Knowledge Strategy Committee Elder Room, Old College Friday 22 January 2016, 2pm AGENDA

Knowledge Strategy Committee Elder Room, Old College Friday 22 January 2016, 2pm AGENDA 1 Minute A To approve the minute of the meeting held on 29 September 2015. 2 Matters Arising To raise any matters arising. SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS 3 Information Services 10 Year Strategy: Digital Transformation of Core Services Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Research IT and IT Infrastructure Libraries, Museums and Collections B To consider and comment on the presentations by IS Directors. ITEMS FOR NOTING OR FORMAL APPROVAL 4 Projects and Ongoing Activities Update C To consider and note an update paper by the Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University. 5 IT Infrastructure Governance Process D To approve. 6 Thesis Digitisation Proposal E To approve. 7 University Collections Advisory Committee (UCAC) Terms of Reference To approve. F 8 Library Collections Facility G To approve. 9 Committee Reports IT Committee Report Library Committee Report University Collections Advisory Committee H1 H2 H3

10 Any Other Business To consider any other matter. 11 Date of next meeting 11 March 2016 at 10.00am

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE A 29 September 2015 Minute Present: In attendance: Apologies: Ms Doreen Davidson (Convenor) Vice-Principal Professor Jeff Haywood Mr Gavin McLachlan Dr Gordon McDougall Ms Angi Lamb Ms Alison Grant Professor Allan Cumming Ms Imogen Wilson Ms Jo Craiglee Mrs Tracey Slaven Dr Catherine Elliot Professor James Loxley Ms Pauline Jones, Governance & Strategic Planning (for Item 4) Mr Barry Neilson, Director of Student Systems (for Item 5) Ms Kirstie Graham, Deputy Head of Court Services Dr Lewis Allan, Head of Court Services Mr Peter Budd Professor Richard Coyne Vice-Principal Professor Sue Rigby Mr Hugh Edmiston Mr Phil McNaull Assistant Principal Professor Arthur Trew 1 Minute Paper A The Minute of the meeting held on 5 June 2015 and the electronic meeting concluded on 28 August 2015 were approved as a correct record. The Committee noted apologies and welcomed Alison Grant to her first meeting as a Court member, Imogen Wilson to her first meeting as EUSA representative (Vice-President Academic Affairs) and congratulated Doreen Davidson on her appointment as Convener of the Committee. 2 Matters Arising Verbal There were no matters arising.

3 Membership Verbal It was noted that: Nominations Committee has approved the appointment of Doreen Davidson as Convener of the Committee and the appointment of two new Court members, Alison Grant and Peter Budd; One vacancy remains for a Court member; Professor Sue Rigby will leave the University on 30 October to take up a new post as Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Lincoln creating a vacancy for a Senate member. The Committee noted its thanks to Professor Rigby for her significant contribution to the work of the Committee and across the University. SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS 4 Developing the 2016-2021 Strategic Plan Paper B The Head of Strategic Performance & Research Policy introduced a discussion on the development of the University s new Strategic Plan 2016-21. The following suggestions were raised: The enabler Infrastructure may be understood as purely physical infrastructure digital infrastructure or information infrastructure could be included as an additional enabler or alongside physical infrastructure. Alternatively, digital environment and physical environment may be more suitable. Data could be an additional enabler (with sub-plans on digital and data sitting underneath the Strategic Plan), as could working in partnership with students On the distinctiveness of the University, meshing research and teaching is key and advertising MOOCs to existing Edinburgh students could also assist The plan should be concise, written in an accessible style for all likely audiences (including students) and link with supporting strategies (IS, internationalisation etc). Case studies could also be used. 5 Student Data Project Paper C The Director of Student Systems informed the Committee of a project investigating the use of student data to support the enhancement of learning and teaching, the student experience and operational effectiveness. It was noted that a final presentation will be delivered at the Academic Strategy Group meeting in November, with a decision on next steps to be taken. The likely prioritisation of the six broad areas identified were discussed with understanding of applications and admissions, understanding the student cohort, 2

analytics/predictive work linked to learning & teaching (benchmarking, survey data) highlighted. It was noted that some work on learning analytics is being undertaken elsewhere in the University and this should be connected. Members requested a brief update at the next meeting and commented that: Schools may use different data sources but a consistent dashboard would be helpful; Using student data can help in identifying problematic areas; Thought should be given in advance as to how likely problematic areas can be tackled after they have been identified. 6 Information Security Audit Paper D The summary results of the Cyber Security Maturity Assessment undertaken by external consultants to the University were considered. Improvements in information security controls made over the previous year were welcomed but it was noted that University s information security maturity state requires strengthening. Top level challenges identified as priorities (security culture and awareness, information security risk management, unsupported computer usage, management of access rights for internal staff moves) were discussed and the intention to establish an information security team to respond to the assessment, including an international recruitment exercise for a Chief Information Security Officer, strongly supported. It was noted that an update will be provided at the following meeting. 7 Data Architecture Review Paper E The findings of a scoping study on the University s Enterprise Architecture capability performed by external consultants were reviewed. Members commented on links with the student data project, e.g. avoiding creating dashboards that sit above an old data architecture of disparate systems, and noted the intention to establish a data architecture practice and a data dictionary. The need to remove obstacles and importance of communication and engagement was stressed. It was noted that the University s target maturity level for enterprise architecture was still under consideration, with an update to be provided at the next meeting. 8 Outcome of Effectiveness Review Paper F The Convener thanked members for contributing over the summer period to the effectiveness review. No further comments were received and the review was approved for submission to Court. 3

