Information Services Committee

ISC03-M2

Minutes of the seventh Meeting of the Committee held on 23 May 2003

Membership: Professor P Roberts (chair), Professor J L Alty (ab), Professor C J Backhouse, Mr T C Baseley, Mr P S Blake, Dr J H Chandler (ab), Professor T Kavanagh (ab), Mr J Mutton (ab), Professor C Oppenheim, Miss K Palmer (ab), Mr H M Pearson (ab), Dr S J Rothberg (ab), Mr J M Town (ab)

In attendance: Ms V Blackett, Mrs M Morley, Dr A M Mumford, Dr B Negus,
Mr C Spendlove (secretary)

Apologies were received from Professor Alty, Dr Chandler, Professor Kavanagh, Mr Mutton, Mr Pearson, Dr Rothberg, Mr Town.

1. Report of the Previous Meeting

ISC03-M1
The minutes of the sixth Meeting of the Committee held on 14 February 2003 were confirmed, subject to the following minor amendment:

ISC02-M1-5
Replace: “Dr Mumford advised the Committee that the Web Action Group (WAG) was to be wound down.”

With: “Dr Mumford advised the Committee that the Disability Sub-Group of WAG was to be wound down.”

2. Matters Arising

i. Disaster Recovery
Dr Negus reported that a report had been submitted to EMG, the Audit Committee and FITG. Computing Services had opened discussion with two disaster recovery suppliers, ICM and NDR, both of whom had framework agreements with the Midlands Universities Purchasing Consortium. Computing Services and CIS were aiming to present a joint proposal with option appraisals to EMG during Summer 2003.

ii. Support Services FITC
The DVC confirmed that, although there was now a Support Services FITG representative (Karen Newcombe), no progress had been made in identifying a suitable Support Services FITC. It was AGREED that support for IT was essential, but that the level of support was currently very variable and that a more integrated approach needed to be taken. This would be the subject of discussion at the HOSS meeting to take place w/c 26 May 2003. A further update would be provided at the next meeting of the Committee, if not before.
ACT: DVC

iii. Access to University Web Pages
Dr Mumford confirmed that the ESRI web page was now easily accessible.

iv. Computer Hacking
Dr Negus confirmed that a proposal for a dedicated security post had been included in the Computing Services budget submission and that the funding had been approved.

v. Imagebank Accessibility
Dr Mumford confirmed that Imagebank was now accessible through the staff page.

vi. Macintosh Support
Dr Negus confirmed that a proposal had been included in the Computing Services budget submission and that the funding had been approved.

vii. Special Meeting
It had not proved possible to convene a special meeting of the committee to consider DISS budget submissions.

3. Data Protection Progress Report

ISC03-P18
The Committee received the paper from Ms Whyte, University Data Protection Officer. Subsequent to the paper being completed, further training had been scheduled as follows:

Data Protection Advisors Forum 23 June 2003

Data Protection General Issues training 22 July 2003

Data Protection Telephone Protocol training 25 July 2003

Ms Whyte confirmed that the training envisaged for new Heads of Department was the same as that which had been delivered to the Engineering Directorate. Further clarification was required as to whether the new tailored Head of Department training package covered data protection training. It was AGREED that, should this not be the case, the DVC would agree with Ms Whyte an appropriate way forward.
ACT: DVC/MTW

Secretary’s note: It has since been agreed that Ms Whyte will aim to make a presentation to the first SSH and SCI Directorate meetings of the 2003/4 session.

4. Freedom of Information Act 2000

ISC03-P19
The Committee received the paper from Ms Whyte, University Data Protection Officer, outlining the University’s responsibilities under the Act. Broadly speaking there were two requirements placed on the University:

4.1 Publication Scheme

Universities would be required to adopt publication schemes, approved by the Information Commissioner, setting out:

· Classes of information which the institution publishes

· The manner in which such information is published

· Details of any charges made for copies of the information

JISC were to produce a Model Publication Scheme by mid-June 2003, which was expected to cover the following areas:

· Governance and Management

· External Relations

· Student Administration and Support

· Information Systems

· Human and Physical Resources

· Teaching and Learning

· Research and Development

The University would need to determine whether or not to sign up to the Model Publication Scheme or to develop a bespoke scheme (which would require separate approval from the Information Commissioner).

