*** revised - the university of edinburgh | the …...2011/09/26 · ac/01/05/23 university of...

AC/01/05/23 University of Edinburgh

Risk Management Committee

26 September 2011 at 3.00 pm

Torridon Room, Charles Stewart House

*** Revised *** Agenda 1. Minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2011 RMC 11/12 1 A 2. Matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda 3. Convener’s Business 4. Update of College, SG and UoE subsidiary company risk

registers

4.1 College of Science and Engineering 4.2 UoE Subsidiary companies (ERI, ETF, ETTC) 4.3 Information Services Group

RMC 11/12 1 B RMC 11/12 1 C RMC 11/12 1 D

5. Risk Management Committee Year End 2010/11 5.1 College and Support Group annual questionnaire returns

and summary of college, school and subsidiary companies returns 5.2 Law and regulation return 5.3 KPMG audit questionnaire 5.4 IT infrastructure assurance 5.5 Procurement assurance 5.6 Year end health and safety assurance 5.7 Risk Assurances Map 5.8 RMC draft report for year end 31 July 2011

RMC 11/12 1 E (Closed) RMC 11/12 1 F RMC 11/12 1 G RMC 11/12 1 H RMC 11/12 1 I RMC 11/12 1 J RMC 11/12 1 K RMC 11/12 1 L

6. Internal Audit Reports – Assurances RMC 11/12 1 M 7. Internal subject review activity RMC 11/12 1 N 8. Programme of risk reviews 2011/12 RMC 11/12 1 O STANDING ITEMS 9. In-Year Record of Events:

Any new events, projects or activities which may give rise to risks during the year 9.1 Risks emerging from the University's RUK fees strategy 9.2 Actions following NSS results

RMC 11/12 1 P (Closed)

9. Any Other Business

10. Dates of meetings: 17 January 2012, Elder Room, OC (next meeting) 3 April 2012, Elder Room, OC 15 May 2012, Elder Room, OC All meetings start at 2.30pm

Helen Stocks/September 2011

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 A

Freedom of Information: Open Business

Minutes of a Meeting of the Risk Management Committee held on 19 May at 2.30 pm in the

Elder Room, Old College

Present: Mr Nigel Paul (Convener) Dr Kim Waldron, University Secretary Mr Jon Gorringe, Director Finance Dr Bruce Nelson, College of Science and Engineering Mr Frank Gribben, College of Humanities and Social Science Dr Tina Harrison, Director of Academic Standards and Quality Assurance Professor Jonathan Ansell, Academic Member Mr Paul McGuire (substituting for Hugh Edmiston) Ms Helen Stocks (Secretary) Apologies: Dr John Markland, University Court Member Mr Hamish McKay, Chief Internal Auditor (attendee) Mr Hugh Edmiston, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine Mr Brian Gilmore, Information Services Group 1. Minutes of the Meeting held on 31 March 2011

The minutes were approved as a correct record.

2. Matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda

There were no matters arising.

3. Convener’s Business

It was reported that Mr John Markland would be demitting office at the end of this session, in line with the end of his membership of Court. The Group wished to pass on their thanks to John for his very helpful contributions to RMC over the past few years. Mrs Margaret Tait would replace him as the lay member of Court on RMC.

4. Risk Reviews 2010/11

The Committee discussed the following risk reviews and were satisfied that, subject to the following comments, mechanisms were in place to appropriately manage risk. Risk 1: Insufficient funding to maintain and develop the University As the external environment was rapidly changing with respect to this risk, all the comments made on this review were appropriate to how the risk was described in the next version of the Risk Register. Risk 3: Challenge of managing activities to ensure some income streams exceed costs It was suggested that the first item under “Further actions” was also the responsibility of Heads of School and Heads of Research Centres. To add to the review version on the web.

1

[HS]The Group discussed some issues around improving the utilisation of the estate (item 5 under ‘Monitoring of risk’), including having sufficient space for new activities. It was noted that over the summer there would be some analysis carried out using fEC data looking at estate expenditure and income raised. PMcG suggested using PURE for further information. Risk 6: Failure to provide a high quality student experience It was felt that this review did not fully reflect the update which had been given to Court. Also the focus needed to be broadened and this may be helped by looking across the business of all four Senate committees and the University Secretary’s areas of responsibility. Also, the PGR experience needed to be included. To amend the risk in next year’s register to encompass a wider view as noted above.

[NALP/HS]To liaise with TH and KW on the review next year.

[Dai Hounsell] Risk 8.5: Adaptation of data collection processes/systems It was recognised that the context of this risk had changed considerably, and this would be taken into account in the updated risk register. Risk 11: Failure to support University image and reputation It was noted that little was changing on this risk, but that it still needed to be kept in view.

5. Update to assurances map

Various additions were suggested in updating the map. Relating to risk 4 there was a discussion on which measures had the most public impact, and which were the most important to the University. The map will be further updated at the year end.

6. Update of University Risk Register

The latest version of the updated URR was discussed, focussing on:

• Risk 4 – the inclusion of student dissatisfaction in this risk and therefore the need for consultation, communication of plans, value for money and considering the comparative experience;

• Risk 5 – space utilisation and its impact on fEC costs.

These issues to be raised at CMG for discussion there.

[NALP]

7. Update of College, SG and UoE subsidiary company risk registers 7.1 College of Humanities and Social Science It was noted that this was a minor update, but in view of the current update to the University Risk Register and the refreshing of the Strategic Plan, a more major review would be carried out in the coming year. 7.2 College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine A couple of likelihood ratings in this risk register were queried.

[HE]

2

7.4 Corporate Services Group The majority of changes to this risk register were around legislative changes which impact on the service to be delivered. Risks to be re-numbered and to update further.

[NALP/JG]7.5 Information Services Group It was felt that the risk register did not reflect work that the Head of ISG had been doing and that phrases such as “Not receiving adequate funding” were not appropriate. To revisit.

[BG]7.6 Student and Academic Services Group It was noted that this had been significantly updated. To correct acronym on risk 12 before publishing.

[HS]7.7 Development and Alumni It was commented that there was a risk for not meeting targets for capital funds and this needed contingencies. 7.8 UoE Subsidiary companies With regards the USCL risk register, it was noted that the failure of supply risk did occur recently and was dealt with satisfactorily. 7.9 ECA It was noted that this risk register was from the perspective of the project, and therefore excluded risks to the wider university, such as diverting resources from existing projects, or increasing estate costs.

8. Risk Management annual year end questionnaire

This was agreed.

9. STANDING ITEMS

In-Year Record of Events:

9.1 The Group were informed that at the last meeting of PSG there was a paper from Finance and ERI which reviewed the risks relating to major research funders and large projects.

9.2 It was noted that the recent decision on pensions raised the possibility of prolonged industrial action.

Any Other Business

There was no other business.

11. Date of next meeting:

Monday 26 September, 2.30pm-4.30pm, Torridon Room, Charles Stewart House

Ms. Helen Stocks 23rd May 2011

3

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 B

The University of Edinburgh


26 September 2011

Risk Register update - College of Science and Engineering

Brief description of the paper Update of the College of Science and Engineering's Risk Register, following the 2011/12 Planning Round Action requested For discussion and input from RMC members Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? No. Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? Yes, in that its fundamental purpose is to address risk. Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of Information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes Originator of the Paper Dr D B Nelson College Registrar 9 September 2011

College of Science and Engineering Risk Register (by type of risk)

Risk Consequences Impact

(I) Likelihood (L)

Importance (IxL)

Management Tool Responsibility

ACADEMIC

1. Failure to recruit adequate or appropriate numbers and quality of undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research postgraduate students.

• Financial loss • Loss of reputation

3 3 9 • Appropriate recruitment & admissions policies and practices, kept under regular review

• Marketing and awareness‐raising • Regular monitoring of applications,

offers made, and offers accepted • Availability of studentships • Close liaison with the International

Office, including through new internationalisation group

• Engagement with new UKBA Managed Migration requirements

• Feasibility study into establishing College Foundation Programme for international students

• Develop strategies for maximising funding for PGR students

Heads of School

Deans/College Officers

2. Loss of key research‐active staff and inability to replace them.

• Loss of research capacity

• Loss of reputation • Loss of external

funding

3 2 6 • HoS leadership/ strategic management

• Regular staff reviews • Reward processes and structure • Income generation plans aimed at

ensuring wherewithal to recruit/retain key staff

Heads of School

3. Lack of, or insufficient success in, winning, research grant and contract funding.

• Lack of research capacity

• Loss of reputation • Loss of income

3 3 9 • Regular management reports produced by the College Office and scrutinised at College Strategy and Management Committee

• Regular monitoring and awareness‐raising, including at College Research Committee

• Local mentoring/peer review

Heads of School Dean Research

4. Failure to facilitate an adequate student experience

• Loss of reputation • Loss of income • Inability to attract

students

3 2 6 • Learning and teaching strategy • Planning and resource allocation

processes • Estates developments e.g. KB

Library and ongoing discussions on student services

Deans Heads of Schools

5. Failure to meet teaching quality and/or accreditation standards.

• Loss of reputation • Inability to attract

students • Loss of accreditation

3 1 3 • External accreditation processes • Internal quality assurance

procedures

Heads of School

Dean QA

6. Failure to develop research, resulting in being left behind and out of fashion.

• Loss of external funding

• Poorer REF performance

• Loss of reputation

4 1 4 • HoS leadership/ strategic management

• Planning processes

Head of School Dean Research

MANAGEMENT

7. Insufficient resources available to implement plans.

• Loss of teaching and research capacity

• Loss of morale • Further financial loss

4 3 12 • Resource allocation processes, including encouraging use of NPRAS

• Recovery of costs from grants, including PI/Co‐I time

• Income‐generating activities • Fund‐raising campaign

Head of College Heads of School Development Manager

8. Inability to maintain, develop and upgrade the estate.

• Poor students experience and/or inability to attract students

• Inability to attract/retain staff

• Damage to reputation

• Legal non‐compliance

• Inability to use buildings

3 3 9 • Estates strategy, including the KB Framework and Public Realm Framework

• Planning & resource allocation processes

• Contingency planning • Engagement with Estates and

Buildings and Estates Committee • Engagement with Finance • Strategic Review of the Biology

Estate

Head of College College Registrar

9. Failure to make best use of staff time.

• Pressure on key staff • Loss of key staff • Financial loss

2

3 6 • Workload allocation • Appropriate management

structures and procedures in place

Head of College/Heads of School

10. Ineffective mechanisms for managing collaborative activities.

• Loss of teaching and research capacity

• Increased bureaucracy

2 2 4 • Policy/procedure implementation • College Strategy & Management

Committee • Research pooling structures

Head of College College Registrar Heads of Schools

11. Ineffective planning and management of resources.

• Inability to develop and deliver teaching and research

• Financial loss • Loss of morale • Loss of staff

3 1 3 • Planning processes, including new 3 year contingency planning

• Leadership/strategic management • College Strategy & Management

Committee

Head of College College Registrar Heads of School

12. Non‐compliance with legislation or regulation.

• Disruption of activities

• Loss of reputation • Financial loss • Prosecution

3 1 3 • Health & Safety, Staffing, Data Protection, ethical etc. policies & procedures

Heads of School

13. Informatics unable to solve financial problems in appropriate timescale

• Loss of reputation • Loss of high quality

staff • Impact on REF, and

SFC REG funding • Impact on College’s

ability to fund new developments

3 3 9 • Regular progress reports and discussions with School

• Support from College Accountant

Head of College College Registrar/College Accountant Head of School

Explanation of ratings Impact Likelihood 1 Minimal 1 Low 2 Moderate 2 Moderate 3 Serious 3 High 4 Disastrous 4 Probable DBN September 2011

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 C



26th September 2011

Subsidiary Companies’ Risk Registers

Brief description of the paper Attached are the latest risk registers for ERI and ETTC, in accordance with the annual timetable. The risk register for ETF was reviewed by the Board of that Company, and it was agreed that in the context of the current dormant status of the Company the risks that had been identified should be deleted. There is therefore no longer a Risk Register to bring forward. Action requested For information / comment as appropriate. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? No Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? No Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes Originator of the paper David C.I.Montgomery, Deputy Director of Finance 16th September 2011

EDINBURGH RESEARCH AND INNOVATION LIMITED TOP RISKS IN THE RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALISATION PROCESS – June 2011 Process Risk Consequences Impact of Risk

Event/Likelihood of Consequences (given mitigating actions)

Current Management Processes and Mitigating Activities

Senior Managerial Responsibility

Future Developments (initial views – to be updated)

A. Grant application process – Pre Award Admin

7. Drop in our success rates due to current financial climate or increased competition from other HEI’s

Reduction in number and value of awards Reduced fEC recovery UOE position in league tables drops

Impact: Significant Likelihood: Probable although unlikely to markedly affect UoE position in league tables

Exploring non traditional sources of funding, focussing particularly on EU funding, as budgets set until end 2013. Continuing to develop our Research Support staff such that, where time permits, more focus is placed on reviewing the overall application, not just the costing. Improved school reporting and quarterly briefings with VP Research and College Deans of Research as requested, with a view to faster remediation of problem situations

H Macandrew

ERI working with VP Internationalisation and Regional Deans to explore international sources of funding: More strategic approach with Deans of Research to align UOE expertise to Govt priority areas Further development of reporting Further development of our Dossier of Good Practice, to give novice PI’s examples of successful applications Further promotion of Research Professional, to enable academic colleagues to create personalised funding searches. Continue to invest in RSA staff CPD.

