1. Agenda 1 TimeMins Topic 11.0010Introductions - Derek and Agenda - Daniel 20Gap analysis report – Margaret Park 11.3020Benefits – Claire Doherty for the SER Operations Group 15Q & A on Gaps and Benefits 12.0535Tribal observations/delivery plan – Steve Bott / John Gledhill 12.4015Q & A on Tribal observations and delivery plan 12.555Summing up - Derek

2. University of St Andrews SER Universities Scotland Circular on the provision of online PGT information The Proctor 14 August 2014 College Gate, St Andrews 2

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 Andrews SER Highlights from Gap analysis report Margaret Park (Tribal) 14 August 2014 College Gate, St Andrews 5

6. 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. 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. 7 When and where

8. 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. 8 Not in scope of the gap analysis

9. 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. 9 Gaps that were analysed – SITS local configuration Gaps that were analysed – SITS local configuration

10. 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. 10 Gaps that were analysed – Local SITS skills Gaps that were analysed – Local SITS skills

11. 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. 11 Training requirements

12. 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. 12 Gaps that were analysed – Project requirements vs SITS software functionality Gaps that were analysed – Project requirements vs SITS software functionality

13. 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. 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. 15 The Tribal proposed solutions – SITS component gaps 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. 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. 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. 17 Document Manager

18. 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. 18 Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) – For individual student enquiry resolution Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) – For individual student enquiry resolution

19. 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). 19 Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) – for case management Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) – for case management

20. End of part one 20

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

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 PrincipleClaireDanielKevinNadegeTotal Simplification214411 Visibility & Transparency 33219 e-Enablement421310 Adaptability & Flexibility 143210

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 25

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. 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) e-Enablement

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? 30

31. Case study 1: Paperless Admissions Current characteristics to improveBenefit achieved Like-for-like replacement of un-reviewed processe-Enablement Written on complex platform (MMS)Simplification ITS developers and/or external contractors need to have knowledge of local development platforms Simplification Not self-reporting or maintainable at non-ITS levelTransparency Complex workflow with many variablesSimplification Not a closed ecosystem so high maintenanceSimplification Not easily adaptable to changes in requirementsAdaptability Involves a lot of staffSimplification Work-around heavyTransparency

32. Case study 2: Online Matriculation Current characteristics to improveBenefit achieved E-enabled only to an extente-Enablement Work-around intrusion (SITS fields used for other purposes) Flexibility Complex workflowsSimplification Not maintainable at local non-ITS levelFlexibility SlowSimplification Replacement of paper-based processE-enablement Not self-explanatory at timesTransparency Permits errors because of manual interventionAdaptability No up-to-date documentationTransparency

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? 35

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 3 rd 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 specialists and are able to maintain systems and developments

39. End of presentation two Q & A 39

40. University of St Andrews SER Delivering SER and beyond Steve Bott (Tribal) 14 August 2014 Master’s Room Hebdomadar’s Block 40

41. Where delivery of SER will take you Leadership Continuous Improvement Performance Measurement KPIs Better processes Informed decision making Improved performance

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 Project Title: 1. Problem Statement  Nature of the problem to be addressed (as specific, succinct and quantifiable as possible)  Where it fits within the overall strategy for the process area  Where it fits in relation to other planned/in progress project actions 2. Prioritisation Statement  Why this project should be done next (as specific, succinct and quantifiable as possible)  Number of occurrences (per week); Students affected; Other dependencies (we can’t do that if we don’t do this); Deadlines (and resulting required start date); availability of resource 3. Investment/ROI Statement  Investment affordability  ROI analysis 4. Projected Benefits Cost  Process time saved (in Hours); Reduction in number of meetings; chasing information; waiting for decisions; approvals hierarchy Risk  Removal of single points of failure; Reputation; Reduction in IT systems utilised; Reduction in single points of failure; More accurate data; Budgetary control Quality  Reduction in end-to-end lead time; Staff morale; Happier students; Right First Time; Better decision making; Visibility

47. Project Delivery Template – Project Management Project Title: 5. Countermeasure and scope: 6. Desired Outcome and Success Criteria  Brief description of the proposed solution  Where it fits within  Brief description of what you are trying to achieve  How will you show the project has been successful?  Goals should be (SMART): Specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely 7. Projected Resource Required8. Stakeholders, Risks & Potential Barriers  Time in hours  Skills required  Split by work packages  Any interaction/impacts with other projects or work areas  Who else needs to be made aware of this work? 9. Final Outcome (Reflection on how it went)  Link to previous Desired Outcome and Success Criteria  Unforeseen Results

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 From Here To Here Plan ActDo Check Continuous Improvement

51. The goal is to keep momentum not kill it! Empowering the Continuous Improvement Process Ownership I have permission and I can self-direct within agreed limits I have sufficient time and resources to do my job well Purpose I am making a contribution to the programme overall I have a personal connection with the new solution Mastery It satisfies my desire to get better at stuff I have the necessary skills and the confidence to use them Ownership I have permission and I can self-direct within agreed limits I have sufficient time and resources to do my job well Purpose I am making a contribution to the programme overall I have a personal connection with the new solution Mastery It satisfies my desire to get better at stuff I have the necessary skills and the confidence to use them How it will feel to your staff