The Committee was informed that the Data Protection Advisory Group (DPAG) was in the process of setting up a sub-group which would be responsible for the Freedom of Information Act audit and for making a recommendation on the best publication scheme for the University to adopt. It was AGREED that the key consideration for the sub-group should be to aim for economy of effort in relation to setting up the publication scheme and publishing the associated information over a period of time. It was AGREED that the recommendations of the sub-group of DPAG should be presented to the next meeting of the Information Services Committee (17 October 2003) for approval.
ACT: MTW

4.2. Individual Requests for Information

The Committee was informed that, from 1 January 2005, individuals would, subject to certain exemptions, have a right of access to information held by the University. Within 20 working days of the request, the University would have to inform the applicant whether such information was held and ,if so, provide the applicant with a copy. It was noted that a similar piece of legislation was already in place in the Republic of Ireland, where early indications suggested that the media accounted for the majority of requests.

Ms Whyte’s paper recommended the appointment of a Records Manager. Mrs Morley advised the Committee that some discussion was currently taking place between the Director of Registry Services and the University Archivist in the area of records management. It was AGREED that records management and the proposed recruitment of a Records Manager should be reconsidered at the next meeting of the Committee (17 October 2003).
ACT: DVC

5. Implication of Budget Settlement 2003/4 on Information Services

ISC03-P20, ISC03-P21, ISC03-P22, ISC03-P23
The Committee received the papers from the DISS Directors. Key points raised by the Directors were as follows:

5.1 Computing Services (ISC03-P20)

Dr Negus reported that:

5.1.1 The reduction in the budget for the 5 year rolling infrastructure refurbishment plan from £440k to £330k would have in impact on service levels. Priorities would be agreed with stakeholders.

5.1.2 The failure to fund an institutional diary/calendar service was considered to be a potential lost opportunity. There was now huge interest from across the University in such a service with a number of departments already taking matters into their own hands, resulting in a non-integrated system which would be more expensive overall and which would not provide the maximum benefits. It was suggested that Computing Services would be able to advise potential users regarding which system/platform to take up on a stand-alone basis in order to minimise the potential for obsolescence in the light of a subsequent institutional purchase. However, since year one funding (£37k) was intended mainly to carry out an investigation into what would best suit the requirements of the organisation, Computing Services were not currently in a position to give such advice. If was AGREED that the best advice that could be given at the moment was for departments/support services to be prepared to write off any investment made in this area.
ACT BN

Dr Negus confirmed that Computing Services would be considering ways in which the budget could be reduced and whether contributions could be obtained from departments/support services (eg Estates, Information Science and Civil and Building Engineering) that were already contemplating spending £3-£4k for a purely departmental system. A further report would be made at the next meeting of the Committee.
ACT BN

5.2 Library (ISC03-P21)

Mrs Morley reported that, although the Library had not received the developmental budget requested, in light of the University’s current financial position, there was some relief that core non-pay funding had been maintained.

5.3 Media Services (ISC03-P22)

Dr Mumford reported that:

5.3.1 Although not all budget requests had been met, the consideration of and response to specific items (as opposed to a blanket percentage budget reduction) were considered very helpful, especially relating to Pool Teaching Rooms.

5.3.2 There was still come concern at the failure to fund £1500 for Media Services to scan exam papers and make them available on Learn. Departmental take-up of the opportunity to mount exam papers on Learn had been low, resulting in an inequality of provision between departments.

5.4 Corporate Information Services (ISC03-P23)

Ms Blackett requested some guidance on the relative priorities of the following projects, bearing in mind that only part of the budget submission had been approved:

· Human Resources Stage 2

· Computer Aided Assessment (CAA)

· Student Accommodation System Enhancement

· Estates System Integration

· Student Information System Enhancement

· Finance System Enhancement

It was AGREED that CAA was the priority area.

There was some concern that Estates had managed to purchase a replacement system without the approval and involvement of CIS because:

· There had been no need for a capital bid as the funding had been found from recurrent budget

· There had been no requirement for the Purchasing Office to approve the purchase as it had been made piecemeal and as such had not exceeded the maximum departmental authorisation.

It was AGREED that Ms Blackett would circulate a policy note to all Heads of Department and Support Services to remind them that corporate information systems (meaning any system which when purchased would need to be interfaced with another information system by Corporate Information Services) could only be purchased once agreement from Corporate Information Services had been secured, notwithstanding that a Department/Support Service may be funding the purchase.