Process Risk Consequences Impact of Risk Event/Likelihood of Consequences (given mitigating actions)




A. Grant application process – Pre Award Admin (cont’d)

1. Drop in application activity, due to lack of knowledge of the schemes available, a perception of Recession-related lack of funding, or to there being fewer directed calls from sponsors

Reduction in volume of applications, resulting in slower recovery once conditions improve Reduced fEC recovery Edinburgh’s position in league tables drops

Impact: Moderate Likelihood: Possible to Probable

Development activity through Research Development. Plan in place which provides a number of initiatives designed to promote applying for grant funding New Research Professional Tool

H Macandrew

New Research Development plan, with increased focus on international activity. Targeted assistance with international projects Planned schedule of visits of all the main research funders Active monitoring of the main funders through new relationship management plan, powered by our Inteum software New, easier-to-use Research Support and Development website

Process Risk Consequences Impact of Risk





F. Consultancy Operations

2. UOE staff engage in private work, holding themselves out as agents of UOE

Possible liability issues arising from sub-standard work/non-completion No PI cover Under-recording of activity Loss of reputation

Impact: Moderate Likelihood: high, although should move to possible

Awareness and staff training New version of SAM 5.6 now approved by CMG

I Murphy Awareness raising amongst academic colleagues High level support

I. Contractual arrangements

1. ‘Bad’ or inappropriate commercial arrangements made

The University loses financially or otherwise or assumes too high a risk

Impact: Moderate to severe Likelihood: Possible

Skill and knowledge of business development staff Some training Legal review

W Nicholson I Murphy G Wheeler

Further programme of ongoing training and development to be introduced for relevant ERI staff

J. ERI Funding (NEW)

1. Changes to the SFC KTG may bring about a reduction in funding for commercialisation activities to the UOE/ERI.

Loss of funding Reduction in activity Inability to meet financial/operational targets Possible job losses

Impact: Moderate to severe Likelihood: Possible

Response to SFC consultation

D Waddell

Edinburgh Technology Transfer Centre Ltd – Risk Register Risk Consequences Impact of Risk





Risk Type

1. Failure to manage relationships with stakeholders (UOE and CEC)

Loss of reputation/credibility with stakeholders

Critical Rare

UOE and CEC representation on ETTC Board Regular Board meetings Regular reporting to all parties

DW/GB Environmental

2. Lack of Financial Resources

Inability to continue in business

Critical Possible

Annual Budgets Management Accounts

DW Financial

3. Inadequate financial control – both managerial and operationally

Financial loss Disruption of activities Qualified audit opinion Loss of confidence in company Loss of reputation

Moderate Rare

Annual budgets Authorisation procedures Monthly financial reporting Reports to F & GPC UOE and CEC representation on ETTC Board Operational controls External audit

IL Financial

Risk Consequences Impact of Risk Event/Likelihood of Consequences (given mitigating actions)




Risk Type

4. Non compliance with Companies Act, Taxes Acts etc

Financial loss/penalties Loss of reputation

Moderate Rare

External Audit Professional Advisers Staff training Advice from UOE central finance

IL

Ensure good ongoing relationships with advisers

Environmental

5. Non compliance with Health and Safety requirements

Penalties Loss of reputation

Moderate Rare

Health and safety policies and procedures Staff training Advice from UOE H & S specialists

GW Environmental

6. Lack of availability of facilities through major incident e.g. fire/vandalism

Inability to carry out business Loss of paper records

Critical Rare

Smoke/Fire alarms UOE Security Internal security procedures

GW Development of contingency plan

Physical

7. Failure to find tenants for Centre

Loss of rental income

Moderate Possible

Marketing effort from ETTC staff Flow of companies from ERI/SIE company creation activities

GW Financial

Risk Consequences Impact of Risk Event/Likelihood of Consequences (given mitigating actions)




Risk Type

8. Potential financial failure of Tenants/inability to pay in current economic climate

Potential bad debts Loss of income and cash flow to the Company

Moderate/Severe Possible

Aged debtors listings Short notice periods on leases Close working relationship with tenants

GW /IL Financial

Responsibilities: DW – Derek Waddell – UOE GB – Gerry Baker – City of Edinburgh Council (“CEC”) GW – Grant Wheeler – ETTC Manager IL – Ian Lamb, Company Secretary

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 D



26 September 2011

Risk Register update - Information Services

Brief description of the paper This is the Information Services Risk Register revised in July 2011 after comments of the RMC of May 2011. Action requested For information. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? No Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? It is a risk analysis. Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes Originator of the paper Brian Gilmore Director, IT Infrastructure 8th Sep 2011

Key risks for IS Update: 25th July 2011

Risk Consequences Impact of Risk Event/Likelihood of consequences

Mitigating Processes & activities in place


Further Actions

A

Funding constraints and competing resource demands lead to inadequate resourcing for some services.

• Inability to maintain existing services

• Disruption of services/activities

• Loss of confidence • Lack of flexibility to

resource new services

• Partners need to reach agreement on reduction or cessation of services.

Impact: Critical Likelihood: Likely Risk Factor 9

Service costing exercise being undertaken after discussions with Colleges. Service usage will be monitored regularly.

Lead: VP-KM IS Directors

VP KM instituted sets of meetings to discuss.

B

Less success in bidding for project work, reduction in national funding.

• Staff redundancy • Loss of ability to

innovate in services • Potential loss of ‘critical

mass’ of staff experience to support services

• Reduction in breadth and currency of expertise

Impact: Critical Likelihood: Likely Risk Factor 9

IS to share expertise through communities of practice


Review by IS Directors – Exit Strategies in conjunction with HR-IS.

C

Classroom Services: Failure of equipment due to inadequate rolling replacement programme. Supplier problems. Loss of equipment for client services due to theft, damage.

• Loss of Service Impact: Moderate Likelihood: Probable Risk Factor 8

Physical security measures undertaken including remote monitoring. Current capital programme is providing significant funding for equipment replacement as part of major projects. Rolling replacement plan modified to take account of under funding. APUC framework agreements in place to increase availability of


Ongoing discussions through LTSAG regarding adequate funding for Learning and Teaching spaces in central and School/College ownership.

installation suppliers.

D

Assets: uneven management of the existing collection and services from external stores, other assets; inadequate collection development; loss of or damage to collections through fire, flood, building work, or other disaster.

• Detrimental impact on Teaching, Learning and Research

• Damage to Reputation • Failure to attract

research staff & students • insufficient exploitation

of resources • Financial loss

Impact: Critical Likelihood: Possible Risk Factor 6

Vulnerable collections have been identified and measures to address the problem put in place or being deployed. Amended Collections Policy 2009 in place.

Lead: VP-KM IS Directors (including Director of Collections)

Increased cataloguing and collections management. Recasting services from main external store Library Annex (LA) from 2010; working in partnership with RLUK, SHEDL to extract best value for materials budget resources.

E

Non-Compliance With Legislation/Licensing agreements : FOI; data protection; copyright; IPR; licensing infringements; Procurement.

• Prosecution • Loss of reputation • Temporary or permanent

closure of service(s) • Financial loss

Impact: Moderate Likelihood: Likely Risk Factor 6

Active participation in relevant University groups FOI and DP practitioners in place. New tools and guidance published Records management & IT security group have produced guidance. Active management of risk by IS procurement group.

Lead: VP-KM IS Directors, All staff

Continued review & monitoring by IS Directors Engagement with relevant committees Continuing training programme in place

F

VLE & related services: Inadequate resource to support hardware/software; Supplier Problems; Failure to supply appropriate data feeds; Failure of other parts of enterprise infrastructure.

• Reliability/Availability issues leading to customer lack of confidence and staff stress.

• System use limited to routine tasks, leading to a perception of lack of flexibility, and frustration of staff who wish to innovate.

Impact : Moderate Likelihood : Possible Risk Factor 4

Further work on resilience for WebCT was carried out in 2009-10 and further plans are in place from 2010-11


There is no next VLE initiative active at present. There is a distance education initiative which may have impact. We have plans to pilot next version – Learn 9 during 2010-11

G

Staff: loss of key staff; failure to deploy staff effectively; ineffective or inadequate management; de-motivation

• Failure to meet service requirements and developments

• Curtailment of services • Loss of reputation • Loss of external funding • De-motivation of staff • Raised level of stress for

other staff

Impact: Moderate Likelihood: Possible Risk Factor 4

Staff development programmes in place. IS managers working with Corporate HR to develop innovative solutions. Movement between divisions where appropriate is occurring.


Divisions are creating their own strategies in conjunction with HR-IS.

H Financial Management: inadequate financial control.

• Loss of operational control and information

• Financial loss • Disruption of

services/activities • Loss of confidence • Loss of reputation

Impact: Critical Likelihood: Rare Risk Factor 3

Budget profiling and budget management systems in place for all unrestricted funds. Financial management co-ordinated at Support Group level to achieve greater integration of business processes. Created IS Planning & Resources Group.

Lead: VP-KM IS Directors Head of KM & IS Planning

Information Services will complete the work on budget profiling and management systems to include all restricted funds by the end of FY 2011/12.

J

IT : loss of services, internal or external, for more than 3 working days through unplanned loss of IT systems; loss of data;

• Loss of operational control and information

• Financial loss • Loss of reputation

Impact: Critical Likelihood: Rare

Active steps to increase resilience, detection and removal of single points of failure.


Continue increase in resilience including the continuing search for and removal of single

reliance on IT for service developments; lack of resource; supplier problems

• Time & mechanisms to recover services

Risk Factor 3 Overview by Knowledge Strategy Committee Review by IT-I Management. Investigation by Internal Audit.

points of failure. Updated application switching technology which supports automated failover of applications and increased resiliency of infrastructure being implemented

K

IT: loss of some services, internal or external, for between half and 3 working days through unplanned loss of IT systems.

• Loss of reputation • Time & mechanisms to

recover services

Impact: Critical Likelihood: Rare Risk Factor 3

See risk of loss for more than 3 days (Risk J). Annual review of DR process and associated testing to ensure continuing improvement/refinement in process and confirm relative priorities of services. IS has worked on plans to mitigate various IT loss including the ability for staff to work from home. Updated application switching technology which supports automated failover of applications and increased resiliency of infrastructure has been implemented


Continue to develop increased resilience in the services provided. Working with business areas to ensure business continuity plans for areas tie in with DR Strategy being implemented by IS.

L

IT : loss of some high profile services, for up to half a working day through unplanned loss of IT systems;

• Loss of reputation • Loss of staff time

Impact: Moderate Likelihood: Rare Risk Factor 2

See risk of loss for more than 3 days Improved communications/alert mechanisms

Lead: Director of ITI ITI Managers IS Directors

Continue increase in resilience, removing single points of failure.

M

Estate and accommodation : inadequate maintenance and development of estate; inadequate Health & Safety, DDA control and management; loss of or damage to estate; lack of accommodation; Refurbishment projects

• Inability to use buildings appropriately and effectively

• Inability to rationalise estate effectively

• Legal non-compliance – risk of prosecution

• Injury & compensation • Inability to recruit • Negative impact on staff • Disruption of services

due to MLRP associated incidents.


MLRP Mitigation of Risk Register. Facilities Strategy completed and now in place. IS space management group has been set up to continue reviewing the situation.

Lead: VP-KM IS Directors All staff MLRP Lead: Director of L&C KBLLRC Lead: Deputy Director USD

Major review of IS staff space is underway.

NEW

Impact of Distance Education Initiative puts excessive strain on existing IT infrastructure and services

• Reliability/Availability issues leading to customer lack of confidence and staff stress.

• Inability to maintain levels of existing services

• Disruption of services/activities


Requirements are discussed with each project to ascertain potential impact.

Lead: VP-KM Watching brief on how DE develops across the university. Discussions with colleagues on investment of DEI generated NPRAS to ensure adequate funds flow to SG areas where the impact will be significant

RISK – Measures of impact Description Example Detail Description

Potential for: Disastrous

4

Death Medium term loss of service capability

Adverse national publicity / Ongoing damage to University brand image

More than 50 people involved Litigation almost certain and difficult to defend

Financial loss in excess of £1m Breaches of law punishable by imprisonment

Absolute blockage to achieving strategic objectives Drop in RAE ratings of 2 or more levels

Major difficulty to recruit / retain students or staff

Critical

3

Extensive, permanent injuries; long term sick Short term loss of service capability

Adverse local publicity / Limited damage to University brand image

Up to 50 people involved Litigation to be expected

Financial loss between £250,000 and £1m Breaches of law punishable by fines only

Manageable blockage to achieving strategic objectives Drop in RAE ratings at 1 level

Significant problems in recruiting / retaining students or staff

Moderate

2

Medical treatment required – long term injury Short term disruption to service capability

Needs careful public relations No more than 10 people involved

High potential for complaint, litigation Likely

Financial loss between £50,000 and £250,000 Breaches of regulations/standards

Hindrance in achieving annual plans No drop in RAE ratings

Limited impact on recruitment / retention of students and staff Slight

1

No injuries beyond “first aid” level No significant disruption to service capability

Possible to cause any adverse publicity No more than 3 people involved

Possible to cause complaint/litigation

Financial loss below £50,000 Breaches of local procedures/standards No impact on annual or long term plans

No drop in RAE rating No impact on recruitment / retention of students or staff

RISK – Measures of Likelihood Probable 4

Will probably occur in most circumstances

Likely 3

Finite possibility of occurrence

Possible 2

May occur in certain circumstances but low likelihood

Rare 1

May occur in rare or exceptional circumstances

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 E (Closed)



26 September 2011

Risk Management Annual Return - Period 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011

Brief description of the paper The paper provides a summary of responses from Colleges, Support Groups, the Principal’s Office and University Subsidiary Companies, together with copies of the individual Risk Management Annual Questionnaires for the period 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011. Action requested For comment Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? No Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? No Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? No Originator of the paper Nigel Paul Director of Corporate Services 22 September 2011

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 F



26 September 2011

Report on the Law and Regulation Return 2010-11

Brief description of the paper The paper reports on the responses made to the Law and Regulation return which is requested from Heads of College, Support Group, School and Planning unit. Action requested For information Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? No Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? No Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes Originators of the paper Liz Welch, Assistant Director of Finance Graham Bailey, Senior Financial Accountant