ROUTINE ITEMS 9 Chief Information Officer s Communications Verbal The Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University provided a verbal update on activities since the last meeting. Topics included: The success of IT systems over Welcome Week, the period of greatest system demand, with a small number of outages swiftly rectified New students received University cards in the Library for the first time, with induction events, a showcase of the DiscoverEd platform and tours offered The planned consolidation of Information Services Group staff in Argyle House, with the first moves expected prior to Christmas and the majority of staff to follow in the third quarter of 2016 Preparations for the budget planning round, with the intention to submit long-term plans for the Library, core systems, research systems and learning & teaching all to be submitted to the Committee in the first instance Court approved a minor update to the Computer Regulations at its 21 September meeting to make reference to new legislation known as the Prevent duty. 10 IT Committee Report Paper G The Committee noted the key points and commented that a fuller report in a format similar to reports from Library Committee and UCAC should be provided in future. 11 Library Committee Report Paper H The Committee noted the key points in the report. 12 University Collections Advisory Committee Report Paper I The Committee noted the key points in the report and welcomed the statistics provided showing substantial increases in engagement with the collections by students and members of the public. 13 Projects & Ongoing Activities Report Paper J The report was noted. 14 Topics for future meetings Verbal The Committee discussed future agenda items, including the four budget round submissions raised under Item 9. In addition, members suggested: 4

More information/benchmarking on the University s performance relative to its peers in Information Services Academic staff engagement, communication and branding of Information Services Group (ISG) Key Performance Indicators for ISG Digital literacy of staff and students Reviews of a sample of completed projects to understand lessons learned and check efficiency and efficacy Working with other support services (e.g. careers, accommodation) that generate student experience related data. 15 Any other business Verbal There was no other business. ITEMS FOR FORMAL APPROVAL/NOTING (Please note these items are not normally discussed). 16 Revised Library Regulations Paper K The revised Library Regulations were noted. 17 Library Service Response to Public Sector Information Legislation Paper L The Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning, explained the Public Sector Information Legislation and the proposed approach by the University Library in implementation. The associated Statement of Public Task and the required changes to be made to charging models used when licencing the re-use of library assets were approved. 18 Delegation of Authority Paper M Planned IT and Library expenditure in excess of 200,000 during 2015-16 was noted and Delegated Authority to progress with the items set out in the paper granted to the Chief Information Officer. 19 Date of next meeting 22 January 2016 at 2pm 5

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE B 22 January 2016 Information Services 10 Year Strategy Description of paper 1. This paper is an introduction to presentations that set out the draft 10 year roadmap for Information Services (IS). The roadmap will be part of the Information Services submission to the University s 2016-19 planning round. Action requested/recommendation 2. The Committee is asked to consider and comment on the presentations by IS Directors. Background and context 3. IS has been considering the landscape of services against the University s 2025 Vision. Discussion 4. IS has identified 4 major themes: Digital Transformation of Core Services and Systems Learning, Teaching & Student Experience Research and Innovation Library National and International Leadership 5. These themes will be supported by a Change Programme to ensure that IS have the necessary capabilities to support the themes. Resource implications 6. This 10 year roadmap will require funding. There will be a request for additional resources from IS in the 2016-19 planning round. Risk Management 7. Failure to invest in this roadmap would mean that the services needed to underpin the University's 2025 strategy would not be available leading to failure to deliver on the strategy. Equality & Diversity 8. There are no equality and diversity impacts at this stage. At implementation stages there will be a need to review impacts again. Next steps/implications 9. The strategies will form the core of the IS Plan for 2016-19 and will be presented to Central Management Group accordingly. Consultation 10. Digital Transformation of Core Services and Systems; Learning, Teaching & Student Experience; and Research and Innovation, were presented at Information Technology Committee on 19 November 2015. The strategies have also been

shared with the University s Senior Management Team and more specifically with the Heads of Colleges and Heads of Support Groups. Further information 11. Further information can be supplied by: Author Jo Craiglee Head of KM & Planning Presenter Gavin McLachlan CIO and Librarian to the University Freedom of Information 12. This paper can be included in open business. 2