6. Report from Computing Services

ISC03-P24
The Committee received the progress report paper from Dr Negus. Further clarification was received as follows:

6.1 Machine Room Security
Concern was expressed that the high value hardware about to be purchased for the High Performance Computing and Visualisation Centre (HPCVC) Project would, at least initially, be located in the Haslegrave machine room. It was felt that the limited physical security would increase the risk of theft of hardware and of collateral damage to other systems.

6.2 Implications of Holywell Park Purchase
Although the additional costs for the initial networking improvement had been covered in the project cost, there would be an increase in ongoing maintenance costs which was not currently budgeted for.

6.3 Email Archiving
It was suggested that a straightforward data protection policy regarding email retention might be to delete all emails after a set period of time. Concern was expressed that this might be deemed inappropriate from a data protection perspective, as records should not be destroyed merely to avoid provision of the information following subject access requests, but rather when they are of no further use to the University or student concerned.

7. Report from Library

ISC03-P25
The Committee received the report from Mrs Morley. Further clarification was received as follows:

7.1 Library Level 4
It had proved impossible to extend the Library into Level 4 of the Pilkington Building, since there was currently no alternative location for the Information Science Department. However, it was hoped that the University would benefit significantly from the Teaching and Learning infrastructure ring-fenced £332m of the latest HEFCE project capital release.

7.2 Alumni Contributions to Book Fund
Progress with the Library Book Appeal 2003 was considered. Thus far, £15.5k had been donated. Donations had been made by Founding Supporters of the Appeal (some of whom were also alumni) and others; alumni, in general, had not yet been approached.

8. Report from Media Services

ISC03-P26
The Committee received the report from Dr Mumford.

9. Report from Corporate Information Services

ISC03-P27
The Committee received the report from Ms Blackett.

10. Student Information System “Away Afternoon”

ISC03-P28
A meeting had been convened with key stakeholders on 18 February 2003 to consider the best way forward for the student information system. The detailed gap analysis had been completed following this meeting. The DVC confirmed that:

· the student information system was to be kept in-house for at least the next 4-5 years

· although funding had not been made available for the purchase of a new system, funding had been provided as part of the Corporate Information Services special allocation to cover the shortfalls of the existing system

· discussions were ongoing as to how to find additional ring-fenced resource for the in-house development of the student information system.

11. Student Information System Vision Statement

ISC03-P29
The Committee received the paper from the Registrar. Ms Blackett gave a short report in his absence. It had been agreed at the Student Information System Away Afternoon that the Registrar should convene a separate group to devise a vision statement for a student information system. A meeting had been arranged with various individuals such as representatives of the Students Unions’ and Student Accommodation Services, a warden, an academic, Ms Blackett, Mr Spendlove and the Registrar after which the Registrar had completed the vision statement.

Concern was expressed that the individuals involved did not represent the full range of stakeholders of a student information system (for example Finance were not represented). It was AGREED that the Registrar should be asked to review the paper with a view to:

11.1. Removing paragraph (i) and incorporating the contents into paragraph (iii).

11.2. Adding a reference to system security.

11.3. Adding a reference to the impact of financial and other constraints.

11.4. Noting that the vision statement would remain under review and might not be implemented in its current form.

ACT: JMT

12. Co-Ordinating Computer Systems for Research Purposes

ISC03-P30
The Committee received the paper from the FITCs. Mr Blake confirmed that the paper outlined a process which was currently taking place informally. Dr Negus confirmed that Computing Services was a partner in the process. The Committee welcomed and supported the proposal subject to the following minor change:

· replace “The coordination of SRIF bids” with “The coordination of the IT aspects of SRIF bids”.

13. Faculty Information Technology Group

ISC03-P31
The minutes of the meetings held on 29 April 2003 were received and noted.

14. Data Protection Advisory Group

ISC03-P32, ISC03-P33, ISC03-P34
The minutes of the meetings held on 12 November 2002, 4 February 2003 and 30 April 2003 were received and noted.

15. Library User Committee

ISC03-P35
The minutes of the meetings held on 5 February 2003 were received and noted.

16. CIS User Group

ISC03-P36
The minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2003 were received and noted.

17. Dates of Future Meetings

The 2003-4 meetings of the Committee were confirmed as follows:

Friday 17 October 2003 09:30 in the Council Chamber

Friday 13 February 2004 09:30 in the Council Chamber

Friday 21 May 2004 09:30 in the Council Chamber