Summary notes of the Executive Committee held on 12 July 2006
- Update on the Agresso project
The Committee received an update on the implementation of the new Agresso finance system.
• Functional training had been completed, though had taken more time than planned
• Conversion from old to new data had taken place
• Security would be protected by specifying permitted access to codes for particular projects and departments
• Scanned documents would be stored to provide background information for accounts
• Workflows would be developed for authorisation without the need for a paper trail at all stages; all points in this process would be 'owned', with protocols for different levels of authorisation
• Systems and data would be rationalised where possible, examples being the consolidation of account codes from 1000 to 650 and the introduction of a common two-digit code for Agresso, Trent and SAMIS.
• The number of suppliers would be reduced from 71,000 to 18,000
• Presentations to key user groups had met with a positive reception: automatic completion of some data fields based on minimal data entry and the facility to 'save' standard enquiries would simplify tasks
• Accounts receivable had been identified as an area of system weakness, although a software solution might be possible within the current project budget
• Pressure had been exerted on Agresso to ensure release of software and supporting documentation on planned dates
The following points of clarification were made in response to questions from the Committee:
• Authorisation rights for appropriate individuals had been put in place after consulting with departments
• Cross-departmental research projects would have a 'home' department, with cost centres split as appropriate
• Enquiry reports by project sponsors could be produced, with additional fields added to give further information
The Committee express its thanks for the presentation. It was noted that further updates were planned for December 2006, and March 2007, just before the system was due to go 'live'.
- RAE 2008: 'No Detriment' Statement
This draft statement had been prepared by the University Research Committee, following the comments made by the Executive Committee when it had considered the draft Code of Practice. The statement made clear that the University's final decision not to submit a member of staff who would be normally eligible for submission, for strategic or other reasons, would have no bearing on the appraisal and promotion procedures applied to that member of staff.
QAA Institutional Audit: Project Plan
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) reported that the QAA had proposed to undertake the next institutional audit of the University in the autumn of 2007. This was clearly unacceptable given the demands of the RAE 2008 that would fall in the same period. Following two letters from the University, the QAA had stated that most other HEIs had now consented to an audit in similar timeframe, and had asked if the University wished to reconsider its position in the light of this information.
An outline project plan had been prepared to make best use of the time available before the audit, whenever it was held. The main elements of the plan were to convene a Steering Group, chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) and with a membership drawn from across the University, together with a smaller Project Group, comprised principally of the Director of Learning and Teaching Enhancement and staff of the LTEO. Although the QAA had yet to finalise the methodology for the audit, it was expected to focus on certain themes such as assessment. These would not be known until after the first visit by the QAA and their initial review of an institutional briefing paper to be submitted by the University.
- Network Engineering Work: Planning for Future Opportunities
The Director of Computing Services reported that it was proving increasingly difficult to identify periods when network engineering work could be scheduled without risk of some disruption to the IT network. Recess periods, when this work had traditionally taken place, were used more and more for teaching outside normal semesters, conference and other commercial activities and administrative tasks such as Registration Online - all of which required continued network services. In view of this situation, it was proposed that three weekends per year should be formally identified to allow for engineering work, during which users would not be able to expect normal services. Care would be taken in selecting these weekends, avoiding any critical dependencies, and plenty of advance notice would be provided to users. Notice would also be given if a weekend was to be released.
It was noted that distance-learning students tended to rely on network service provision at weekends.
-
Naming: The Intersyn Advanced Transmission Research Facility
The Committee received a proposal to name an advanced transmission research facility in the Department of Mechanical Engineering as The Intersyn Advanced Transmission Research Facility . This was in recognition of funding of £120K from Intersyn, a Texan company, amounting to two-thirds of the total cost (with the rest covered by SRIF) and used to purchase equipment. The proposal had been agreed by the ad hoc Development Group.
Top
of page
|
VC's
Office | University | Search
| News | A-Z
Index | Contact VC's Office 