Law & Regulation Return 2010-11 As part of the financial year end process and to assist Court to fulfil its responsibilities with regard to law and regulation, the Law and Regulation return was circulated to Heads of College, Support Group, School and Planning Unit. The return required each of the 53 senior management recipients to confirm if they were aware of any breaches of laws or regulations relevant to the conduct of the University’s business which could have an effect on the University’s ability to conduct that business and therefore impact on the financial statements for the year. Only items which could have an impact in excess of £200,000 were to be considered. The return was circulated on 1st August and 44 responses have been received at the date of this report. A full set of returns will be available for review by KPMG at the commencement of the external audit on 26th September 2011. All respondents have confirmed that they are not aware of any such breaches of laws and regulations. One instance of a breach of the Data Protection Act which was dealt with by the relevant School was reported on this return. Graham Bailey Senior Financial Accountant Liz Welch Assistant Director of Finance 16 September 2011

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 G



26 September 2011

Report on the KPMG Audit Questionnaire 2010-11

Brief description of the paper The Audit Questionnaire is compiled by the University’s external auditors and circulated on their behalf by the Finance Department at the financial year end. This paper reports on the process and the initial findings from a review of the responses received from the University’s Schools and Planning units. An update the key findings from the exercise will be tabled at the meeting. Action requested For information Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? No Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? No Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes Originator of the paper Liz Welch, Assistant Director of Finance Graham Bailey, Senior Financial Accountant

KPMG Audit Questionnaire 2010-11 The KPMG Audit Questionnaire (copy attached) was distributed by the Finance Department on behalf of KPMG, the University’s external auditor, with the 2010-11 accounting year end instructions. The return was circulated to Colleges and Schools, Support Groups and Planning Units. Each unit was asked to complete and return the questionnaire to Financial Accounting in the first instance with a response date of 30th August 2011. The timing was designed to facilitate a further review of School returns this year by College Offices and Finance teams prior to the preparation of this report and the submission of the complete set to KPMG. At the date of this paper the initial level of responses covered 43 (2010: 37) of the 51 areas for which the requirement for a return was identified. Financial Accounting continues to pursue responses for the remaining areas by 23rd September, in order to achieve a 100% response rate prior to the commencement of the audit on 26th September. The main aims of the questionnaire are:

• to inform the External Audit team of high risk areas, thus enabling them to effectively target their resources during the audit;

• to aid the Finance Department in identifying potential non-compliance with University financial regulations and weaknesses in financial control.

As in previous years the questionnaire covers the following key risk areas:

• external non research income; • externally funded research; • banking arrangements; • fixed assets; • companies • awareness of fraud and error; • payroll;

Plus in addition for 20010/11 • partnerships or joint ventures and other contractual arrangements with third parties

and: • responsibility and methodology for establishing year end expenditure accruals;

A brief update on the key matters covered in the responses will be provided to the meeting. Graham Bailey Senior Financial Accountant Liz Welch Assistant Director of Finance 16 September 2011

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 H



26 September 2011

Report on Major IT Services 2010/11

Brief description of the paper The paper is an annual review of risks around the main IT services delivered by Information services to the University. The review covers, the availability of the services, major incidents, internal audit reports and key areas for improvement. Action requested The report is provided for information. Feedback or requests for clarification from the committee would be welcomed by Information services

Resource implications

Does the paper have resource implications? No

Risk Assessment

Does the paper include a risk analysis? No

Equality and Diversity

Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No

Freedom of information

Can this paper be included in open business? Yes

Originator of the paper Simon Marsden 1 September 2011

1

Report on Major IT Services 2010-11

Overall position The services have run very well through the year and there have been no major unplanned disruptions to services. We have undertaken major work to refurbish one of our two main data centres to ensure that it remains fit for purpose to meet the University’s needs for the future. The work necessitated the data centre being unavailable for two weekends in February. Whilst it was not possible to completely avoid all disruption we were able to keep our high priority services running with only relatively small scheduled interruptions to service. In practice this was a test of our disaster recovery processes as we transferred services to run at our second data centre. There were very few complaints around this work indicating that our approach to minimising disruption and advance communication of the events was successful. Usage of the services continues to grow with an approximate 20% increase based on MyEd usage between 2009/10 and 2011/10 as an indicator. Once again IS has been actively involved in managing the capacity of our services to allow for the growth in demand. This has required active investment in the infrastructure with additional networking, load balancing and server capacity all added during the year.

Availability Generally availability has been acceptable with services getting close to or exceeding our 99.9% target for high priority services as can be seen from the table below.

Availability Statistics for high priority services Service Availability % Comment 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 MyEd 99.95 99.32 99.87 99.76 Staff mail service 99.59 99.81 99.99 99.96 Student mail service 99.70 99.83 99.91 99.99 Exseed – n/a 99.97 99.98 Exchange mail/diary Online student admin 99.97 99.33 99.22 99.97 Euclid from 2008/09 University web site 100.00 99.89 99.88 99.97 Virtual Learning Environment 99.20 99.61 99.76 99.95 WebCT Wiki 99.72 99.78 99.90 99.93 Library Catalogue n/a 99.95 99.64 e-Journals n/a 99.97 Kinetix 99.99 99.98 99.85 99.92 Accommodation Services Note: The availability figures do not include scheduled down time for planned maintenance. 0.1% is less than 9 hours in a year. Service availability for a broader range of services is published via the web at the service status and alerts page (see above) We have continued to work with our staff on a best endeavours basis to resolve disruptions which occur out of hours. This has worked well, as can be seen from the availability figures. There has been one exception which was a 20hour outage for MyEd which occurred over the weekend of 30/31st July. This is a time when we have most people on annual leave and so best endeavours are stretched to their thinnest, however it is also a time when service usage is low. It is pleasing to note the significant improvement, up from 99.22 to 99.97 (68hrs to less than 3hrs in the year) in the online student admin service (Euclid) availability following the implementation of new infrastructure last June.

3

The projects agenda has seen the following projects deliver significant change:

• Windows 7/Snowleopard/Office 2010 • Mobile Campus • Shared Academic Timetabling • Research Management and Administration (Pure/Infinite) • Research Storage • E-Recruitment • ECDF • IDM

Major issues/incidents. Following the breach in security on machines in MVM in 2009/10 there was a further similar but unrelated breach in a school in Science and Engineering. In both cases prompt action was taken to close the breaches. As a result IS working with the Knowledge Strategy Committee have asked Internal Audit to incorporate a programme of work to assess whether schools are addressing the risks associated with the IT services that they are running. As part of this work IS has produced a guidance note for school management to use comprising of questions they may wish to consider.

Audits Internal Audit on Codes of Practice. An internal audit was performed on the progress with codes of practice and substantially recommended a speeding up of the process which will be carried out in 2011-12.

IT Security Policy With the advent of the enhanced powers for the Information Commissioner to levy fines the work of the IT Security Working Group shifted its emphasis more to putting into place the guidance and support for encryption of sensitive data. This group has been working very closely with the Records Management section to provide both the underpinning technology and the up-front guidance and advice to the University. The work on the security policy and the underlying Codes of Practice has continued with a further few codes produced. The group feels that the structure and guidance is now in place for the next set of codes, in particular for the highest priority University systems, to be produced by the system owners rather than the group which will move into more of an overseer and quality control activity.

Key improvement areas With the introduction of Windows 7 the opportunity has been taken to use the enhanced power management controls to amend the default settings for staff machines to ensure a much better power management with potentially high savings in energy costs as this is rolled out across the University. In addition, a specific service to ‘wake-up’ sleeping machines has also been introduced to enable those who need access to their machines when they are away from their desks to take full advantage of the power management settings. There has been a continued virtualisation of services which provides cost saving and enhanced resilience. New application switching has been introduced providing better performance, reliability and security. The dual site replication of the staffmail service has

4

been completed. There have been improvements to performance and functionality of the authentication and authorisation services.

Robustness/adequacy of our ICT infrastructure and systems Significant effort has been put in in the previous year in various areas to ensure the overall robustness and resiliency of our IT systems. In particular, with E&B there is a major refurbishment in progress for the main JCMB machine room which will then give us two up-to-date machine rooms that should last for the next decade. Our level of faults to speed of response is good, especially taking into account our level of investment, and compares well to our peers in the UK. There is continuing work on the network to ensure resilience, this work goes from ensuring double connections from all of our main systems to the very significant work on the procurement of the second link to Easter Bush and the ACF to give us resilience to a very significant part of our estate. Jeff Haywood, VP Knowledge Management and CIO Simon Marsden, Director, Applications Division Brian Gilmore, Director, IT Infrastructure 1 September 2011

5

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 I



26 September 2011

Risk Management Report: Procurement 2010/11 Brief description of the paper This review reports on the University’s Procurement performance and the management of Procurement within the University. It provides the assurances to the Governing body as recommended by the CUC Guidance for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies bodies regarding Procurement as follows:

3.17 Governing bodies should ensure that VFM in procurement is achieved through obtaining assurances that:

• adequate procurement policies and procedures are in place • policies and procedures are consistently applied, and there is

compliance with relevant legislation. 3.18 To obtain these assurances governing bodies should ensure that the risk management framework and reporting mechanisms give adequate coverage of procurement processes and risks. The institution’s procurement procedures, including procedures governing conflicts of interest relating to procurement matters, should form part of the Financial Regulations, which should be approved by the governing body.

The report summarises performance and developments in procurement over the past year, and provides the assurances on procurement required both relating to management of procurement risk in the University, as well as those recommended by the CUC Guidance. Action requested RMC is invited to Note and Endorse the report Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? Yes Efficiencies on 2009-10 analysis to date and procurement capabilities in Appendix Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? Yes, this is a Risk Report Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? Yes Reference to Social Responsibility and Sustainability, Bribery, Equality and Fair Trade. Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes Originator of the paper Karen Bowman, Director of Procurement, 26 August 2011

Risk Management Report: Procurement 2010/11 This review reports on the University’s Procurement performance and the management of Procurement within the University. It provides the assurances to the Governing body as recommended by the CUC Guidance for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies. 3.17 Governing bodies should ensure that VFM in procurement is achieved through obtaining assurances that:

• adequate procurement policies and procedures are in place • policies and procedures are consistently applied, and there is compliance

with relevant legislation.

3.18 To obtain these assurances governing bodies should ensure that the risk management framework and reporting mechanisms give adequate coverage of procurement processes and risks. The institution’s procurement procedures, including procedures governing conflicts of interest relating to procurement matters, should form part of the Financial Regulations, which should be approved by the governing body.

1. The University of Edinburgh Procurement Management The main framework for managing procurement in the University consists of (i) Policy and process:

- Procurement policies and procedures agreed by CMG and F&GPC [Policy by Court], - Online procurement manual and template documents with guidance, being enhanced. - Strategic plan for continued development of procurement processes and practices, - Development of e-procurement processes with inbuilt control safeguards, including

secure electronic tenders and product records for chemical control in our laboratories. (ii) People and skills:

- Procurement and Printing Services performing to the Investors in People Standard. - Development of professional staff capability and annual personal performance and

development review against a framework of professional & leadership competencies. - Senior engagement with CIPS, the international professional body Chartered Institute

of Purchasing and Supply and engagement with AUPO, the Association of University Procurement Officers, now a BUFDG British Universities Finance Directors Group special interest group as well as engaging in sectoral Procurement Strategy Groups.

(iii) Collaboration and communication: - Devolvement of procurement responsibilities to Heads of Schools and Heads of

Functional Departments and online booked or tailored training / awareness sessions, - Awareness sessions or briefings for project leads and project steering groups/boards. - Collaborative procurement and links with APUC Ltd and Procurement Scotland and

the Scottish Public Procurement Reform Board who lead on collaborative strategies and procurement tenders relating to HE/FE sector or wider public sector respectively.

(iv) Reviews and measures: - Internal Audit reviews of procurement activities and management follow up on these, - Expenditure analysis and strategic review of categories [commodity based approach], - Senior engagement in the University social responsibility and sustainability strategy, - Independent capability reviews of procurement activities and best practice indicator

reports, compare published criteria and benchmarks with other institutions/sectors. - Assurances obtained from risk management questionnaire.

2. Legislative and Policy issues during the year (i) This is the first full year since the new EU Remedies Directive became Scots Law.

3

The University’s procurements, as reported last year, have new risks with serious impacts regarding due process within public procurement regulations, namely Ineffectiveness, curtailment or dissuasive ‘fines’ for non-compliance. We have had no court actions against the University, despite a rapidly increasing number of cases brought to Scottish, UK and EU Courts under the new laws and procurement team adapt their advice. Senior colleagues are asked to engage a procurement specialists in preparing plans to ensure risks are mitigated. (ii) Bribery Act As part of the Anti-corruption Policy development, procurement risks are being considered. The risk is not only from behaviour of our own staff in respect of active or passive bribes or in relation to foreign officials regarding acquisition of goods or services or works but if the University fails to prevent bribery committed by a person “associated” with our business. Associated persons can include, but are not limited to, employees, agents, subsidiaries and business partners such as intermediaries, consortium or joint venture partners, contractors or suppliers, this is extended by inference to potential suppliers, tenderers, or bidders. Bribery Act training was given by HR and specialist lawyers and a procurement specialist attended each session. Our procurement team are professionally qualified (MCIPS or FCIPS) upholding the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Code of Ethics, to lead others in ethical procurement and anti-corruption as part of our procurement best practices. We are working with APUC ltd to carry out due diligence on purchasing consortia we use. When University delegated authorities use framework agreements and contracts let (84% of spend in 2009/10), such risks can be mitigated more readily. This new risk will be kept under review. (iii) Equality Act The stated ‘protected characteristics’ impacts can be associated with categories of supply or services especially services provided for or on behalf of the University. Questions used in pre-qualifying supplier to elicit any specific risks. As few of the professional services are collaboratively procured, spend analysis is given College and Support Groups to assist in this. (iv) Agency Workers Directive The new obligations and rights of agency workers (effective 1 October 2011) have been prepared for, by HR and Procurement professional teams, working with current incumbent service providers. The devolved buying of temporary staff from other agencies is a risk that has been highlighted to managers and local HR teams are willing to engage in supporting this. 3. Delegated authority - awareness and training Awareness sessions and training have been provided to 330 staff including in Welcome days. The Director of Procurement and Finance team work together to ensure adequate authority to purchase and controls. Plans for expenditure >£50,000 are to be approved by the Director of Procurement, as are any Framework agreements or contracts entered into for the University. 4. Key professional developments The Procurement team and Printing Services have achieved the Investors in People Standard. We were finalists in the Times Higher Outstanding Procurement Team for a second year. The University of Edinburgh, independently assessed Procurement Capability Assessment (scored 86%) was best in Scottish universities and colleges sector for the second year too.