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE C 22 January 2016 Projects and Ongoing Activities Update Description of paper 1. An update on various University-wide projects that fall within the remit of KSC. Action requested/recommendation 2. KSC is asked to note this update on ongoing activities. Background and context 3. At each meeting of KSC an update is provided on projects falling within the remit of the Committee which do not fall into any additional agenda items. Discussion Business Intelligence / Management Information (Craig Middlemass, BI/MI Coordinator) 5. A year into the BI/MI Programme Coordination and there is a lot to celebrate. The Programme has evolved as new initiatives and external influences emerge. 6. HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) Data Futures is a programme of high impact to the University. HESA plan to rejuvenate the HESA return and seek to establish themselves as the provider of student data for HE data collectors. The Programme Coordination team collated a response on behalf of the University on HESA s proposal. The Programme Coordinator along with a representative from Student Systems have joined the HESA Technical working group in order to keep the University engaged. 7. The Data Governance Sub Group have continued to develop the template for data definitions. The Enterprise Architecture practice now established in IS have engaged with the data definitions and support the aim to create a common language for University data. The next major step is to embed the data definitions into all development and support methodologies to ensure they are created and maintained as part of normal business. 8. The Programme Coordinator continues to push the development of a BI Architecture strategy and roadmap. This will set out the principles and vision for what the University needs to aspire to for long term reporting solutions. 9. Dashboard developments have been progressing well, Student Systems have a working prototype, Human Resources have launched a staff dashboard and Procurement have created a series of reports that look like dashboards and automated their production. These development have been invaluable to the toolset review as the dashboards are pushing the limitation of BI Suite. 10. The Programme Coordination team held its first Evidence network meeting in December. The event was attended by around 35 people who as part of their role need to make informed decisions, monitor performance or prepare comparisons and forecasts as part of their job. The event was well received and the team are looking

forward to running more information sharing sessions. 11. The main actions for the Programme Coordination Team in 2016 are: Embed the Data Governance Group Continue BI Community Engagement Create a Learning and Development Strategy and Framework Conduct a Toolset Review Complete the improvements to the BI Support Arrangements Embed the Evidence Network Develop the BI Architecture Strategy and Roadmap Distance Education Initiative (DEI) (Amy Woodgate, Project Manager) 12. Additional resource for new programme development is still to be confirmed but should be known imminently. This sum could be up to 500k, which will need to be allocated to new DEI projects within this financial year. 13. In order to respond quickly to this resource allocation, VP Jeff Haywood and Amy Woodgate have been meeting with interested teams across the three Colleges to prepare DEI business cases for proposal consideration. A formal DEI call was not issued due to the funding position and desire to focus on Schools who have not yet received DEI development funding. 14. The programmes currently being considered are: MSc Sustainable Business; MSc Cultural Relations; MSc Robotics; CPD modules in Forensic Science. The Schools of Maths and Economics are both planning to develop MOOCs before consideration of online masters programmes. 15. A further development is to be supported through the Office of Lifelong Learning for creation of an online English Language course to support English proficiency assessment. This initiative builds on the 2015 pilot with the School of Law. MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) (Amy Woodgate, Project Manager) 16. The University has a portfolio of 28 courses across three platforms, with a further 7 courses in discussion for 2016 delivery. In excess of 1.9 million sign ups have been generated on our MOOCs to date with 110,600 course completers, and the Edinburgh MOOC YouTube channel has received over 77,000 views in the past year. 17. 2016 will see the launch of MOOCs in Schools new to fully-online learning, ie. Business, Maths, and Economics, as well as from those with established portfolios, such as Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences and VetMed. 18. As it has been acknowledged MOOC content is not always visible to key demographic groups such as local schools and teachers, the Edinburgh MOOC team are working with Education Scotland and Scottish Government to populate the GLOW (Scotland s nationally available digital environment for learning in schools) digital environment with MOOC content, both for teacher professional development and student access. A pilot will be run with the Learning for Sustainability team to create a self-paced Continuing Professional Delivery opportunity for teachers to obtain General Teaching Council for Scotland national requirements in the subject. 2

