is a matter for individuals and, where
relevant, research groups. It becomes a matter for departments and
faculties, divisions and the University as a whole only when
support is required, most obviously through the allocation of
resources. Subsidiarity applies equally to teaching and, of
course, administration generally.” (Para. 14)
17. ‘Central Services’ are those services used across a large part of
Oxford.
18. ‘Central ICT Providers’, providers which deliver ICT
services which the University agrees are best operated from
central ICT units (e.g. Computing Services, Library Services, and
Business Services and Projects).
20. ‘Holistic’ in the sense of
considering the requirements of the collegiate University.
22. Many
institutions, together with the JISC, are working to develop a
framework for systems integration.
23. As far
as possible this applies equally to updates of existing ICT
services.
24. Part of the scrutiny will be
through an Architecture Group, see section 6 for
details.
25. It is crucially important that the
Project Board is fully connected to the part of Oxford
responsible for the core activity which is
facilitated through the ICT project. Ultimate ownership of the
project must remain with the staff responsible for the
core activity.
27. A new ICT governance structure for prioritisation,
coordination, optimisation and delivery; described in detail in
Section 6.
28. ‘Standard’ in
the sense of offering a uniform service across the collegiate
University which provides the core functionality required.
29. Interactions between the colleges and the University
are complex. The Conference of Colleges represents the common
interests of the colleges, especially in negotiation with the
University on matters affecting the collegiate members.
30. I.e.
named on the ITSS register maintained by OUCS and whose role
involves some proportion of formal IT support.
31. Request via the new
decision-making structure proposed in
Section
6.
32. ITSSG is a respected group that
currently provides a degree of co-ordination of all ICT staff –
it organises the current annual conference, organises training
for staff and acts as an interface to the service
providers.
33. ITS3 is the full time unit based
within OUCS that supports ICT Staff in the University and acts
as the executive arm of ITSSG.
34. OULS has approximately 25,000 external members at
any one time.
35. It is hoped that many of these will be ‘open’, but
more importantly they must be ‘agreed’.
36. SOA is key to
refining Oxford’s devolved computing model; a technical appraisal,
however, is outside the scope of this document.
37. ‘Developing an Identity Management system for the collegiate
University will prove a significant challenge requiring
technical assessments, cooperation of senior management, and
coordinating across many units in the collegiate
University.
38. “e-Research is about global
collaboration in key research areas, and the next generation
of infrastructure that will enable it”(Director General of the
Research Councils). The previous director of the UK core
e-Science programme defined it as: “The invention and
exploitation of advanced IT: to generate, curate and analyse
research data; to develop and explore models and simulations;
to enable dynamic distributed virtual organisations”.
44.
Illustrative in the sense that substantial additional
analysis would be required to give reliable investment predictions
produced against consistent criteria. Activities are underway to
specify criteria which define the funding components within ICT
capital projects.
45. Including the services provided by
OUCS, BSP and OULS.
46. Described in section 6.
47. While the amounts in this section are
illustrative, there are indications that the foreseen capital
budget for ICT is unlikely to fund all the services in the ICT
Budget and Priority Plan.
48. The central ICT provider baseline
budget should be evaluated and appraised.
49. The amounts
shown under the capital columns in Table A1.
50. It should be stressed that
the CDM committee structure will not have responsibility for, nor
interfere with, ICT policy and decisions made within Divisions and
Colleges.
51. ‘Governance’ is
employed here in line with the terminology used within the
quotations and references which follow in section 6, and in the
additional commentary provided in the ICT Strategy Programme
Record.
53. The Programme Record explores the
principles of ICT governance in more detail, and in particular
presents a set of indicators of good practice.
55. Strategy determines ‘how you
get there and deliver’, policy specifies ‘where you wish to get
to’. It can be argued that ‘ICT policy’ does not exist as policy
is set to meet Core activity goals at the institutional
level.
56. ICT
management will be considered in phase 2 during the planning of
the implementation of the ICT Strategic Plan.
57. Management of risk is explored in the Programme Record.
58. The legislative environment is further considered in
the Programme Record.
59. Information Systems Audit and Control
Association (ISACA): COBIT,
http://www.isaca.org/cobit/. A summary of COBIT is also
provided in the Programme Record.