(i) Social responsibility and sustainable procurement (SRS) We met the Scottish Government action plan on sustainable procurement, and publish our activities and including a commodity-based risk matrix. We take lead role to reduce the risk of losing Fairtrade University status with students, staff, alumni, City (for 6th year) and we are encouraging student research and joint academic network activity to inform our practices.

4

(ii) Shared services and subsidiaries Queen Margaret University continues to use our shared service and its independently assessed procurement capability has improved (to 50%) and we will develop its procurement strategy. National vocational qualifications at Borders Council and for others is provided, and under review. Our professional advice is also used by ESPA international research services; other subsidiaries e.g. Utilities Company; Waveflow TT; and as appropriate by the BioQuarter. 5. Audit and assurances Each year procurement is audited by Internal Audit and assurances sought re compliance by External Auditors. In 2010-11 the focus was on purchase orders statistics and has identified further investigation and action depending on commodity area and for finance system users. We report Best Practice Indicators to Scottish Government standards and have achieved excellent outcomes during 2009-10. The data for 2010-11 will be available in October 2011. We have identified £8.7m of efficiency gains for the University so far from the FY 2010-11. Procurement influence is yet to be fully calculated but was around 84% for the previous year. If we continue to retain our skills and resources and have good support from the senior management, I am satisfied that the University is adequately managing its procurement risks. Karen Bowman, MA (Hons), FCIPS, SRN Director of Procurement 26 August 2011

5

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 J



26 September 2011

Annual Report to Risk Management Committee on Health and Safety

Brief description of the paper This Paper summarises current issues and developments with regard to the University’s management of occupational safety and health, including issues which fall within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation, and seeks to provide reassurance that these are subject to satisfactory risk identification, assessment and control, at corporate, College and School levels, and below. Action requested

The Risk Management Committee is invited to consider this report as part of its ongoing programme of risk reviews. Resource implications Resources, both salary and operational, within both the corporate health and safety function, and the cohort of professional College and School H&S practitioners, require to be maintained at roughly their current level to ensure that the current elements of guidance, advice, training, auditing and review can proceed at a satisfactory level to ensure compliance with relevant legislation, and with the University Health and Safety Policy. However, necessary financial savings have again been implemented this year, and planned for future years, with the objective of maintaining a suitably high standard of service, whilst the planned decrease in staff numbers progresses: modernising and streamlining our processes. Risk Assessment As described in the attached paper. Equality and DiversityCounter-terrorism requirements of the Home Office, particularly in the area of personnel security, continue to have some implications for equality and diversity. Any other relevant information None. Freedom of Information This paper can be included in open business. Originator of the paper Alastair Reid, Director of Health and Safety, Charles Stewart House, Chambers Street 6th September 2011

Annual Report to Risk Management Committee on Health and Safety 2011

This review reports on the University’s Health and Safety performance and the management of health and safety within the University. The risk of major injury, health, safety or environmental incident (e.g. escape of dangerous substances such as asbestos, or of infectious diseases, terrorist act etc.) is a recognised risk. Under the University’s devolved structure, the Director of Corporate Services has overall responsibility for Health and Safety, with local responsibilities devolved to Heads of Schools and Heads of Support Groups, supported by the professional leadership of Health and Safety Department. The risk is formally recognised in the Corporate Services Group Risk register. A. Accident, Incident and Occupational Ill Health Experience Injuries and dangerous occurrences which were of a sufficiently serious nature to require them to be reported to the relevant Enforcing Authority under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) during the period 01.08.10 to 31.07.11 totalled 44. Statistics for the previous 4 years have also been included, for comparison. 2006/7 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 Specified Major Injury 4 2 2 1 6 > 3 day Absence 9 26 19 15 18 Public to Hospital 16 11 17 15 18 Reportable Dangerous Occurrences 2 0 0 0 1 Reportable Diseases 0 0 0 0 1 Total Reportable Accidents / Incidents 31 39 38 31 44 All such events were subject to investigation, utilising the Health and Safety Department’s two-tier incident investigation procedures, which are applied according to the seriousness of the incident. Appropriate contingency measures and remedial action were implemented in all cases. The University continues to demonstrate its ability to maintain its accident, incident and occupational ill health experience at a low level, which benchmarks well against the UK HE sector as a whole, and very well against other industry sectors, whilst operating very efficient accident and incident reporting, recording and analysis procedures, which are themselves subject to a policy of continual improvement. This satisfactory performance is confirmed and complemented by the consistently low number of claims for damages against the University’s liability insurance policies, related to health and safety at work or study, over the past few years. The University continues to be able to demonstrate a positive culture as regards health and safety at work and study, whilst not exhibiting the type of “claims culture” sometimes evident within other large organisations. This continues to be confirmed during partnership health and safety audit programmes with Aon Risk Services. Accident, incident and ill health experience is reported monthly to, and analysed with, the Director of Corporate Services, reported quarterly to CMG, and annually to Health and Safety Committee, with summaries as appropriate to F&GPC and Court, so that senior management can maintain an ongoing, realistic picture of our accident etc. experience. In addition, the University of Edinburgh continues to collate and report accident and incident statistics for all of Scotland’s Universities, as a sustainable legacy of the Scottish Funding Council’s Co-ordinating Health and Safety in Tertiary Education (CHASTE) Project. (Development of analogous reporting systems for Scotland’s Colleges has also been implemented, under a Health and Safety Community of Practice for the Colleges).

B. Enforcement Action The University was subject to no criminal prosecutions, Prohibition Notices or Improvement notices issued by Enforcing Authorities over the period. C. Health and Safety Auditing The partnership approach to health and safety auditing, featuring close co-operation between the H&S Department and the University’s insurance brokers (Aon) continues to operate successfully. Phase 2 of the second 5 year programme of H&S Management and Compliance auditing at School (and equivalent) level has recently been completed. This audit programme involves a partnership approach involving Aon (Insurance Brokers) and the Health and Safety Department. The programme covers low risk, as well as high risk, areas and was the first such complete audit cycle post re-structuring. Management Audits indicated a very satisfactory level of performance in the Schools and other management units, which demonstrates incremental improvement. Follow-up Compliance Audits have likewise indicated a generally high level of performance. Progress with the Aon Audit Programme is regularly reviewed by the University Health and Safety Committee. D. Health and Safety Policy Updates As mentioned in previous years’ reports, the decision to keep the “golden copy” of the University H&S Policy in electronic form on the H&S WWW site has allowed us to maintain a more evolutionary approach to updating the Policy, as developments dictate, rather than a complete re-publishing in booklet form every (say) five years, and has brought concomitant financial savings. The only section of the central Health and Safety Policy still produced in booklet form is the Keynote Guide to the Health and Safety Policy. This booklet is issued to all new staff in their welcome pack, and at Staff Welcome Day. There will shortly be a planned review of the central Health and Safety Policy, in order to modernise and streamline these documents, and clearly delineate policy, best practice and guidance elements. E. Health and Safety Management Structure The effectiveness of School Committee structures, communication networks etc. is regularly audited, both externally and internally. Heads of School and Heads of College in an increasing number of high risk areas have acknowledged the increased load by appointing a new tier of full time health and safety professional at School and College level, in Science and Engineering, and in Medicine and Vet. Medicine, in addition to having local Health and Safety Committees. Full time professional health and safety practitioners at College and School level now number nine individuals. The Corporate Health and Safety Department continues to support, and work closely with, these colleagues at College and School level, as well as with the familiar cohort of part time School etc. Safety Advisers already in place. The University’s first internal Health and Safety conference, to bringing together all individuals involved in health and safety management at corporate, College and School levels (and below School level) was held in February 2011. Presentations were given by the Director of Corporate Services, a Head of a high risk School, and a number of colleagues involved in health and safety management at School and major service level. This type of event will become a regular feature moving forward. The University Health and Safety Committee, overviews the major health and safety issues and developments, and the Committee has recently implemented measures designed to strengthen the flow of information from and to local (School etc.) health and safety committees.

F. Key Topics Progressed Radiation Protection – balancing legislative compliance activity with other areas of radiation protection has been largely achieved, with a new, more positive relationship fostered with the Enforcing Authority (SEPA). Radiation aspects of major projects such as CRIC and SCRM have been successfully facilitated. Considerable progress has been made on implementing an e-learning approach to the training of Radiation Protection Supervisors. Extensive support has been provided for the work on the treatment of feline hyperthyroidism at the Small Animal Hospital. The introduction of significant new pieces of legislation has been effectively managed. Biosafety and Biosecurity – the Biosafety Training Institute (BTI) has been established, and three week-long courses have been held. Potential for implementing new teaching methods and expanding the training to offer it to more biotechnology companies, and in other countries, has been explored. A new regime of HSE inspections of work which takes place under Specified Animal Pathogen Orders (SAPO) has been facilitated, as has the Home Office’s evolving approach to the requirements to hold materials relevant to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, changes in which are anticipated. There has been a further delay in the introduction of the new UK legislation on biosafety and biosecurity, which is now scheduled for mid-2012. Fire Safety – A review of the work of the Fire Safety Unit has taken place, and an action plan implemented, in order to manage our way through any changes in provision which may be required. The objective is to ensure a modernised and streamlined service, whilst maintaining our current high standard internally, and as the sector leader in fire risk assessment etc. Measures to improve preparedness for disabled members of the University community continue to improve, but this issue remains a significant challenge. We have continued to successfully develop still tighter control of our interaction with the Festival/Fringe promoters, with regard to general and fire safety at University venues, whilst accommodating the large increase in this type of activity on central area premises in the 2011 Fringe/Festival. Occupational Health – The Occupational Health Unit (OHU) continues to develop a changed model of Occupational Health which includes evidence based practice, individual professional accountability and pro-activity. OHU continue to develop the range and quality of services of the Unit and to further develop the profile of the occupational health across the organisation by various means including attendance at strategic meetings and events and being increasingly involved in strategy and policy development. Much effort has gone into increasing compliance and the understanding of the need for statutory health surveillance continues to increase across the organisation. Work has been done on extending the current vaccination programme offered, to include the full range of available vaccines, in order to further expand the current travel health This can now be implemented with the acquisition of a new contract Consultant Occupational Health Physician, following the retirement of the previous OHP. The OHU continue to seek to further develop working relationships, and understanding of their role across the UoE in particular with Human Resources in order to create a greater understanding of each other’s professional practices and constraints. Occupational Hygiene and General H&S - the death in service of the Occupational Hygiene and Safety Adviser in 2010 necessitated the acceleration of the succession plan already in place. The holder of the re-engineered post of Health and Safety Adviser (H&SA) continues to gain occupational hygiene experience and expertise, and receive training towards achieving membership of the British Occupational Hygiene Society. Other duties have successfully been transferred to other posts in the Department, as part of an approach involving flexibility of working, to maximise the utilisation of the skills available within the Health and Safety Department, as staff numbers decline. This approach has included offering appropriate levels of professional occupational health and safety training to all interested staff members, including admin/clerical staff. Facilitated HSE survey of work involving nanoparticles and nanotubes. F. Key Topics Progressed (Cont.)