19. Further collaborations are also being explored with the World Bank, British Council, and Visit Scotland, all as a result of successes within MOOC delivery to date. Enterprise Architecture (Dave Berry, Enterprise Architecture) 20. The digital transformation the University wishes to see requires an agreed architecture that enables services to be coordinated, integrated and both seen and experienced by the staff & students as a holistic service. The purpose of enterprise architecture (EA) is to optimize IT and business processes across the University into an integrated whole that is responsive to change and supports the University strategy. 21. The purpose of the EA team is to lead and co-ordinate the creation, maintenance and exploitation of architectural resources and standards in order to increase the flexibility and efficiency of the University s IT systems and business processes. The team work across IS and the wider University. 22. A paper presented to the IT Committee on 19 November 2015 gives a detailed explanation of the problems we are addressing by setting up the EA team and the benefits the team will bring to the University. http://www.itc.isg.ed.ac.uk/docs/open/paper_c_creation_of_enterprise_architecture _Practice.pdf Work strand 1 Developing the architecture function: 23. The initial part of the year was necessarily focussed on establishing the EA team. Dave Berry is seconded to the post of Enterprise Architect and an Enterprise Data Architect is contracted for six months beginning in December. The reporting structure has been established and the team are implementing processes for architecture governance. Relationships are being created with the divisions of IS, with Student Systems, HR, and with the colleges. The priority is to establish similar relationships with the other units involved in the Digital Transformation roadmap. 24. A set of agreed EA Principles will guide the application of enterprise architecture across the university and ensure that EA addresses the University strategy and IS strategy. A first draft has been reviewed by the CIO and other parties. This draft is being reviewed to ensure the principles align fully with those set out in the digital transformation initiative. 25. Universities elsewhere have been consulted in order to learn from their experience. UK universities consulted include Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Plymouth, and UCL. The UCISA EA Community of Practice provides a useful channel for sharing information, as does the USA/Canada-based ITANA working group of EDUCAUSE. Three USA universities will be consulted in detail during January 2016. 26. A key task for the EA team in its first year is to create the first instance of the architecture repository. This will hold artefacts such as data models, API descriptions, process flow diagrams, policies and standards. It will include 3

catalogues of applications, interfaces, data descriptions and other artefacts so that projects can find IT functionality that they can reuse. Work strand 2 Delivering business outcomes: 27. The EA team are working on several activities with direct business outcomes. One major strand is BI/MI, where we are working with the BI/MI programme coordinator and service owner to review the BI ETL architecture, to agree a common template for data definitions, and on responses to the UK Higher Education Data & Information Improvement Programme. 28. The EA team are providing input to several ongoing projects, including student data dashboards, the RMAS reporting project, and the Moodle integration project. The EA contribution to these projects is primarily technical: to clarify data definitions and data flows, and to provide methods and templates for recording these. 29. The EA team will contribute to the Digital Transformation strands on HR transformation, Estates and Buildings, and CRM. The EA engagement with these strands begins at a higher level, including analysis of business capabilities and contributing to the mapping of user journeys. We have consulted several parties regarding their aims and ambitions for CRM and will analyse the implications. A goal will be to create a consistent framework for these analyses so that work produced on different strands and by different contractors is presented in a consistent and comparable manner. 30. The current projects for the Notifications Backbone and for MyEd Mobile, along with the innovation funding for Enterprise Data APIs, will contribute substantially to the vision for the Applications Architecture. Student Systems Roadmap (Barry Neilson, Director of Student Systems) 31. The Student Systems Roadmap 2013-16 was approved by the Student Systems Board in October 2013 and is available here: https://www.projects.ed.ac.uk/webfm_send/2566 32. Knowledge Strategy Committee received a paper in May 2015 which indicated that work was starting on the new Student Systems Roadmap. The initial action was to return to KSC with an update on the emerging roadmap and this is scheduled for the March meeting. 33. Given the development of the Digital Transformation Strategy and the 10 year plan, this provides Student Systems with the opportunity to engage in the development of the plan and start to understand the impact the emerging strategy will have on the work of the area. 34. The box below provides a high level summary of the 4 key areas that have emerged from the initial thinking on the Student System priorities over the next 3 years. 4

1. Roadmap developed with 7 key strands step-up (faster delivery) recommended Enhanced student digital experience; Enhanced systems to support staff enhance student experience and learning & teaching; Efficiency and effective processes. 2. Use of Student Data (Student Record, Courses, Programmes and Survey data) Help schools enhance learning & teaching and student experience; Efficiency, effectiveness and compliance. 3. CRM for student recruitment enquiries and admissions activity. 4. Scan environment for alternative systems for medium term. 35. Academic Year 2015/16 The Student Systems Board has prioritised project/development activities for the 2015/16 academic year. The table below provides a high level overview of the key deliverables. Assessment & Progression Student Data Dashboards Student record hub PGR Student Lifecycle Student Administration Funds Direct Admissions (Year 3) Student Disability Services Compliance & contingency The development and roll-out of the EUCLID assessment and progression tools. This will provide benefits to students, Personal Tutors and School administration including the staged replacement of current in-house SMART system. Developed prototype dashboards to help schools use to data to enhance learning & teaching and student experience. Next stage funding dependent. Redesign of key staff interface with EUCLID the student record hub. Enhance usability and availability of data, notes and documentation but also crucially enable the delivery of the PGR Student Lifecycle and Student Administration in Schools project. Develop a set of tools to support the management of the PGR Student Lifecycle and the data needed within Schools to manage this activity effectively. Seek to expand processes which are started and completed online and locally programme and course changes next on list. Development of a system which will support the Scholarship application and allocation process along with the management information required by the University covering Scholarships managed centrally, centrally/locally and at School level. Delivery of new online application form and development of an application form to support other admissions process. Bring the system of requirement of the Student Disability Service into EUCLID bringing benefits to students, Schools and Disability Services. Annual compliance activity plus some technical enhancements. 36. Related areas There are a number of related areas of work which may impact on the programme of activity this year: Student Systems will be leading the roll out of the EvaSys course evaluation system to all Schools, UG and PGT courses for the start of the 2016/17 academic year; Student Systems with the Learning, Teaching and Web Services in IS are undertaking analysis on the way systems can support the measurement of Assessment & Feedback turnaround times as a set of measures in this area; 5

