IT Strategy Review: WT D University and Collegiate requirements
Meeting 3, 14 December, 2005
OUCS Conf Room A
Anne Trefethen (Chair)
Andrew Martin (IT Fellow Kellog, comlab)
Stephen Parkinson (Humanities, Chair IT )
Paul Jeffreys (Acting Director of Strategic IT)
David Perrow (OULS)
Mike Giles (Academic User Rep, comlab, Chairman OSC)
David Popplewell (Medical Sciences Division)
Wylie Horn (MSCS, service provision OUCS)
Oliver Russell (Vice-President (Graduates), Student Representative)
Alan Gay (WT B leader)
Tony Brett (Project Manager)
Lou Burnard (WT F, Consultant Interface)
Minutes from the last meeting
Draft online questionnaire
Draft WT D report
Minutes and Actions of the last meeting
The minutes of the last meeting were accepted without amendment.
Paul J wanted to clarify “All to speak to key individuals”. Anne clarified -each member of WT D would speak to the set of individuals they had identified to obtain further input on requirements.
Actions had also been sent round in email. Action (a) to provide list of key individuals (b) speak to them by this meeting.
Andrew and Mike had provided lists – Anne asked others to do so.
Anne to gain clarity on consultant had been completed - Lou Burnard present to provide an update
All to speak to individuals- covered above - Anne noted she would be following up with business school and economics department
All to discover existing strategies
Lou and colleagues have web form going out to ask people for IT strategies as a follow up to the metrics exercise. Lou reported that 26 had already responded
Those who were IT Fellows had been asked to talk to college and plan to complete questionnaire
Update on Consultant
Lou reported on consultant’s workshop of 6th Dec. There is a brief report on the ICT website. Lou felt that the workshop had established the main differences of opinion. He noted that they were now waiting to get signed-off reports of notes taken during interviews prior to the workshop. Lou noted that the requirements list could not be delivered until the Gartner have sign-off from respondents. He also reported that there had been some difficulty identifying the people who should be consulted, several people turned up late, saying they expected to be involved. Stephen had represented WT-D at the meeting. Lou was optimistic that they would have something before the end of the year to pass over to Paul. This would provide an interpretation of requirements discerned by the consultants. They will then construct models to be presented at meeting at end of January.(31st) . Paul noted that from this WT's point of view, only the requirements were of interest. Once they were ready, our main involvement would be done.
Update on WT B
Alan report that he had chased divisions which had not responded. One division that had not responded said it would pass to IT committee for Feb/March but Paul will contact to point out this is not satisfactory. One response received from Physics.
Colleges: Alan had written to conference of colleges but as yet no response. Since then there has been other lower-level contact (see above) but some individuals have been identified to construct a response. There was concern as to whether this would provide an authoritative response. Colleges would evidently be sampled rather than approached comprehensively. Anne noted that they also had use of the results from the recent metrics study.
Anne noted that ideally they would like to reach a large sample. This implied that the analysis must be automated and hence the answers would need to be constrained to tick boxes.
She reported there had been discussion as to whether such a constrained activity would provide concern but it had been thought better to do the survey possibly receiving criticism rather than not doing the survey and getting no data.
Anne had met with Keith Trigwell, who had observed the major challenges in undertaking such a survey – agreement from stakeholders, defining statistically relevant sample etc. Anne noted that it was clear that this survey could not be done to the level of consideration as that of Keith’s activity but that a pragmatic approach was needed. She noted that she had made an appointment to consult with the Statistics department and Wylie would be going to speak with them on the 15th.
Anne asks for feedback on questionnaire. She noted it was a strawman and was happy for any feedback.
Lou provided some specific feedback and all agreed to consider further and provide written feedback.
Tony and OUCS staff will facilitate on-line form and contacting the selected stratified sample. IPod Nano to be offered as a prize.
Paul noted that at a meeting of the medical sciences division, the crucial thing that was required was a directory service-based authorization service to allow stratified access.
He also noted that the questionnaire should include business service questions as Bill Macmillan insists that we go ahead with things which stray into business services.
Outline WT D Report
Anne provided an outline of the final report based on WT-C report.
She suggested that it would include an annex to list individuals and groups who have completed questionnaire or who have provided input to the requirements activity.
Anne has begun to draft the Research Infrastructure Requirements section - to be amended in the light of responses.
She was looking for people who could draft others similarly. It was agreed that Stephen would draft the Teaching and Learning and would ask David Popplewell to assist.
It was suggested that David Perrow might be best placed to draft the management and administration.
Paul noted that there may be a need to split the reporting of requirements into end-user and service provider.
Anne said she would try to circulate her draft by the end of the coming week.
Timing and Gantt Chart
It was agreed that the questionnaire should go out around 4/5th January if possible.
Tony to update the Gantt Chart to have completion of the WT D report on January 31st.
IT Fellows to complete form for their college
All to complete requirements collection from identified key individuals
All to provide input on Online Questionnaire
All to provide input on Draft outline
Stephen to lead on development of the Teaching and Learning section
Anne to lead on development of the Research infrastructure
David to lead on Management and Administration
Date of Next Meeting
January 16th, 5pm, Conf Room A OUCS