Training and Audit - implementation of the latest Compliance Audit phase of the Aon programme has been completed, which marks the end of two 5 year cycles of management and compliance audits. A year- long topic audit on the management of travel risk across the University is currently at the planning stage. Both in-house and commercial first aid training programmes have been very successful, the latter generating income beyond expectations. The University has become an accredited provider of IOSH Managing Safely courses – these are provided jointly by Health and Safety and Estates and Buildings – and of the biosafety training course noted above, which is accredited by the Institute for Safety in Technology and Research (ISTR) and is in line with the European CEN workshop Agreement on biosafety practitioner competence. CHASTE Project – the Scottish Funding Council’s CHASTE Project, which sought to enhance and co-ordinate the dissemination of best practice in health and safety management throughout the Scottish Tertiary Education sector, was brought to a successful conclusion at the end of April 2011. The University has continued to take forward a number of sustainable legacies of CHASTE since the Project ended. Health and Safety Committee

• Health and safety Committee Terms of Reference • Review of effectiveness of H&S Committee • Fringe and Festival incidents and arrangements • Proposed mergers – MRC HGU and ECA • Health and Safety Advisers conference • Significant legal developments and health and safety cases • Radiation Protection Unit annual report 2009/10 • Aon partnership auditing programme • Health promotion and SHWL Award • Biosafety Training Institute • International travel on University business – risk assessment and monitoring • Occupational health provision • Needlestick policy for clinical veterinary areas • CHASTE Project • Accident, Disease and Incident Survey 2009/10 • Occupational Health Unit Annual Report 2009/10 • UoE Health and Safety Plan • Communication with local health and safety committees • Investors in People programme

Radiation Protection Committee

• Veterinary X-Ray issues • Radiation Protection Supervisor training • Radioactive iodine in treatment of feline hyperthyroidism • New waste disposal arrangements • Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010 • Radioactive Substances Exemption (Scotland) Order 2011 • Radiation protection at CRIC • Relocation of research units which use radioactivity

F. Key Topics Progressed (Cont.) Biological Safety Adviser

• New arrangements for enforcement of work under Specified Animal Pathogen Orders • Facilitating Home Office inspections under Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act • Development of the Biosafety Training Institute • Review of biological safety training programmes • Preparing for HSE inspection of all Containment Level 3 laboratories • Preparing for impending harmonised new legislation on biosafety and biosecurity • Member of European CEN Workshop on biosafety practitioner competence • Member of ISTR Nanotechnology Group: interpreting HSE guidance for HEIs

G. Summary The University continues to be well positioned, in a corporate sense, to deal with the range of challenges presented by developing technologies and legislation. Continual improvement, in order to stay one step ahead of the developing risks presented in the health and safety arena is the desire, and can be demonstrated. Research work with nanoparticles and nanotubes is a case in point – ensuring that best practice within the University is spread out from centres of excellence to ensure consistency of performance. Expansion outwards from core health and safety issues into areas involving colleagues in other areas of the University (e.g. health promotion activity) continues to be a desirable feature; against a background of diminishing resources, however, focus is of necessity on key compliance issues as a priority area of activity. Senior management interest in, and commitment to, maintaining excellence in terms of health and safety management and practice continues to be clearly present and is demonstrable – the response to the Director of Corporate Services’ contribution, and that of the Head of a high risk School, to the UoE Conference of Health and Safety Advisers, being a case in point. The Aon Senior Management Audit of the University’s strategic approach to health and safety management reinforced this strength. With the conclusion of a second five year cycle of management/compliance auditing in partnership with Aon, the opportunity presents itself to review our auditing strategy for the next few years. Communication channels into senior management regarding the University’s health and safety experience, challenges and opportunities, and downwards regarding the implementation of executive decisions and policies, are under continual review, and continue to meet the needs of the organisation. Health and safety Committee’s work to enhance upwards and downwards communication with local health and safety committees have contributed positively. Communication channels to/from Schools (and management units below School level) from/to corporate Health and Safety continue to be good and are subject to ongoing improvement. This has again been confirmed by the latest cycle of compliance auditing by Aon, and will continue to be supplemented during the partnership approach to assessing and developing the University’s preparedness and resilience. Establishing awareness and practice relating to Business Continuity Management in the University community continues to be a challenge.

G. Summary (cont.) A further ongoing challenge remains to continue to tilt the balance of performance towards excellence, with the ultimate aim of bringing all areas of the University up to that consistent standard, always bearing in mind that measures must be related to the risk profile presented by the area in question, and that we must have an effective means of auditing performance. This aspect will continue to be balanced with external activities in which UoE provides leadership in the health and safety arena, such as the sustainable legacies of the CHASTE Project, Northern Biological Safety Officers Group and the UoE Biosafety Training Institute, European CEN workshop agreement on biosafety practitioner competence and consultancies / contracts for other HEIs. Whilst our aim continues to be to minimise our accident and occupational ill health experience as close to zero as possible, adverse events inevitably occur. Our endeavours therefore continue to concentrate on prevention at the base of the “iceberg” - the rump of minor, and often apparently insignificant, incidents - translating into serious events at the tip, and on building into the institution resilience to deal with, learn from, and prevent any recurrence of, significant events when these occasionally occur. The University’s expert advisers continue to ensure that we are well placed to respond to, and comply with, developing legislation and guidance, and also to promote the University whilst proactively contributing to Scottish, UK and European thinking and the formulation of legislation, in these key risk areas, are ongoing, with the concomitant raising of the University’s profile in that regard. H. Conclusion Given the above, my opinion is that health and safety risks are being satisfactorily managed across the University. Alastair Reid Director of Health and Safety 6th September 2011

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 K



26 September 2011

Risk Assurances Map

Brief description of the paper The risk assurances map is part of the evidential process of providing assurances to the Audit Committee, Court and the external auditors that the key risks of the University are being adequately managed, such that Court are able to support the statement in the published Annual Accounts regarding the adequacy of Risk Management in the University. Action requested For discussion and comment. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? No Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? The assurance map is part of the risk management process. Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes Originator of the paper Helen Stocks 15 September 2011

Assurance map 2010/11 version: relating to University Risk Register version 8 Management process and mitigating activities, assurance of effectiveness of risk control mechanisms, evidence, and with reference to the Strategic Plan 2008/12 Key to committee acronyms: PSG Principal’s Strategy Group; FGPC Finance and General Purposes Committee; CMG Central Management Group; AC Audit Committee; RMC Risk Management Committee Risk Current Management

Processes and Mitigating Activities

Goals / Enablers / Strategic Themes

2008-12 Strategies (per Strategic Plan) Assessment of assurance of effectiveness of risk control mechanisms

Assurance providers

Evidence provided

1. Insufficient funding to maintain and develop the University due to: - Government funding

policies in Scotland and the rest of the UK

- Economic recession and

its impact on government, corporate and charity funded activities, and philanthropic giving

Lobbying, directly and via US/UUK Input to SFC on their strategic plans and funding issues/reviews University planning process including monitoring of student demand and intakes Internal pressure within Colleges and ERI to maintain focus on grant applications Review of student intake and applications for first years of divergent fee regimes

Excellence in research Excellence in commercialisation and knowledge exchange Quality services Quality infrastructure Stimulating alumni relations and philanthropic giving

• Ensuring that our management and support structures enable us to be flexible and responsive to new opportunities and investment sources • Continuing to win competitive bids to host new research centres and major national facilities • Working together with major research funders and other external bodies internationally and in the UK • Ensuring that commercialisation agreements provide for a reasonable financial return both to the University and to the inventors • Investing in improvements which show a clear return on investment, for example by reduction in direct costs or reduced opportunity cost of staff time • Securing investment from external sponsors • Continue to fundraise on a sustainable, professional and efficient platform • Increasing funds raised from private individuals and private and charitable trusts

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager University planning process including monitoring of student demand and intakes Monitoring of relevant Balanced Scorecard indicators Monitoring of comparative financial data against Russell Group Peers Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

Director of Planning Director of Planning Director of Planning Director of Finance

[Review URL] Court: 8/11/10; 20/12/10; 21/2/11; 20/6/11 PSG: 19/10/11; 2/11/10 FGPC: 25/10/10; 7/2/11 CMG: 13/10/10; 23/11/10; 26/1/11; 20/4/11; 15/6/11 RMC: 23/9/11; 13/1/11; 31/3/11; 19/5/11 AC: 2/6/11

Risk Current Management Processes and Mitigating Activities



Assurance providers

Evidence provided

2. Staff dissatisfaction and possible disruption to business continuity consequent upon the need to operate within funding constraints or arising from pressures for changes in staff terms and conditions (including pension funds)

Maintenance of relationships with local union representatives Input to national pay negotiations and discussions on Pension Funds Independent working group of the University Court established to assess, advise and progress pensions matters, inc overseeing consultation with staff on proposed pension fund changes Senior staff work with Heads of School to ensure downsizing and change activity appropriately managed (e.g. with Moray House School of Education) Business continuity planning

Excellence in research Excellence in commercialisation and knowledge exchange Quality people

• Recruiting and retaining excellent

researchers • Supporting the professional and career

development of staff engaged in research • Ensuring that commercialisation agreements

provide for a reasonable financial return both to the University and to the inventors

• Continuing to review and improve

recruitment and retention strategies, systems and processes

• Recognising and rewarding excellence through the effective use of our Contribution Reward policy and promotion process, and the development of a Total Reward Strategy

• Promoting health, wellbeing and a positive working environment supported by good management practices and clearly defined roles and responsibilities

• Improving ways of informing and involving staff in decisions and changes which affect them

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Operation of Staff Committee, JULC, Pensions Sub-committee and Consultative Committee on Redundancy Avoidance (SCCRA) Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

Director of HR

[Review URL] Court: 27/9/10l; 8/11/10; 20/12/10; 16/5/11 FGPC: 15/9/10; 25/10/10; 2/5/11; 6/6/11 CMG: 1/9/10; 13/10/10; 23/11/10; 9/3/11; 20/4/11; 25/5/11; 15/6/11; 29/11/10 AC: 29/9/10 RMC: 13/1/11

3. Challenge of managing activities to ensure some income streams exceed costs

Financial strategy & financial planning and budgetary/forecasting processes, including

Excellence in research

• ensuring that our management and support structures enable us to be flexible and responsive to new opportunities and investment sources • Generating surpluses for reinvestment

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager

Director of Finance

[Review URL] Court: 27/9/10; 20/12/10; 21/2/11;

1




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

F&GPC/Court oversight Fees Strategy Group Financial scenario planning Post Review Group ER/VS activity SUMS review of support services Benchmarking against other comparable institutions Internationalisation strategy implementation Various college based academic developments Development of FEC to teaching High level reporting of research applications and award trends Drives to improve the utilisation of the University’s estate

Quality services Quality infrastructure

• investing in improvements which show a clear return on investment, for example, by reduction in direct costs or reduced opportunity cost of staff time • developing and regenerating our estate through the implementation of our Estate Development Masterplans • promoting a culture of space awareness and flexible approaches to the use of space across the University • providing excellent project management and appropriate cost control for capital development projects • continuing our maintenance and compliance work programme • finding new ways to share space, facilities, services and expertise within the sector and with other organisations • generating surpluses for reinvestment • securing investment from external sponsors

Level of university annual surplus/deficit and cash flow position Measure of growth in key income streams Measuring cost increases in staff and non-staff costs Comparison with competition on key performance measures Financial control of capital building programme Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

Director of Finance Director of Finance & VP Dev & Alumni Director of Finance Director of Finance Director of Finance

16/5/11; 26/6/11 PSG: 2/11/10; 17/1/11; 12/4/11; 3/5/11; 20/6/11 FGPC: 2/9/10; 15/9/10; 25/10/10; 29/11/10; 7/2/11; 2/5/11; 6/6/11 CMG: 1/9/10; 13/10/10; 23/11/10; 26/1/11; 4/3/11; 20/4/11; 25/5/11; 15/6/11 AC: 29/9/10; 24/3/11; 2/6/11 RMC: 23/9/10; 31/3/11; 19/5/11

2




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

4. Growth of the University falls behind UK and international competitors, e.g. in areas such as: • size (turnover/assets); • research funding • international

students/staff, (including where growth curtailed by UKBA policy or operations);

• PGR/PGT student numbers;

Strategic plan priorities and targets, and its implementation International Strategy, steering group and development plans International Office and Marketing activities Development of international linkages and MoUs Focus on maintaining and growing research funding and diversifying sources of research funding Opportunities for merging / embedding other organisations into the University (e.g. eca & HGU) Active management of issues arising with UKBA Student number monitoring

Excellence in learning and teaching Excellence in research Quality services Quality infrastructure Advancing internationalisation

• responding to recommendations

identified through quality enhancement activities

• expanding access to taught postgraduate and continuing professional development provision through e-learning

• increasing numbers of postgraduate

research students

• embedding the use of performance indicators

• generating surpluses for reinvestment

• continuing to attract more, and a

diverse range of, international students and staff

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Monitoring of annual accounts and comparative sector data from HESA Monitoring of share of SFC grants Balanced Scorecard indicators Student intake number setting, analysis and reporting Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

Director of Planning Director of Finance and Director of Planning Director of Planning Director of Planning Director of Planning

[Review URL] Court: 20/12/10; 21/2/11; 16/5/11; 20/6/11 PSG: 2/11/10; 16/11/10; 20/6/11 FGPC: 15/9/10; 29/11/10; 2/5/11; 6/6/11 CMG: 1/9/10; 23/11/10; 26/1/11; 9/6/11; 25/5/11 RMC: 31/3/11

3




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

5. Rate of maintenance, enhancement and investment in the estate fails to support University growth aspirations (research, education and accommodation), provide a satisfactory student and staff experience, and maintain competitiveness with other leading institutions across the world.