Student Systems are working with Vice-Principal Jeff Haywood and Information Services regarding the development of Learning Analytics policy and pilot in this area for online distance learning students. Learning Analytics (Jeff Haywood, VP Digital Education / Jo Craiglee, Head of KM and Planning) 37. We are piloting learning analytics focussing on fully online Masters programmes and courses and have partnered with Civitas Learning (a leading US company now expanding into the UK and setting up a pioneer group with some of our peers). The pilot will run for 2 years and be limited to the fully online Masters level programmes and courses, as these are simpler to isolate and work with as a group, are a key growth area, have students who engage strongly in the digital domain, and mainly use the IS-provided Moodle and Learn platforms. We were offered a very much reduced rate to join the pioneer group and we agreed the contract with Civitas in early December 2015. One of the key benefits will be the opportunity to learn from the other members of the group. 38. We have now established a governance group (Learning Analytics Governance Group, LAGG) that will provide academic and administrative oversight to the development of a learning analytics capacity across the university, up to the point at which it is deemed to be a stable service under normal service oversight arrangements. 39. This group meet 4 times per annum and will report progress to Knowledge Strategy Committee. Its primary roles will be to: Guide the development and approval of a university learning analytics policy Provide expert advice to the Support Services involved in providing learning analytics services to the university, and in ensuring the policy is enacted Provide oversight for pilots of learning analytics 40. Membership of LAGG comprises: VP DE (Prof Jeff Haywood), Convenor A representative of Records Management (Susan Graham) A representative of Student Information Systems (Barry Neilson) A representative of Student Services (Shelagh Green) A representative of EUSA A representative from the academic management of CHSS A representative from the academic management of CMVM A representative from the academic management of CSCE Prof Dragan Gasevic, Schools of Education & Informatics Two representatives of Information Services Secretary WorkTribe Research Management (formerly known as RMAS) (Simon Marsden, Director of IS Applications) 41. Work on delivering the new WorkTribe Research Management service has progressed well. We stared a pilot service with 3 schools as planned Institute of 6

Genetics and Molecular Medicine (CMVM), Informatics (CSE) and Philosophy, Psychology and Language Science (CHSS) in late November. 42. Across the three schools we have more than 1,000 active research grants or projects. This is about 14% of all active projects. To date (8 January) 13 new applications for grants and 8 awards have been made using WorkTribe Research Management. 43. There has been one significant issue raised which requires a straightforward workaround from Finance until it can be fixed. Feedback from the schools has been very positive. We are expecting to complete our evaluation of the pilot during January. Assuming a positive outcome of the evaluation, we will deploy to the remaining Schools during April well ahead of our deadline of having all schools on board by end of July. Resource implications 44. There is no additional resource implication not considered within the project remits of the projects listed in this paper. Risk Management 45. There are no additional risks not considered within the project remits of the projects listed in this paper. Equality & Diversity 46. There are no additional equality and diversity impacts not considered within the project remits of the projects listed in this paper. Next steps/implications 47. There will be a further update on these activities taken to the next meeting of Knowledge Strategy Committee. Consultation 48. Knowledge Strategy Committee is the location for any discussions based on this paper it has not been circulated to any other Committee. Further information 49. Further information can be supplied by: Author Claire Maguire Information Services Presenter Gavin McLachlan CIO and Librarian to the University Freedom of Information 50. This paper is open. 7

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE D 22 January 2016 IT Infrastructure Roadmap Governance: Proposal Description of paper 1. Following on from the presentation of the IT Infrastructure Review paper to Knowledge Strategy Committee in January 2014, it was agreed that there would be a governance process put in place for the operation of, and changes to the roadmap. A proposal for that governance process was put to IT Committee in November 2015 and following their endorsement, is presented here to Knowledge Strategy Committee for approval. Action requested/recommendation 2. The Committee is asked to approve the adoption of the proposed governance process; noting in particular the proposal in section 8 that the Governance Group be authorised to re-profile the annual budget where required, across years. Background and context 3. The IT Infrastructure Roadmap covers a five-year map for the University s IT Infrastructure, with the objective of bringing the infrastructure up to the desired standard. The Roadmap was funded through the planning round, allocating an envelope of approx. 4m per annum of capital investment. 4. It was recognised that the roadmap would require to be reviewed and adjusted and KSC required that this be an annual process. It was agreed that a governance group would be created under IT Committee, reporting through IT Committee to KSC. 5. During the IT Infrastructure Review, it was noted that there is an order of uncertainty about the scale of changes that will be needed to keep pace with growth in the University s business. To this end, it is expected that activities will shift and therefore the roadmap will require to be revisited. Furthermore, it was clear that College priorities were aligned to things that needed to be addressed at an early stage, and less clear for those things scheduled later in the roadmap. Discussion 6. The IT Infrastructure Governance Group will be responsible for: Reviewing the IT Infrastructure Roadmap and advising on any adjustments to existing projects or new requirements that require to be added to the roadmap; Recommending to IT Committee any adjustments to the roadmap, including alignment of new and existing projects; Examining the financial implications of proposed changes to the agreed 2015-20 Roadmap and recommending them to IT Committee; Signing off the annual review of the roadmap and recommending the next year s work programme and budget to IT Committee for recommendation to KSC.

