Information Services Committee

ISC04-M1

Minutes of the ninth Meeting of the Committee held on 13 February 2004

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

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

Apologies were received from Professor Kavanagh and Mr Pearson.

1. Report of the Previous Meeting

ISC03-M3
The minutes of the eighth Meeting of the Committee held on 17 October 2003 were confirmed, subject to the following minor amendments:

ISC03-M3-4.
Amend references to “Corporate Information Systems” in the minutes and terms of reference to “Corporate Information Services”.

2. Matters Arising

i. Support Services FITC (ISC02-M2-2ii)
The DVC confirmed that a decision had been reached that the support services FITC role was no longer required, since support services preferred to deal directly with Computing Services and Corporate Information Services. Karen Newcombe would however continue to represent Support Services at Faculty Information Technology Group meetings.

ii. Data Protection Training (ISC03-M2-3)
Pressure of business had meant that it had not been possible to make a presentation at the first SCI Directorate meeting on 13 November 2003. This item was to be included on the agenda for the next Directorate meeting which was scheduled for 26 February 2004.

Secretary’s Note: This presentation took place as planned on 26 February 2004. Presentations have now been made to all Faculty Directorates.

iii. Student Information Vision Statement (ISC03-M2-11)
The Registrar confirmed that the revisions to the vision statement were underway and that a revised vision statement would be completed for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.

iv. External Organisations Access to Information Services (ISC03-M3-7)
The DVC confirmed that this matter was now in hand. A recent example was the memorandum of understanding relating to the University’s relationship with the Ministry of Defence regarding the new Defence Technology Undergraduate Scheme.

v. Access Control (ISC03-M3-11)
Corporate Information Services had liaised with Computing Services to ensure that the PAT access points were included in the network notification system which would result in Security automatically being made aware of access outside of office hours.

3. EPrint Repository Proposal – Open Access to Research Output

ISC04-P6
The Committee considered Mrs Morley’s paper. Further clarification was received as follows:

· The University currently published research output in publications and purchased copies of these publications from the publishers.

· Information Services Committee had looked into this in 2002 and had determined that no action should be taken until an outcome for the sector had become clearer. Since that time open archiving had gained significant ground across the sector.

· Professor Oppenheim informed the Committee that the movement was supported by JISC (UK) and the Soros Foundation (Worldwide) and that academics should follow one of two routes:

- Offer research output to a traditional journal as at present but also to eprint repository.

- Offer research output to open access journals (600 open access journals were now in existence), which were free at the point of use.

3.1. Resource Implications
JISC research was being arranged to obtain a firm indicator of the estimated resource requirements. Setting up a repository was straightforward, simply requiring the University to download free software and to make a reasonable specification server available. The hidden costs were in the staff time required to maintain and expand the repository. This would include both library staff time and research staff time.

3.2. Quality Assurance
The Committee was informed that the Vice-Chancellor had raised concerns in this area. It was AGREED that should the proposal go ahead, it would be essential that this was tied in with the University’s publications database and the quality assurance procedures surrounding this system.

3.3. Copyright
Professor Oppenheim informed the Committee that 40% of publishers surveyed had already accepted that all research output could be made available via a repository. A list of these publishers was available. It had originally been set up by Professor Oppenheim and was now maintained by Nottingham University. Since 60% of publishers considered publication via repository a breach of copyright, an appropriate clause would need to be added to contracts with these publishers. Professor Oppenheim considered that the current situation was something of a game of bluff, since publishers need to publish research from senior academics whilst junior academics need their research to be published. Senior management approval and support for a repository would therefore be essential.

3.4. Impact on Journals
There was some concern expressed regarding the impact of a research repository on the viability of some fringe journals. The 600+ existing open access journals were almost exclusively medical journals.

3.5. Marketing Tool
The Committee felt that an EPrint Repository could potentially be used as a marketing tool, especially with regard to the recruitment of international students.

3.6. Research Assessment Exercise
There was some discussion regarding the impact of an EPrint Repository on the Research Assessment Exercise. The Committee considered that the process would be simplified if all research output were held on the repository, but this was unlikely to be the case because of copyright problems.

It was AGREED that:

The outcome of the continuing exploration including consideration of the concerns raised regarding the impact on fringe journals and the Research Assessment Exercise should be reported to the next meeting of the Committee
ACT: MM

The PVC(R) or nominee should be invited to the next meeting of the Committee to input into the discussion in this area.
ACT: CS

Academic staff would be encouraged to deposit their research output in the repository and to retain the rights to electronic publication when research output was also published in journals. A proposed mechanism for achieving this would be provided at the next meeting.
ACT: MM/CO

4. EMail Archiving

ISC04-P1, ISC04-P2
The draft policy was received and considered.

It was considered that, since there were probably millions of messages received and sent by University staff each year, it would not be feasible for any individual(s) other than the email originator and/or receiver to categorise email messages.

If individuals were to be expected to categorise emails for archiving purposes, then the email system would have to support this process (eg. automated tagging, standard folders – personnel, student records, finance etc). The process would need to be quick, simple and obligatory.

No UK universities were currently archiving email. Whilst packages did exist, these were not compatible with the University’s current email system.

It was thought that email archiving should be seen in the wider context of records management and that there was a clear link to electronic document management.

The Committee felt that almost everything had a continuing value. This needed to be weighed against the University’s responsibility under the Data Protection Act 1998 to weed out information which it was no longer necessary to keep. Any email archiving system would also need to contain a mechanism for deleting personal emails or the University would need to make a policy change regarding personal use of university email.

The Committee welcomed the draft policy and thanked Computing Services for obtaining the JISC funding to carry out the research project. The draft policy was considered to be a good starting point but it was felt that further work would need to be carried out. It was AGREED that another report should be prepared for the next meeting of the Committee building on paragraph 3.5 (Responsibilities of the University) of the draft policy. This report would include detailed proposals on what action should be taken, when, and by which members of staff.