Fundraising for new developments College/estates planning, prioritisation and project processes Capital programme development and project management processes Estates Advisory Group (EPAG) / Space Management Group (SMG) processes Annual backlog and compliance review Ongoing estate activities e.g. building inspections, physical condition and compliance surveys, fire risk assessments

Excellence in learning and teaching Excellence in commercialisation and knowledge exchange Quality infrastructure Enhancing our student experience

• stimulating new and more flexible

ways of learning, teaching and assessing through the use of new technologies and the innovative design of teaching space

• creating and extending pre-incubation,

incubation and science park facilities through the Edinburgh Pre-Incubation Scheme, the Edinburgh Technology Transfer Centre, the Edinburgh Technopole Science Park, The Informatics Forum, and the Edinburgh BioQuarter

• developing and regenerating our estate

through the implementation of our Estate Development Masterplans

• promoting a culture of space awareness and flexible approaches to the use of space across the University

• providing excellent project management and appropriate cost control for capital development projects

• continuing our maintenance and compliance work programme

• finding new ways to share space, facilities, services and expertise within the sector and with other organisations

• securing investment from external sponsors

• providing good-quality and well-

placed learning and social spaces that

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Annual benchmarking against sector Annual condition and legislation compliance backlog survey Building performance assessments (condition and functional suitability) Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

Director of Estates & Buildings Director of Estates & Buildings Director of Estates & Buildings Director of Estates & Buildings

[Review URL] Court: 27/9/10; 21/2/11; 16/5/11; 20/6/11 FGPC: 15/9/10; 25/10/10; 7/2/11; 6/6/11 CMG: 26/1/11; 9/3/11; 20/4/11; 25/5/11 AC: 29/9/10; 24/3/11; 2/6/11 RMC: 13/1/11

4




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

support group and individual learning and form stimulating foci for the life of the academic community

• preparing a sustainable estate strategy for EUSA to underpin delivery, over time, of the facilities required to support EUSA services

6. Failure to provide a high quality student experience e.g. in teaching and learning, student services, living and social environment

College and Support Group Annual and Strategic Plans “Student Experience” a specific goal in the 2008/12 University Strategic Plan Appointment of VP Academic Enhancement, launch of new senate committees, and development of good proactive guidelines School plans for performance improvement Improvement of study and social spaces as part of Estates plans

Enhancing our student experience

• facilitating the transition to university by

being responsive to the range of students’ circumstances, experience, expectations and aptitudes

• improving the quality of student induction and departure events

• ensuring that information provided to students is comprehensive, accessible, consistent and user friendly

• providing coordinated student services that recognise the needs and expectations of students, prospective students and graduates

• providing good-quality and well-placed learning and social spaces that support group and individual learning and form stimulating foci for the life of the academic community

• strengthening collaboration between academic and student services and EUSA

• preparing a sustainable estate strategy for EUSA to underpin delivery, over time, of the facilities required to support EUSA services

• supporting our student societies and sports clubs

• standardising analysis of, and action taken in response to, internal and external student

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager NSS results Other student experience survey results of e.g. library, IT, teaching quality, course design. International Student Barometer and Postgraduate Research Experience Survey Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

VP Academic Enhancement VP Academic Enhancement VP Academic Enhancement VP Academic Enhancement

[Review URL] Court: 27/9/10; 21/2/11 PSG: 28/9/10; 17/1/11; 22/2/11 FGPC: 7/2/11 CMG: 9/3/11 RMC: 19/5/11

5




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

feedback • ensuring that our graduates are self-

confident and possess economically valuable capabilities, expertise and skills

• brokering partnerships between specialists and academics to enhance the delivery of transferable skills to all students

7. Inability to retain or attract sufficient key academic staff to meet University / College goals for research and teaching

Ensuring the university remains an attractive working environment Annual review of academic staff (inc salary)

Active leadership by Principal and of HoCs

Recruitment processes group, and flexible HR strategies to meet needs of different business areas

Excellence in learning and teaching Excellence in research Quality people

• Ensuring that staff involved in the

delivery of learning and teaching continue to develop their professional capability

• Recruiting & retaining excellent

researchers • Supporting the professional and career

development of staff engaged with research

• Continue to review and improve

recruitment and retention strategies, systems and processes

• Developing and implementing succession planning arrangements

• Recognising and rewarding excellence through the effective use of our Contribution Reward policy and promotion process, and the development of a Total Reward Strategy

• Establishing a culture of personal and professional development through appraisal and other development processes

• Supporting the development of all staff

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Recruitment and retention monitoring Annual equal pay review Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

Director of HR Director of HR Director of HR

[Review URL] RMC: 31/3/11 CMG: 1/9/10; 9/3/11; 20/4/11

6




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

Advancing internationalisation Promoting equality, diversity, sustainability and social responsibility

in preparing for, holding, or stepping down from leadership and management roles

• Promoting health, wellbeing and a positive working environment supported by good management practices and clearly defined roles and responsibilities

• Continuing to attract more, and a

diverse range of, international students and staff

• Ensuring that students and staff with

particular needs have access to appropriate facilities and support services

8. Inadequate management of work priorities and major change projects both individually and as a combined programme of activity. Major projects in progress are: 8.1 new student

administration processes project (EUCLID);

8.2 major estates projects e.g. Vet School, SCRM, library central area refurbishment;

8.3 adaption of data collection

Project management steering groups, boards, advisory groups and implementation groups Project management processes, Gateway processes and reviews Guidance on major projects and “Projects” website Reporting to University committees

Quality services Quality infrastructure Building strategic partnerships and collaborations

• planning major initiatives on a holistic basis • developing and regenerating our estate

through the implementation of our Estate Development Masterplans

• providing excellent project management and appropriate cost control for capital development projects

• continuing to develop a systematic approach to the acquisition, creation, capture, storage, presentation and management of information resources

• stimulating the development and growth of

interdisciplinary research centres across Schools and Colleges and with other organisations

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager 8.1 Reports to the EUCLID Strategy & QA Group; External Reviews 8.2 Monitoring by Strategic Project Boards of progress, costs, quality, sustainability 8.3 Not yet appropriate 8.4 Monitoring of attendance, fees arrears and identity information

8.1 Director of Registry 8.2 Director of Estates & Bldgs 8.3 Director of Planning 8.4 SCE College Registrar (students) and Director of HR (staff) 8.5 Prof David Fergusson

[Review URL] Court: 27/9/10; 8/11/10; 20/12/10; 21/2/11; 16/5/11; 20/6/11 PSG: 2/9/10; 28/9/10; 21/12/10; 17/1/11 FGPC: 2/9/10; 15/9/10; 25/10/10; 29/11/10; 7/2/11; 2/5/11; 6/6/11 CMG: 1/9/10;

7




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

processes/systems to reflect the new metrics related basis for future research assessment

8.4 establishing process to operate the new managed immigration system (affecting staff and students)

8.5 development and implementation of merger proposals with Edinburgh College of Art

8.6 development and implementation of merger proposals with MRC Human Genetics Unit

Communication activities Planning and provision of resource to enable projects Development of ERMIS for data collection of research management information, incorporating any known REF requirements

Excellence in research

• recruiting and retaining excellent

researchers • ensuring that our management and support

structures enable us to be flexible and responsive to new opportunities and investment sources

• working together with major research funders and other external bodies internationally and in the UK

8.5 ?? 8.6 Monitoring of compliance against Heads of Agreement; deviance from 7 year financial plan; internal audit review. Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

8.6 MVM College Registrar

13/10/10; 26/1/11; 9/3/11 AC: 29/9/10; 25/11/10; 24/3/11 RMC: 23/9/10; 31/1/11; 31/3/11; 19/5/11

9. Failure of IT infrastructure, systems operation, or serious breach of IT or data security leading to inadequate performance unacceptable loss of service or loss of sensitive or personal data

Ongoing resilience improvement programmes and infrastructure upgrades Internal and external audit processes, including external penetration testing Business recovery plans and exercises Oversight by Knowledge Strategy

Quality infrastructure

• identifying and planning for major risks and

business continuity across all areas of infrastructure

• Ensuring that we have an agreed rolling programme of equipment and IT hardware replacement

• Continuing to develop a systematic approach to the acquisition, creation, capture, storage, presentation and management of information resources

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Constant review by IS Annual IT assurance process Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

VP Knowledge Management and CIO VP Knowledge Management and CIO VP Knowledge Management and CIO

[Review URL] Court: 20/12/10; 16/5/11 AC: 29/9/10; 25/11/10; 24/3/11; 2/6/11 RMC: 23/9/10

8




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

Committee Systems implementation trialling and load testing Annual IT assurance process from VP Knowledge Management and CIO Policies on data security

10. Inadequate engagement with changes in public policy, legislation, and practice affecting Higher Education, e.g. o UK Government; o Scottish

Executive/Scottish Enterprise/SFC;

o City of Edinburgh; o European Union; o Research Councils

Membership of sector-wide representational bodies Informal liaison, networking and lobbying Monitoring public policy developments Responses to consultations

Excellence in research Excellence in commercialisation and knowledge exchange Quality services Quality infrastructure Engaging with our wider community

• Working together with major research funders and other external bodies internationally and in the UK • Enhancing our contribution to public policy formulation • Striving to meet recognised industry and commercial standards • Continuing our maintenance and compliance work programme • Providing expert contributions to public debate, and briefing MSPs, ministers, officials and the media on policy issues • Interacting with key city partners over issues including planning, procurement, transport and relations between the student and resident communities

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

Head of Public Policy

[Review URL] Court: 20/12/10; 21/2/11; 20/6/11 PSG: 21/12/10; 3/5/11 FGPC: 7/2/11 CMG: 23/11/10; 26/1/11; 25/5/11; 15/6/11 AC: 29/9/10; 24/3/11; 2/6/11 RMC: 13/1/11

9




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

Promoting equality, diversity, sustainability and social responsibility

• Developing new, and strengthening existing, relationships with key strategic partners in both the public and private sectors, including Scottish Enterprise, NHSScotland and small and medium-sized enterprises • Exploiting our strengths in environmental and sustainability research to influence policy formulation and implementation

11. Failure to appropriately position and support the University’s image and reputation in the UK and worldwide

International strategy development Activities of Communications & Marketing in partnership with all units Media monitoring and management, and relationships building Brand management and market research processes Visitor Centre and Corporate publications Relationship development with Alumni

Advancing internationalisation Engaging with our wider community

• promoting internationally the strengths of

the University and the achievements of our staff and students

• increasing and embedding the public

engagement work undertaken by staff through the activities of the Edinburgh Beltane Beacon programme

• providing expert contributions to public debate, and briefing MSPs, ministers, officials and the media on policy issues

• developing and expanding innovative initiatives to encourage pupils in our local schools to consider the University of Edinburgh as their institution of choice

• supporting the involvement of University teams and individuals in major sporting events and competitions

• interacting with key city partners over issues including planning, procurement, transport and relations between the student and resident communities

• developing new, and strengthening existing relationships with key strategic partners in

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Monitoring of adverse media coverage Monitoring of fundraising levels Monitoring of number of student applications Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

Director of Communications & External Affairs Director of Communications & External Affairs Director of Development & Alumni Director of SRA

[Review URL] Court: 20/12/10; 16/5/11; 20/6/11 PSG: 22/2/11 CMG: 20/4/11; 15/6/11 RMC: 23/9/10; 31/3/11; 19/5/11

10




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

Linkages with international groupings e.g. British Council, SDI, UKFO, Confucius Network, U21 etc

Stimulating alumni relations and philanthropic giving

both the public and private sectors, including Scottish Enterprise, NHS Scotland and small- and medium-sized enterprises

• implementing our Community Relations Strategy

• promoting the University’s achievements, emphasising national and international media in our communications activity

• fostering recognition through improved physical branding and signage, publications, our website and recruitment and advertising strategies

• sustaining and strengthening our

relationships with the General Council and with individual alumni

12. Significant academic collaborations fail to be effectively managed and do not deliver benefit to the University

Strategic decisions made through PSG/Central Management Group/Finance & General Purposes Committee Memoranda of Agreement Guidelines for staff Separate financial monitoring Quality Assurance Agency Codes of

Advancing internationalisation Building strategic partnerships and collaborations

• encouraging international collaboration in

education, research and knowledge exchange

• engaging more deeply in strategic alliances and networks with other world-leading institutions

• developing productive partnerships with

other higher education institutions, organisations and businesses

• leading the development of collaborative research activities internationally and in the UK

• stimulating the development and growth of interdisciplinary research centres across Schools and Colleges and with other organisations

• encouraging participation in international

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

College Registrars

[Review URL] Court: 8/11/10 PSG: 19/10/10 FGPC: 6/6/11 AC: 2/6/11 RMC: 31/3/11

11




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

Practice Governance arrangements put in place and clear designation of responsibilities Review of all partnerships and collaborations on a 5 yearly cycle

networks

13. Widespread damage to property and buildings (fire, explosion, malicious damage etc), including properties adjacent to the University estate

Fire/security policies & procedures Fire detection systems Training & awareness Audit of H&S mgt in all units in partnership with insurance brokers Insurance cover Programme of fire risk assessments Business continuity plans Planned preventative maintenance

Quality infrastructure

• identifying and planning for major risks and

business continuity across all areas of infrastructure

• continue our maintenance and compliance work programme

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Reports to EPAG H&S audits carried out by University’s insurance brokers Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

Director of Estates & Buildings Director of Estates & Buildings Director of Estates & Buildings

[Review URL] RMC: 13/1/11

12




Assurance providers

Evidence provided

14. Failure to achieve a rating of “confidence” in the 2011 Enhancement Led Institutional Review (ELIR)

ELIR Steering Group overseeing the preparation of the review Various University-wide academic developments via Senate Committee Task Groups Updating of relevant academic regulations Various College level academic developments via relevant committees Various School level academic developments via ELIR School contacts. Reviews and enhancement of various teaching, learning, academic & pastoral support and support services for students

Excellence in learning and teaching Enhancing our student experience

• responding to recommendations identified through quality enhancement activities

• ensuring our research feeds directly into the learning experience at all levels

• providing flexible and informed curriculum choice

• building collaborative learning into the curriculum, along with students’ capacity to learn by enquiry and monitor learning by self-assessment

• providing more opportunities for students to study abroad or undertake professional or industrial placements

• stimulating new and more flexible ways of learning, teaching and assessing through the use of new technologies and the innovative design of teaching space

• expanding access to taught postgraduate and continuing professional development provision through e-learning

• ensuring that information provided to students is comprehensive, accessible, consistent and user friendly

• providing coordinated student services that recognise the needs and expectations of students, prospective students and graduates

• providing good-quality and well-placed learning and social spaces that support group and individual learning and form simulating foci for the life of the academic community

• standardising analysis of, and action taken in response to, internal and external student feedback

Review of effectiveness of controls by lead risk manager Routine QA monitoring of Schools and Colleges ELIR Steering Group updates Progress against ELIR planning timeline Responses from Risk Management Annual Return

[Review URL] Court: 27/9/10; 20/6/11 RMC: 31/3/11

13

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 L



26 September 2011

Risk Management Committee Report for Year ended 31 July 2011 Brief description of the paper This report summarises the activities of the Risk Management Committee during the year ended 31 July 2011, and its views on the exposure and management of risk in the University. Its purpose is to support the deliberations of the CMG, Finance & General Purposes Committee, Audit Committee and Court in respect of the reporting on Risk Management and Internal Control in the Annual Accounts. Action requested For consideration in respect of assurances to Court relating to the Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31 July 2011. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? No Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? Yes Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes Originator of the paper N A L Paul / H Stocks 16 September 2011

RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT FOR YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2011 Prepared by N.A.L. Paul Convenor Date: 26 September 2011 H Stocks Secretary Introduction This report summarises the activities of the Risk Management Committee during the year ended 31 July 2011, and its views on the exposure and management of risk in the University. Its purpose is to support the deliberations of Central Management Group, Finance & General Purposes Committee, Audit Committee and Court in respect of the reporting on Risk Management and Internal Control in the Annual Financial Statements. Background Over many years, the University has operated an internal control environment that has successfully managed operational risk, and has had in place insurance arrangements to mitigate the financial impact of key exposures. The Risk Management Committee was formally instituted as a Committee of Court in 2002 and a structured framework for risk management has operated since then. Governance, Risk Management and Internal Control Framework in the University The main elements of the governance, risk management and internal control framework can be described as follows: - Structure of Court and its committees; and Central Management Group (CMG) and its

committees - Regular reporting of the University’s financial and operational performance to Finance and

General Purposes Committee (F&GPC) and Court; - Reports of key management meetings i.e. CMG and the Principal’s Strategy Group, reviewed by

F&GPC; - Planning and Budgetary control framework in place. Insurance cover in place; - Delegated authority and financial control framework in place; - Management Structure and reporting in Colleges and Support Groups; - Academic quality monitored by Senate sub-committees and validated externally through periodic

Research Assessment Exercises / Research Excellence Framework, Quality Assurance Agency reviews and professional bodies’ accreditations;

- Specific departments lead the management of specific risks e.g. Health and Safety Department,

Communication and Marketing, etc, whilst departments such as Finance, HR, Estates, Procurement etc maintain and enforce policies and procedures relating to their own professional areas and ensure that legislative and professional compliance is maintained;

- Policies and procedures established to manage specific risks e.g. animal facilities, control of

chemicals, medical risk, etc; - Risk Management Committee and processes in place, including:

o risk management policy agreed by Court; o registers of key University, College and Support Group, and Subsidiary Company

risks; o reviews of key University risks; o risk assessments incorporated into Committee papers as appropriate; o risk assessments incorporated into College and Support Group annual planning

documents; o project risk registers; o annual risk assurance questionnaire and reports; o risk assurance map.

- Induction for new Heads of School and senior managers in University Risk Management

processes - Assurances on adequacy of operational controls etc provided through activities of Internal Audit

Department and overviewed by Audit Committee; - External assurance provided by the University’s auditors, KPMG. The activities and controls in place to manage the University’s key risks are summarised in the University Overview Risk Register, and backed up by more detailed review papers. Risk Management Committee Activities 2010/11 The key activities of the Risk Management Committee during 2010/11 can be summarised as: − Update of University Risk Register – the outcome of the 2010/11 review was approved by the

University Court at its meeting on 20 June 2011. The main risks to the University in the immediate future relate to meeting the challenges of the changing political and financial environment and were identified as:

o Insufficient funding to develop the University and maintain its UK and international

competitiveness: • e.g. due to Government funding policies for universities in Scotland and the

rest of the UK • consequential impact of reduced funding or policy changes made by research

funders e.g. research councils, charities etc • inability to generate new non-governmental income

o Changes to cross-border flows of students, which present political and operational challenges, arise as a result of divergence in fees policy between Scotland and the rest of the UK in 2012/13

o Changes to university governance processes or structures result from developments in government policy/legislation

o Growth in international, PG and distance learning student recruitment fails to achieve targets and falls behind UK and international competitors e.g. due to

• UKBA polices and practice resulting in UK perceived as unwelcoming to international students

• marketing and quality of distance learning programmes o Staff and/or student dissatisfaction leads to disruption to business continuity. This could

arise as a result of • the need to operate within funding constraints • b) pressures for changes in staff terms and conditions (including pension

funds) • c) student tuition fees or graduate contribution proposals

− Updates of College, Support Group and Subsidiary Company Risk Registers; − A review of each risk identified in the 2010/11 University Risk Register was undertaken by the

relevant risk owner and the outcomes of the reviews were discussed and ratified by the Risk Management Committee. Copies of the reviews are available on the University Risk Management Committee website;

− An ‘in year’ log of risks/incidents was maintained, and the risks identified in the College and

Support Group planning submissions were reviewed. − The main risks that emerged and where the risk management Committee noted mitigating actions

taken by the University, were:

o The changing political and funding climate, as divergent policies and practical implications emerged from the UK Coalition Government and Scottish SNP Government on particularly tuition fees and governance reviews.

o The management of student protests, particularly relating to tuition fees

o The prospect of industrial action as a result of Pension Fund changes, particularly

related to USS.

o The developments of both policy and practice in the UK Borders Agency which have potentially damaging implications for the University attracting overseas staff and students

o The enactment of the Bribery Act and the need for the University to develop anti-

bribery and corruption policies and procedures

o Operational resilience during the severe winter weather .

o The risks relating to the mergers of eca and the MRC Human Genetics Unit into the University.

o The importance of the preparation for the next Enhancement Led Institutional

Review.

− The risks related to delivery of the College and Support Group annual plans were reviewed; − A review of took place of the sources of assurance that are available at a corporate level to enable

a view to be taken on the University’s management of its key risks. These are recorded in the assurance map;

− The committee undertook an effectiveness review and reported the outcome to Court. The Risk

Management Committee concluded that its processes enabled it to have visibility of the major risks of the University, and of the key risks within each College, Support Group, and Subsidiary Company, and to understand the main mechanisms and actions for managing the major risks. It

was also satisfied that new and emerging risks were being brought to the attention of the Committee. Similarly it was satisfied that the linkages with Audit Committee operated effectively (with the Director of Corporate Services, Director of Finance, the University Secretary and Head of Internal Audit being a member or in attendance at both Committees), as did the linkage into the Central Management Group. It took comfort from the fact that the University’s external auditors, KPMG, have commented positively on the risk management processes in the University. The review highlighted three areas for future consideration by the Committee – review of risk management awareness, business continuity, and maintenance of knowledge of Risk Management generally.

It should also be noted that Internal Audit plans have been developed in cognisance of the University and College/Support Group risk registers. Adequacy of Management of Risk in the University 2010/11 The adequacy of the University’s management of risk can be assessed by reference to the following: 1. University Risk Register, Risk Reviews, Assurance Map and Annual Risk Questionnaires

and Reports, College and Support Group Risk Registers.

During the past year, the Risk Management Committee has reviewed all of the risks in the University Risk Register and has satisfied itself that adequate control mechanisms are in place to manage the key risks. Areas of improvement have been identified and actions are taking place appropriately to implement improvements. The major risks for the University are shown above as are the major new risks that were considered during the year. Reviews of College, Support Group, Development and Alumni and subsidiary company risk registers coupled with reviews of the risks highlighted in planning submissions, indicates that these areas are recognising and managing their key operational risks. A year-end questionnaire was completed by each College and Support Group (summary attached as Appendix 1). [No major issues were identified which indicated any inadequacy of the University’s management of risk]. The issues highlighted were subject to management processes and appropriate actions are taking place to implement improvements identified. Annual reports were received from the relevant Directors, related to Health and Safety, IT and Procurement risks. These provide assurance that the risks in those areas are being adequately managed. Appendix 2 shows, for each risk, the sources of assurance that the Risk Management Committee has noted. This provides further assurance related to the adequacy of the management of the risks by the University. The sources of assurances include the risk reviews undertaken, periodic update reports, relevant Balanced Scorecard information, internal audit reports etc. The table also shows that many of the key risk issues have been discussed in the senior management and academic committees of the University.

2. Internal Control Questionnaire Finance Department, in conjunction with KPMG, have issued a self-assessment Internal Control Questionnaire for completion by budget managers. Finance has reviewed the responses and has provided a summary to the Risk Management Committee.[Whilst there are a few issues to be followed up, no major issues have been highlighted as a result of the Internal Control Questionnaire].

3. Law and Regulation Return

Finance Department have sought a Law and Regulation return from each of Head of School and Head of Support Group relating to breaches in law and regulation and in particular those which might have a financial impact of over £50,000. Responses have been received from each area, and [all respondents have confirmed that they are not aware of any such breaches].

4. Procurement assurances

The CUC Guidance for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK indicates that Governing Bodies should assure themselves, via the Risk Management processes, that “Value for Money is achieved through obtaining assurances that: adequate procurement policies and procedures are in place, and that policies and procedures are consistently applied and there is compliance with the relevant legislation”. The Risk Management Committee has received a report from the Director of Procurement and is satisfied that a procurement strategy is in place, as are procurement policies and authorisation policy. The policies were updated and approved by CMG in June 2009 to reflect the publication of the Scottish Government Public Procurement Policy Handbook, and updated delegated authorities, including procurement, were approved in June 2010. All procurement over EU limits requires the notification to, and the involvement of the Director of Procurement or her staff. During the year the University was assessed as part of the Scottish Government Procurement Capability Assessment process. The University was again rated as “superior” - the top category, and was the only University to achieve this rating. The University has recorded benefits of £8.6m during 2010/11 (£7.5m for 2009/10) from professional and collaborative procurement. This includes benefits delivered through APUC Ltd, the sector’s collaborative procurement body established as a result of the McClelland Review, and Procurement Scotland who undertake certain procurements across the whole of the public sector. Responses to questions on Procurement in the Annual Risk Questionnaire and the Internal Control Questionnaire indicate that there were no incidents of failure to comply with procurement legislation and University/funding body requirements. The Risk Management Committee can therefore assure Court that adequate procurement policies and procedures are in place, and that policies and procedures are consistently applied for all major procurement and most minor procurement, and that there is compliance with the relevant legislation.

5. Fraud

The University will provide written representations to the external auditors as part of its year end processes as follows (2010 year end wording)

The University Court:

a) acknowledges responsibility for the design and implementation of internal control to prevent and detect fraud and error;

b) confirms that there have been no instances of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the group and parent University involving - management and those charged with governance; - employees who have significant roles in internal control; or - others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements.

c) confirms that have been no allegations of fraud, or suspected fraud, affecting the group or parent University’s financial statements communicated by employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others;

d) has disclosed to you the results of its assessment of the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud.

The term “fraud” includes misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial reporting and misstatements resulting from misappropriation of assets.

i. Misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial reporting involve intentional misstatements including omissions of amounts or disclosures in financial statements to deceive financial statement users.

ii. Misstatements resulting from misappropriation of assets involve the theft of an entity’s assets, often accompanied by false or misleading records or documents in order to conceal the fact that the assets are missing or have been pledged without proper authorization;

With regard to points (b) and (c), the Annual Risk questionnaire formally sought information regarding fraud from each College and Support Group, and the Internal Control Questionnaire also sought assurances on fraud. [There were no reported incidents of fraud in either questionnaire. There were also no allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the University’s financial statement].

6. Internal Audit

The reporting of Internal Audit activities and its review by the Audit Committee provides a further view of the status of the control environment in the University. As part of their activities, Internal Audit reports on the adequacy and effectiveness of risk management processes. The conclusions from the Audit Committee are reported separately.

Conclusion The overall view of the Risk Management Committee on the adequacy of the management of risk in the University is that, on the basis of the activities described above, the University has been satisfactorily managing its key risks during the year ended 31 July 2011. Further assurances on the adequacy of the internal control environment and its effectiveness in controlling operational risks, will be provided by Internal Audit, and by KPMG’s audit work. A further assurance relating to post year end risk management and controls will be provided to the University Court prior to sign off of the financial statements in December. NALP/HS

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 M



26th September 2011

Internal Audit Report –Assurances

Brief description of the paper A commentary on the findings and conclusions from selected Internal Audit assignments completed in the past 12 months. Action requested The committee is asked to note our commentary on the findings and conclusions from those Internal Audit assignments completed in the past 12 months that relate to acknowledged key risks on the corporate Risk Register. It is intended to provide RMC members with additional information on how those risks are being mitigated. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? As noted. Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? Partially The objective of the paper is to strengthen risk management. Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes Originator of the paper Hamish McKay, Chief Internal Auditor 16th September 2011

Risk Management Committee 26th September 2011 Internal Audit Assurances The Internal Audit Plan is a blend of assignments partly drawn from the University’s risk management processes and partly from an ongoing periodic review of core operating processes and systems. The Audit Plan is thus designed to complement the University, College and Support Group Risk Registers by ensuring that a selection of recognised business risks is included in the Audit Plan approved by the Audit Committee. The role of the RMC includes members satisfying themselves that strategies are in place to manage key risks. A commentary on the findings and conclusions from those Internal Audit assignments completed in the past 12 months that relate to acknowledged key risks on the corporate Risk Register (as updated 20th June 2011) is set out below. They are listed in order of perceived relevance to the Committee and should provide RMC members with additional information on how those risks are being mitigated. Hamish McKay, Chief Internal Auditor, 16th September 2011

COMMENTARY

and related entry in Risk Register V9

Firewall Rules Review

Risk 13: Insufficient investment in IT systems

This assignment was noted as a mitigation exercise for the, then, corporate risk of a failure of the IT infrastructure. Internal Audit commissioned NCC Secure Group to review the rules used in the University's main and corporate firewalls. NCC tested the extent to which each rule worked towards its stated goal. The detailed findings were discussed with the relevant support teams resulting in a final report. That report identified many examples of good practice. 159 low level risks were identified by NCC and the support teams have responded to the corresponding recommendations (low risk is defined by NCC as an issue which should be reviewed in line with good security practice.) Senior management responded that they were prepared to accept the residual risk on 25 of the low level risks.