7. It is recommended that the Group be authorised to approve re-profiling of the budget within or across years, up to a maximum of 10% of annual budget. This does not include increases to the baseline budget which would require authorisation through the normal planning process. 8. The initial focus of IT Infrastructure Governance Group will be on the IT Infrastructure Roadmap, but the group may consider wider IT Infrastructure governance and make recommendations accordingly to ITC. 9. The Group will meet at least once per annum. Membership 10. It is proposed that the IT Infrastructure Governance Group is comprised as follows: CIO, Convenor; One representative from each of the 3 Colleges; Director, IT Infrastructure, Information Services; Director, Applications Division, Information Services; IS Management Accountant; One external member (normally by correspondence) Risk Management 11. The establishment of the Governance Group is intended to reduce the risk to the University. Equality & Diversity 12. As noted in the original Review Report, the complexity of each project is such that an individual Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) will be conducted for each one in order to ensure that all potential positive and negative impacts to all nine protected characteristics are considered. The EqIAs will be the responsibility of each Project Manager. The introduction of the Governance Group has no impact on that original position. Next steps/implications 13. If KSC approves the creation of the Group, Information Services will invite nominations as outlined in section 8 above. These will be presented electronically for agreement by IT Committee before being submitted to KSC for formal approval. 14. It is intended that the Group will meet in early 2016 to review the 2016/17 roadmap. Further information 15. Authors Presenter Jo Craiglee Gavin McLachlan Head of Knowledge Management CIO and Librarian to the University Tony Weir Director, IT Infrastructure 13 January 2016 Freedom of Information 16. This paper is open.

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE E 22 January 2016 Thesis Digitisation Proposal Description of paper 1. The purpose of this paper is to propose a programme of digitisation of the University s physical thesis collection. By undertaking this work, the library will be able to further promote this collection of unique and important research material, rationalise the space requirements of the existing physical collection, and gain experience in mass digitisation of materials that will inform further programmes of such activity. 2. The Library is currently working on an ambitious ten-year digitisation plan to digitise other parts of its physical collections. The experience gained from this project would directly contribute to, and enhance this programme. 3. This proposal was included in the Information Services Group Plan for 2015/18 and a budget allocation was approved. The project has been fully scoped and was approved by Library Committee; and approval is now sought from Knowledge Strategy Committee. Action requested/recommendation 4. The Committee is being asked to discuss the proposal of thesis digitisation and to approve the programme of work to digitise the University s thesis collection. Background and context 5. The University Library s entire PhD thesis collection consists of approximately 25,000 theses, around 40% of which have already been digitised. Existing digitised theses and newly collected electronic theses are stored and made available in the Edinburgh Research Archive 1 (ERA), and are discoverable directly through the Library s new DiscoverEd 2 search interface. 6. There are three particular benefits that would be gained from digitising the complete collection of theses: a) This is a unique collection of materials, the majority of which are only held at the University of Edinburgh. Digitising them will make them more widely accessible. Statistics gathered by the national IRUS-UK typically show over 30,000 downloads of the existing 7,000 online theses per month, demonstrating the impact of the collection. b) Over ten thousand of the theses are held in duplicate. Of this subset it is possible to undertake destructive scanning. This involves the spine being removed, and the theses scanned in an automatic sheet-fed scanner. This is quicker and more efficient than scanning with a traditional page-turning scanner. 1 Edinburgh Research Archive: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/ 2 DiscoverEd: http://discovered.ed.ac.uk/