ACT: CT

5. Wireless Networking

ISC04-P3
The Committee received the paper from Mr Temple (further to an action placed on him at the last meeting of the Committee). Further clarification was received as follows:

· The potential security risks associated with wireless networking (WN) were not limited to those organisations utilising WN on campus at the moment. Rather these WNs were potentially compromising the whole system.

· If Computing Services were so instructed wireless networks could be detected and deactivated remotely. Some concern was expressed at the prospect of deactivating WNs currently operating in the Students’ Union and other commercial areas where WN could currently be seen as a competitive advantage.

· The majority of the James Frances wireless infrastructure would be located in the main machine room in Haslegrave. There was no reason why the University could not move forward with WN using HEFCE 3 capital funds.

· The number of WN frequencies was limited. WNs could potentially be operating on the campus having entered unofficially. An example highlighted was the WN operation of ATM machines.

· Nottingham Trent and Leicester Universities were about to commit significant amounts of resource to WN.

The Committee felt that further information was required in the following areas:

· Who would be the main users of a WN and what services would these users require?

· What would be the risks of operating a wireless network?

· Who would provide end user support (the Committee noted that Warwick University had a team of staff devoted to supporting the WN)?

· What functionality would a WN have (eg printing)?

· Would there be any cost benefits?

It was AGREED that a Wireless Networking Steering Group should be convened. This would consist of:

Mr Temple (Chair)

Registrar or nominee

FITG representative

Imago representative

A senior academic

An expert in the field from the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering.

This steering group would be expected to report to the next meeting of the Information Services Committee and to establish its own terms of reference for approval at that meeting.

ACT: DT

6. Procurement and Purchasing Policy

ISC04-P4
The Committee received and considered the revised draft policy. Amendments were requested as follows:

· Reword paragraph 5 (Non-Compliance) to make it clear that non-compliance was not an option.

· Include a reference to a HOD/HOSS or Dean’s nominee in paragraphs 3.1. and 3.2.

· Incorporate advice from the Purchasing Office in paragraph 3.3,

It was AGREED that the paper would be revised for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.

ACT: VB

7. Information Security Policy

ISC04-P5
The Committee received and considered the report from Dr Negus.

It was AGREED that:

7.1. Risk assessment would be carried out within Computing Services and Corporate Information Services as proposed in the paper.
ACT: BN/VB

7.2. EMG would be asked to determine where responsibility should lie for ensuring that similar risk assessments (both IT and non-IT based) were carried out across the University.
ACT: DVC

7.3. EMG would be asked to consider how the drafting of a high level, BS7799 consistent, information security policy (which would refer to detailed IS and IT procedures and policies) and the development of an associated implementation plan (covering both IT and non-IT based information security) should be actioned and in particular whether this should be allocated to a named individual or to a working group.
ACT: DVC

8. Freedom of Information Update

The Registrar invited Miranda Whyte (Data Protection Officer) to update the Committee on progress to date in this area. Although the Registrar was formally responsible for Freedom of Information Act compliance, Ms Whyte had been assisting in preparing the publication scheme and in the process of recruiting a Freedom of Information Office/Records Manager.

8.1 Publication Scheme
This would be available on the web by the end of February. Although not all information would be available in this format immediately, it was intended that as much information as possible would be made available directly from the publication scheme web page via web links.

The University’s subsidiary companies needed to ensure that they had publication schemes in place. This was the responsibility of the subsidiary companies, not the University.

8.2 Public Right of Access to Information (from 1 January 2005)
Requests for information did not need to mention the Act specifically and responses were required within twenty working days. The University needed to give some serious consideration to the training as all staff needed to be aware when the Act applied.

8.3 Freedom of Information Officer/Records Manager
The post (ALC3) had been advertised. The deadline for applications was 20 February 2004 and interviews were to take place on 18 March 2004.

Secretary’s Note: 19 applications have since been received and 5 candidates are being interviewed.

9. Web Action Group (WAG) Update

The Registrar provided a verbal update on WAG’s current activities (see paper ISC04-P18). The Committee noted that there was little in the way of specific resource directed towards web development. The Registrar and Dr Mumford were in the process of producing a budget proposal.

It was AGREED that WAG should become a formal sub-committee of the Information Services Committee and that the terms of reference should be considered and formally approved at the next meeting of the Committee.

ACT: JMT/CS

10. Human Resource Information System Stage 2 Update

ISC04-P7
The report was received and noted. No further clarification was sought.

11. Report from Corporate Information Services

ISC04-P8
The report was received and noted.

12. Report from Computing Services

ISC04-P9
The report was received and noted.

13. Report from Media Services

ISC04-P10
The report was received and noted.

14. Report from Library

ISC04-P11
The report was received and noted.

15. Faculty Information Technology Group

ISC04-P12
The minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2003 were received and noted.

16. Media Services Users Committee

ISC04-P13, ISC04-P14
The confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2003 and the unconfirmed minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2004 were received and noted.

17. Corporate Information Services User Group

ISC04-P15
The unconfirmed minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2003 were received and noted.

18. Corporate Information Services Annual Report

ISC04-P16
The report was received and noted.

19. Library User Committee

ISC04-P17
The confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2003 were received and noted.

20. Web Action Group

ISC04-P18
The confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2004 were received and noted.

21. Any Other Business

21.1 Information Services Committee Membership
The Chair proposed that Miranda Whyte be co-opted onto Information Services Committee and that the Terms of Reference be amended accordingly for formal approval by Resources and Planning Committee. This was unanimously AGREED.
ACT: CS

22. Date of Next Meeting

Friday 21 May 2004 09:30 in the Council Chamber.