60. Also, will offer a point of interface for the Internal
Auditors.
61. Focusing, in
particular, on mission critical services.
62. ‘ICT S/c’ represents both Strategy and Implementation arms of the sub-committee
64. The
amount the University allocates from its central funds to
ICT.
65. It is known
that the amount currently allocated is insufficient to meet the
needs identified in this Strategic Plan.
68.
Illustrative in the sense that substantial additional
analysis would be required to give reliable investment predictions.
Activities are underway to define criteria for specifying funding
components within ICT capital projects.
69. Prioritise, or define appropriate funding
mechanism.
70.
Sample Costing Processes As indicated above, the figures
in Table A1 have been generated through different costing models
within the various units. Commentary is provided in order to
illustrate current practice.
OUCS: Where the ICT
investment is in upgrading or replacing current equipment, no
increase is projected for recurrent costs (staff, maintenance,
etc.), which are assumed to be part of the overall baseline
funding for OUCS. Capital costs are based on current market
prices without adjustment for inflation. It should be kept in
mind that many of the planned upgrades include technologies not
currently available. The next generation equipment costs are
therefore based on the current generation of hardware, etc. For
new services, capital costs are calculated as above. The
projected recurrent costs are an estimate of the new costs
arising from staff costs, maintenance, etc. to support the new
service (with no adjustment for inflation). Funding for new
services is assumed to flow from an increase in the overall
baseline, a cost-recovery mechanism, or some other method.
BSP costing of projects indicates ballpark
investment costs for each new project or phase of development,
in/over the appropriate financial year(s). Except where funding
has already been awarded, generic project-costing estimates have
been used, based on the estimated size (small, medium or large)
and expected duration of the project. A detailed,
project-specific costing exercise will need to be carried out
for each project, as part of the project start-up process. The
estimated figures are intended to include staff costs for
additional resources required for the duration of the project,
but do not include any allowance for the time of University
staff expected to contribute to projects as part of their
day-to-day responsibilities. The figures also include expected
hardware, software and consultancy costs. Figures for future
financial years have been adjusted to allow for inflation (at
4%).
OULS ICT expenditure is divided into staff,
non-staff and capital costs. Staff costs are based on actual
salary costs. Non-staff costs are based on the current equipment
budget. Capital costs relate to an annual replacement cycle and
the supporting hardware.
72. OxCort, the tutorial reporting system, is
an excellent example of a new application, driven by those members
of the collegiate University, to meet a specific need, and
part-funded centrally.
73. This approach minimises complexity, but may lead to
additional uncertainty in interpretation.
74. The amounts shown under the capital columns in Table
A1.
75. ICT’ is defined as Information and Communication Systems, Processes and Technology
which is within the scope of the ICT Strategic Plan. This encompasses
ICT across the collegiate University, including ICT provided by the central
providers (Computing Services, Library Services and Business Services and Projects),
ICT for research, ICT for teaching, ICT for administration, the ICT fabric extending
across divisions and colleges, and ICT training.
76. ‘Business continuity’ focus varies through the academic year. Student information provision, for example, is crucially
important at admissions time. Accordingly, particular attention will be focused on
specific areas through the year.
77. Continuing Education are considered as a ‘Division’.
78. IT Infrastructure
Library (ITIL),
http://www.itil.co.uk/. ITIL is a framework for process
focused activities, a further explanation is provided in the Programme Record.
80. Given the complexity of ICT delivery within Oxford, this
reporting line will be kept under review, and will be reviewed
after 12 months.
81. In some cases for a
pilot study first.
82. Major’ will probably be defined as those
projects with a budget of more than £100k or likely to have a
significant impact across Oxford.
83. The major user of the system
produced by the project or the part of Oxford which has championed
the ICT development.
84. This individual will be,
typically, the head of the part of Oxford that will be the major
user of the systems produced by the project.
85. The set of scenarios which formed part of the consultation process
and which resulted in a number of additional scenarios submitted by
units and individuals within Oxford, are incorporated into the
Formal Programme Record.
Submitted for consideration by PRAC, March 2007. ICT Strategy Programme Consultation Sub-Group.