This would also free up approximately 500 linear metres of storage space, whilst still retaining a paper copy of each thesis. c) The Library is currently working on an ambitious ten-year digitisation plan to digitise other parts of its physical collections. The experience gained from this project would directly contribute to, and enhance this programme. In addition, the equipment used in the project may have additional life to undertake further digitisation. Discussion Methods of Digitisation 7. At present the Library undertakes two types of digitisation: Photography of manuscripts and other materials that require very high resolution imaging, or are too fragile or not suitable for a scanner. The library employs two full time photographers. Ad-hoc digitisation of materials such as theses or books. These are undertaken on an ad-hoc basis according to user requests for these materials, or for purposes such as e-reserve and inter library loan, and are made using flatbed scanners. 8. Digitisation can either be undertaken by the Library, or outsourced to a specialist document scanning company. 9. Documents that are in good condition and which can be scanned by having their spines removed, and be fed automatically into large sheet-feed scanners. Unique theses must be scanned page-by-page, requiring more significant effort. 10. This paper proposes that a mixed approach is taken: Theses that can be destructively scanned should be scanned in-house. This saves resources in not having to ship theses to an external company, and allows us to build some expertise in mass digitisation and workflows. Investigations suggest it is cheaper to undertake this work in-house. Theses that need to be scanned manually are more cost-effectively processed by large companies who have the infrastructure to work at scale. Care should be taken to only provide such companies with batches of documents at a time, to reduce the risk of loss or damage to unique collections. Theses that are in a poor condition and require specialist intervention and careful scanning should be scanned in-house. Costs of Digitisation 11. The theses that need to be scanned fall into three categories, depending upon their age, condition, and the number of copies held: Group 1: 10,500 duplicate theses suitable for destructive scanning This group could be digitised internally for a total cost of approximately 115,000. This sum would cover all costs including the purchase of a document scanner, the employment of scanning staff at Grade 3 and all transport and disposal costs. 2

Group 2: 3,300 unique theses in a good condition, requiring a manual scanner This group could be digitised externally for a total cost of approximately 120,000. A competitive procurement exercise will be required. Group 3: 1,200 unique theses in poor condition This group requires the attention of a Conservator prior to digitisation. The cost of digitising this collection internally, including conservation, the purchase of two book scanners and the employment of scanning staff at Grade 3 would be 140,000. Additional costs 12. To cover project management, software development time, cataloguing, storage, backup and admin costs, an additional sum of 150,000 will be required over the two and a half year programme. Resource implications 13. The approximate cost for digitising the complete collection of theses, including associated costs such as retrieval, re-shelving, project management, conservation, and cataloguing, is estimated to be approximately 600,000. This includes a 14% contingency as the exact size of the thesis collection is currently estimated because a large proportion of the collection is not catalogued. If the contingency is not required, it would be used to digitise further collections. Group 1: Destructive scanning Group 2: Good condition single copy Group 3: Poor condition single copy Project costs: Management, metadata, development, storage space Contingency Total 115,000 120,000 140,000 150,000 75,000 600,000 14. The total cost equates to approximately 40 per thesis ( 35 per thesis ignoring contingency). As a comparison, the British Library charges 54.48 to digitise a thesis. It is proposed to undertake this work over a staged two and a half year process. However, it could be undertaken in a shorter time period if required. 15. A full break-down of the costs are provided in Appendix A. 16. As part of the 2015/18 planning round, Information Services secured 405k in funding for the proposal. Having now fully scoped the project, there is a differential of 200k from the original estimate. If the Committee approves this programme of work, the differential will be requested as part of the 2016/19 planning round. The breakdown of costs per fiscal year is as follows: 2015/16 k 2016/17 k 2017/18 k 2018/19 k Annual Cost 133 240 129 26 Cumulative Total 133 373.5 502.8 529 3

Risk Management 17. There are two elements of risk to be considered: risk to the collection, and risk of putting the theses online: Risk to the collection: Fragile items will be digitised in-house by staff with appropriate training in handling and digitising such materials, and only once any appropriate conservation work has been undertaken. External suppliers used will be subject to due diligence and quality assurance checks, and regular reviews will take place. Only part of the collection would ever be with the supplier at a time. Risk of putting theses online: Existing risk management processes are already in place when putting theses online, although generally theses are considered low risk, have a stringent take-down policy, and many are out of copyright due to their age. 18. Undertaking the work to digitise the thesis collection will lower two other risks, those of physical space available to hold other collections, and the risk of loss of collections were the physical collection to be damaged by natural disaster. Digitising the collection will vacate some amount of storage space, and will provide a digital backup to the physical thesis. Equality & Diversity 19. Providing online digital access to theses will enhance the current accessibility of the thesis collection. The discovery and access mechanism for this, DiscoverEd, is covered by an existing Equality Impact Assessment 3. Next steps/implications 20. If approved, the next steps for this project would be to initiate the different phases of the digitisation. One or more external suppliers would be needed for outsourced scanning, while staff and equipment would need to be sourced for in-house works. Workflow, conservation, and metadata elements also need to be put in place, and the work scheduled over the three years. Consultation 21. This paper has been discussed by Library Committee and is recommended to Knowledge Strategy Committee for approval. Further information 22. Further information can be supplied by: Author Stuart Lewis Deputy Director Library & University Collections October 2015 Presenter Jeremy Upton Director Library & University Collections Freedom of Information 23. This paper can be included in open business. 3 Library Management Platform EqIA: http://www.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity/impact-assessment/a-zassessments/library%20_management_platform(library_and_university_collections).pdf 4