52. Leadership ability Experience & Knowledge of the business processes Credibility Authority Good communication & presentation skills Good at building and maintaining relationships Passionate about the project benefits Able to handle ambiguity Supportive and available Skills set for Project Delivery

53. Revised governance structure

54. PROGRAMME CONTROL GROUP SER Steering Group PROGRAMME PLANNING GROUP SER Advisory Board SER Ops Group Change Unit / LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY GROUP Project Manager Process Owner SMEs Rules Owner Administrator/Analyst Project Champion TECHNOLOGY GROUP In-house – systems integration In-house – SITS developers Tribal – SITS developers Solving problems Sharing knowledge/ideas Removing excuses! Responsible for project delivery Ultimate accountability Delivering the Benefits Skills enabled empowerment Agile, responsive, informed decision making Programme Governance SER Projects ITSAlumniAdmissions Student Services Finance ELT Registry CareersTribalSchools

55. Project Governance, Roles & Responsibilities Rules owner -Decides on process and business rules ensuring they are fit for purpose Process owner -Identifies and verifies system and process requirements -Retains responsibility for proposed process and system design and approves changes Project Champion -Conduit between the project & SER community -Advocacy within units to promote change Project Manager -Project planning & delivery; Meeting facilitation -Helps project groups reach agreement on scope, requirements, resources and delivery schedules Business Rules Project Team Control Group (SER Steering Group) -Strategic vision, Risk, Budget, Scope Planning Group (SER Advisory Board, etc.) -Oversight, Facilitation, Guidance, Support, Direction, Control, Training Legend: Collaborate Direct Escalation Subject Matter Experts -Provides business knowledge to the project -Requirements finalisation & user stories Business Analyst -Elicits process and system requirements and transforms these to inform the product build -Maintains supporting documentation Business Team Delivery Group ( For each project) -Project ownership, solution design & project delivery

56. Project Governance, Roles & Responsibilities Rules owner -Alison Sandeman -IT Developer Process owner -Becky Ballantyne Project Champion -Ben Stride Project Manager -?? Business Rules Project Team Control Group (SER Steering Group) -Strategic vision, Risk, Budget, Scope Planning Group (SER Advisory Board, etc.) -Oversight, Facilitation, Guidance, Support, Direction, Control, Training Legend: Collaborate Direct Escalation Subject Matter Experts -Marie-Noel Earley -Julie Ramsay -Admissions Officers x 3 Business Analyst -Claire Doherty Business Team Delivery Group ( For each project) -Project ownership, solution design & project delivery

57. Proposed delivery plan

58. Interactive Workspace Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) Suggested Delivery Plan – more resource earlier on Oct 2014Aug 2016Feb 2015 Tranche 1 Tranche 3 Curriculum Approvals T 2 Changes of Circumstance Paperless Admissions Scholarships & Funding ? ? ? ? CSA Advising Quick Wins SER Projects Interactive Workspace Contingency Benefits Realised Sept 2014 Releases capacity to Project modules delivery sequencing Enterprise Service Desk (ESD( Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) Pilot Projects Learning informs remainder of SER project delivery

59. Risks and requirements for delivering culture changes for SER and beyond

60. SER scope and purpose is still disconnected even after three iterations Disconnect between what project teams think they are delivering and what the Steering Group is expecting of them Chronic shortage of dedicated project resource BAU consumed project resource in previous SER iterations Individual Project teams are not clearly defined/constant/consistent Complex project review and prioritisation procedures Too many levels of authority – different Boards, Groups etc High numbers of interested parties – endless papers and reports that no-one has time to read Decisions not being made by fact holders Slows down decision making process Lack of consistency in approvals process and decisions made We share knowledge but we don’t act on it or know what to do with it Culture change – Key risks

61. SER purpose and vision need to be restated St Andrews needs a clear strategic vision – understood by all Single unified message from the top (ie, the Steering Group) to enable project teams to have clarity of their objectives Visible support for SER through your own behaviours – informal ‘go-see’ SER projects must be adequately resourced to meet planned deadlines Ring fenced SER resource not Business as usual must come first SER must interact effectively with MIG and web development projects to ensure a cohesive outcome across all three initiatives Meetings need to be outcome driven and as brief as possible Meetings must have a clear purpose, an agenda and recorded minutes (with actions and owners) First agenda item should be ‘what I’ve achieved since the last meeting’ Ask – ‘who needs to attend/can we make a decision without them?’ Everyone required attends or sends a nominated deputy authorised to make decisions Everyone attends on-time and are prepared and ready to contribute Meetings should finish on-time (or early!) Culture change – Key dependent actions

62. Provide the vision and strategic direction that people can depend upon and work toward Ensure messages and guidance are consistent and re-enforced by your own behaviours Be inclusive and collaborative and build teams Set clear objectives and challenge ways of thinking then…………. TRUST YOUR COLLEAGUES TO DELIVER!! Key requirements for Continuous Improvement

63. Building Teams, Trust & Ownership

64. Learn how to give people what they want instead of what you want to give them!

65. A final thought… Don’t underestimate the influence you have on others!

66. End of presentation three Q & A 66