Appendix A Digitisation by group Group 1: 10,500 for destructive scanning This is the largest group for digitisation and consists mainly of theses in good condition which are to be destructively scanned. This group should be digitised internally, using a high-speed document scanner. Item Detail Cost Staff costs (10,500 theses x 0.5 hours per thesis x 14.51 76,178 per hour (Grade 3 temp + VAT) A4 Document scanner (e.g. Kodak i4650 Plus) = 18,000 ( 15,000 + 19,500 VAT) + 1,500 (3 year maintenance) Scanning software (e.g. Kodak Capture Pro = 6,960 ( 5,800 + 6,960 VAT) including 3 year support licence Guillotine For despining ( 500) x 2 1,000 Waste disposal Hire of two skips, including 20 collections and 4,000 VAT for three years Transportation Cost to pack and transport 15,751 theses from 7,200 Main Library to Annexe ( 6,000 + VAT) Total 114,838 The alternative to digitising internally would be to outsource. We have received several quotes for this work, the cheapest of which offered 21.50 + VAT per thesis. For 10,500 theses, this would come to 270,900. Group 2: 3,300 unique theses in good condition (require manual scanner) This group will be outsourced through a competitive procurement exercise for a total cost of approximately 118,800, assuming a cost of 30 + VAT per thesis. The exact figure will be determined through the procurement process. The alternative to outsourcing would be to digitise internally. However, this option would be prohibitively expensive because it would require the Library to purchase several scanners and hire a number of staff. Based on an average time scale of 4.5 hours per thesis, it would take staff 14,850 hours (over 3,000 working days) to digitise the collection. Staff costs alone would be over 250,000 and at least another 50,000 would be required to purchase scanners. Group 3: 1,200 theses suitable for a manual scanner but requiring conservation work This collection contains the most fragile theses in the collection and would require considerable conservation treatment prior to any digitisation activity. This work would need to be undertaken by a Project Conservator and would add an additional 32,256, including materials. 5

Item Detail Cost Staff costs 1,200 theses x 4.5 hours 78,354 per thesis x 14.51 per hour) Two A2 scanners @ ( 13,500 ( 12,000 27,000 ( 10,000 + VAT) + 1,500 (3 year maintenance)) each = 13,500) Scanner software Software ( 1,000 per 2,000 scanner) Conservation 11 months including 32,256 materials Total 139,653 Alternatively, the collection could be digitised externally. While this would certainly be a cheaper option (approximately 85,867 based on ProQuest s best price and including VAT and conservation cost), it would be wiser to pay a premium to keep this unique and fragile collection on site in order to avoid potential damage. Additional costs As well as the above costs, the following costs need to be included: Item Detail Cost Storage and backup 1 TB of storage ( 1,268) 4,250 plus backup ( 857) multiplied by two (for live and test environments) Project management 2.5 years at Grade 6 plus 100,000 5,400 operational costs Developer 1 month 4,006 Sorting theses 6 weeks (210 hours) @ 3,047 14.51 per hour (Grade 3 temp + VAT) Metadata creation 360 days (Grade 3) 34,878 Total 146,181 6

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE F 22 January 2015 Proposal to revise the Terms of Reference for University Collections Advisory Committee Description of paper 1. The paper sets out a proposed revision to the Terms of Reference (ToR) of University Collections Advisory Committee (UCAC), in line with revisions to other University Committees. This involves expansion of the Committee to include Special Collections and Archives, and the proposed move of the convenorship from the Chief Information Officer (ISG) to an academic chair. This proposal was commended by UCAC at its meeting on 28 October 2015. Action requested/recommendation 2. The Committee is asked to consider and approve the revision to the ToR and to the convenorship of UCAC, including the proposal that the Convener be in attendance at Knowledge Strategy Committee. Background and context 4. University Collections includes all the heritage collections owned or cared for by the University of Edinburgh. The mission of University Collections is Preserving, promoting and providing access to the University s historic and cultural collections. 5. UCAC provides a framework to support, develop and promote these collections in line with best professional practice. There is now a need to revise the remit and membership given the growing convergence between the collections of art, museum objects, archives, rare books and manuscripts, facilitated by the Centre for Research Collections. This convergence is reflected in recent formal documentation (e.g. for professional accreditation), which in turn reflects the developing strategic and operational needs of the collections and associated services. 6. The remit and membership of University Collections Advisory Committee has not been revised since the creation of the Committee in the 1990s, and there are no existing terms of reference. 7. UCAC fulfils a necessary role in advising on and approving documentation required for external validation (Museums Accreditation Scheme); the Committee is the formal University Collections route to Court (via KSC), and members advise Court (through KSC) on responses to repatriation requests. UCAC homologates loans out from University Collections. It works in parallel with Library Committee which deals with the general library collections, access and services. UCAC is a key route of advocacy for the University s collections both within and outwith Information Services Group. The members are senior representatives from the different professional curatorial areas and from major centres of collections activity.