School of Arts, Culture and Environment

Risk 12: Inadequate management of major projects

The review was undertaken shortly before the University merged with The Edinburgh College of Art on 1 August 2011. As well as covering the financial control environment within the School, the review covered preparations in the University for the proposed merger where they impacted on existing arrangements in the School. There was a need to formally clarify and document responsibilities for the management of fixed assets and income collection in the

School prior to the merger. While there were arrangements in place within the School which should ensure effective budgetary monitoring and overall financial control, there were various potential measures that could result in savings to the School. There was potential to minimise the resources and risks associated with income collection processes in the School. All 11 recommendations were agreed.

Project Boards Risk 8: Estate fails to support growth


This audit review considered the operation of Estates & Buildings (E&B) Project boards during the implementation of the E&B Project Management Procedures and the staged Gateway Approval Process. It was recommended that procedures should provide a clear description of what a “Gateway” is and documentation on how the Gateway Review processes work. Project procedures covering roles and responsibilities relating to new or revised structures had not been fully drafted and as a consequence, had not yet been approved by Court via the Estates Committee. Recommendations were made that the full suite of Project Process documentation should be reviewed for completeness and consistency, should be approved by Court and that a golden copy of relevant, current documentation should be made available. The new procedures have since been amended and approved.

Financial Planning of Capital Projects Risk 6: Failure to maintain financial sustainability

Risk 8: Estate fails to support growth


The identification and monitoring of cash flows for capital projects is important in maximising the return from funds invested and maintaining financial stability. In recent years the Estates and Buildings and Finance Departments have developed and improved the detail collated and analysed and subsequently reported, primarily to the Estates Committee. Such reporting has been on an annual basis and there was a need to provide cash flow information at quarterly or monthly periods. There was a need to focus on standardising information on cash flow, and also streamlining procedures to minimise duplication of effort. Guidance on cash flow information needed to be provided in the new Treasury Management procedures being developed by the Finance Department. All 7 recommendations were agreed.

HESA Data

Risk 13: Insufficient investment in IT systems

Risk 14: Inadequate engagement with legislation, policy etc

Substantial amounts of funding are referenced back to the HESA data returns. The role of EUCLID in the 2009-10 HESA return had been reduced from what was originally envisaged. We therefore assessed to what extent the 2009-10 data returns were processed robustly by establishing the validation mechanisms for HESA data and the University strategy for assessing the accuracy and completeness of HESA data. We found strong evidence of an integrated management regime to address the demands of the 2009-10 HESA return. However, given that some of the HESA business rules applied to the data were complex, included conditional clauses and referred to external (to HESA) documents, there would

always be a risk of misinterpretation. We found that the risks of inaccurate or incomplete data had been recognised and mitigations were in place.

Credit Card Processing Risk 6: Failure to maintain financial sustainability


The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard is a mandatory security standard for the protection and securing of card payment data. Sanctions, following a data breach, range from fines to removal of the ability to process cards. In 2008, the University recorded 44,552 credit card and 63,165 debit card transactions, generating receipts of £18.4 million and £15.8 million respectively. In terms of the status of overall Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard compliance, the University’s main external credit card processor, Streamline, advised that they are already compliant. However, the University’s own processes also needed to meet the standard. The Finance Department intended to have all card transactions processed through a main external credit card processor. There was a corporate risk vulnerable to local non-compliance. The University intended to work towards mitigating the risks around the processes to achieve full compliance in all parts of the University, including subsidiaries.

Application of IT Codes of Practice Risk 13: Insufficient investment in IT systems

The University’s Information Security Policy provides overall management direction for information. It stated that Codes of Practice should be developed for individual key services, based on an assessment of criticality. The University had identified eighteen high priority applications and services for Business Continuity purposes but only three Codes of Practice had been developed. Given his pan-University authority, the Chief Information Officer was invited to consider the best way of ensuring that the remaining Codes were prepared. He advised that the remaining Codes would be completed by their various ‘owners’ by May 2012.

Delegated Authorisations Schedule - Update

Risk 6: Failure to maintain financial sustainability

When Central Management Group received its bi-annual update from Internal Audit in April 2009, a common audit finding identified and reported concerned the varying interpretations, and application, of financial controls. The Committee agreed to take action to address this. One action was to set up a small working group to produce an updated version of the Delegated Authorisation Schedule. The Chief Internal Auditor was a member of this group. An updated Schedule was approved by Court in June 2010, thereby addressing the risk of expenditure being approved without appropriate authority.

The BioQuarter Project Risk 1: Insufficient funding

Risk 8: Estate fails to support growth

Risk 16: Failure of academic collaborations

The Edinburgh BioQuarter is a partnership involving, among others, the University, the NHS, Scottish Enterprise, and Alexandria Real Estates. It aims to develop a world class life sciences commercialisation cluster, adjacent to the Royal Infirmary at Little France. There was a need to enhance the procedures in place to ensure engagement and compliance with the Commercialisation Plan agreed with Scottish Enterprise and adopt a more formal project management approach toward achieving completion of the plan. Risk Management and governance were considered to be adequate although there was a need to introduce a risk register to support the Commercialisation Plan. This has now been done. Four higher priority recommendations were made and agreed.

Research Grant Management

Risk 6: Failure to maintain financial sustainability


The Infinite system should represent a positive development for the University overall. Various enhancements suggested by Internal Audit during the duration of the project relating to the controls and delegated authority levels in the Infinite system were subsequently actioned by the Project Team. The proposed authorisation control processes to ensure responsibility for the delegation of authority to staff who can make actions on the Infinite system are in harmony with where accountability lies for funding deficits arising from grants where there is “negative FEC” arising in the Colleges of Humanities and Social Science, and Science and Engineering. [It is emphasised that it may still be in the interest of the University to accept awards where there is “negative FEC.”] However in the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (CMVM) the authorisation arrangements were not fully in harmony with budgetary accountability in practice for funding deficits arising from grants, and therefore resulted in some residual risk of inappropriate commitments. The Project Sponsor undertook to revisit the feasibility of enhancing the Infinite system prior to it going live, and had proposed an alternative process for CMVM which will mitigate, but not fully eliminate the risk.

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 N



26 September 2011

Annual Institutional Statement to the Scottish Funding Council on Internal Subject Review Activity for Academic Year 2010-11

Brief description of the paper

The attached paper is the University’s annual report to the Scottish Funding Council on the University’s internal subject review activity, including engagement with professional and statutory bodies (PSBs). This report is to fulfil the requirement outlined in SFC/30/2008 Council guidance to higher education institutions on quality, section A2, paragraphs 15-20. The report has been presented to the electronic Senate of 13-21 September 2011 and the meeting of the University Court on 19 September 2011 for approval.

Action requested

For information and discussion.

Resource implications

None.

Risk Assessment

Does the paper include a risk analysis? No

Equality and Diversity

Does the paper have equality and diversity implications?

Not directly, but equality and diversity issues are considered as part of internal subject reviews.

Additional Information

The paper may be included in open business.

Originator of the paper

Dr Linda Bruce, Registry Academic Services, September 2011

1

THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

ANNUAL INSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT OF INTERNAL SUBJECT REVIEW ACTIVITY FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2010/11

1. Internal reviews undertaken in Academic Year 2010/11 This section details the internal reviews of both undergraduate and postgraduate provision that the University undertook in the Academic Year 2010/11 In all cases the review teams had confidence that teaching, learning and assessment of the subject area under review were soundly based, that the academic standards achieved were at least equal to those of the University of Edinburgh’s peer institutions and that procedures for quality assurance and enhancement adhered to accepted Scottish and UK good practice. Review teams have significant externality in their makeup and include at least two reviewers from outside the University, although there is the option for subject areas to nominate additional team members to cover complex or particularly wide-ranging provision. Reviewers are encouraged to challenge, question and make suggestions, and not simply to acknowledge that existing systems are satisfactory. Reviews in 2010/11 have been based on the standard University remit developed by a task group of Senate Quality Assurance Committee in 2009/10, covering the management of the student learning experience; management of quality and standards; and management of enhancement and promotion of good practice. The headings of the review remit are mirrored in the annual quality reports made by Schools to their College, and by Colleges to the Senate Quality Assurance Committee, thus supporting consistent coverage of the management of assurance and enhancement. Subject areas are engaged with the remit through a series of meetings which begin in the spring of the year before their review takes place. An initial cross-University briefing involving all subject areas and review teams introduces key concepts and stages in the review process, and provides an opportunity for subject areas and teams to meet in a collegial environment. This is followed by a series of detailed briefings on a subject-specific basis, which inform a meeting with each subject area to agree the items which they wish the review to address and which together with the standard remit form the overall remit for the review. In order to support a culture of ongoing self-reflection and provide practical information for subject areas’ advance preparations, from 2011/12 subject areas will be provided at the start of the preceding academic year with key points of guidance on preparing for their review. The systematic gathering of feedback on the review process itself was piloted in 2010/11. All subject areas and review teams were invited to provide feedback on all aspects of the review process, and to suggest areas for improvement. All feedback was responded to on an individual basis. Process enhancements introduced as a result have included revision of the guidance for subject areas and review teams and changes to the scheduling of meetings during review visits. Following the success of the pilot, feedback will be gathered from 2011/12 via Bristol On-line Surveys. This will have the dual advantage of allowing improved analysis of results and a more streamlined experience for feedback providers.

3

1.1 Internal undergraduate reviews The University’s system of internal review for undergraduate degree programmes is the Teaching Programme Review (TPR) programme. This is designed to provide information about the quality of the teaching being delivered in Schools and subject areas and the extent to which this meets the needs of students, employers, and other stakeholders. The system also enables subject areas which are being reviewed to reflect on their internal processes, receive comments on their teaching from trusted outsiders, and have an opportunity to get responses to any criticisms made both from within the subject areas concerned, and from anyone else involved. Since the University’s participation in the National Student Survey (NSS) in 2007 this has also involved consideration of the NSS results, latterly via subject areas reflecting on their results and outlining action taken in response. In 2010/11 there were 8 reviews: Asian Studies Ecological Sciences European Languages & Cultures Islamic & Middle Eastern Studies Linguistics & English Language Medicine Nursing Studies Social Work All the University of Edinburgh’s TPR reports, and subject areas’ responses to the reports once available, are at: www.ed.ac.uk/academic-services/quality/teaching-review In recognition of the parallel quality assurance requirements of professional and statutory bodies on some professional disciplines, discussions were held with the General Medical Council (GMC) in the case of the review of Medicine, and the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) in the case of Social Work. These aimed to identify where the University and professional body quality assurance arrangements have significant common features and cover common ground, with a view to making mutual use of relevant evidence and reducing duplication of effort for the areas under review. In the case of the Medicine review the University satisfied itself that the extensive quality assurance of compliance with the outcomes for Tomorrow’s Doctors (2009) also met the requirements of sections of the standard remit for internal subject review. The University’s review therefore concentrated on aspects of the student experience which are not prominent in the GMC’s review method, and on broader academic themes spanning the University and clinical contexts. In the Social Work review a representative of the SSSC was one of the external specialist members of the review team, and combined this role with initial consideration of how the University and SSSC quality assurance methods might interact in a more streamlined way in future.

4

1.2 Internal postgraduate reviews The University also has a system of internal postgraduate reviews (Postgraduate Programme Reviews – PPRs), designed on a similar basis to reviews of its undergraduate provision. Following implementation of the University’s standard review remit for PPRs in 2010/11, work has continued with Colleges through the year to develop fuller guidance specific to postgraduate provision against each of the headings in the remit, and this will be available to PPRs in 2011/12. In 2010/11 5 reviews took place: Business Clinical Sciences & Community Health Economics History, Classics & Archaeology Physics The reports from the reviews of Business, Economics, History, Classics & Archaeology and Physics are being finalised at the time of writing. All the University of Edinburgh’s PPR reports, and subject areas’ responses to the reports once available, are at: www.ed.ac.uk/academic-services/quality/postgrad-review 1.3 Involvement of students in the review process Students are involved in the review process in a number of ways. All review teams include a student member as a matter of course. Recruitment and initial briefing were again provided by EUSA, and were followed by inclusion of the student members in the full briefing event delivered for all review areas and review teams. Guidance material and briefings for subject areas continue to emphasise the importance of student contribution to the review. Student involvement in subject areas’ preparation for their review, including the student contribution to items for the subject-specific remit, will be strengthened in 2011/12 through briefing material for subject areas’ use in staff-student liaison committees. During the review visit, review teams scrutinise feedback provided through course and programme questionnaires and interview students in order to gather views first-hand on the student experience. A summary of the full review report was introduced in 2010/11 for use in staff-student liaison committees. Subject areas are asked to use the summary both to inform students about the immediate review outcome and on an ongoing basis to provide students with updates on progress towards meeting the review recommendations. In addition to involvement of students in internal reviews they are often involved in PSB reviews. However this is obviously determined by the processes followed by individual PSBs.

5

1.4 Reflective overview of key findings from internal reviews This section reports on the key findings from reviews conducted in 2010/11, in particular noting key themes that emerged, as well as particular strengths and good practice and recommendations for development. Management of the Student Experience A number of reviews have covered ways of enhancing the existing dialogue between subject areas and the University’s College-based admissions system in order to facilitate student numbers planning and contribute to the development of future recruitment strategies. The recruitment context across the University continues to be one of high demand from well-qualified applicants. Several reviews highlighted activity in relation to the University’s strategic priority of widening participation, including an upward trend in one subject area in the number of entrants from Access Courses. The review of Asian Studies commended the subject area’s contribution to the University’s Widening Participation programme for local primary schools. Reviews show that subject areas are committed to effective management of all aspects of the student experience for which they have responsibility. In line with the University’s focus on improving the experience of student induction, reviews showed evidence of ongoing work to enhance the induction experience. Significantly, induction is being approached as a process rather than an event on entry to the University. Attention is being given by subject areas to later stages of induction, including the transition to Honours and re-entry to the University following a period of residence abroad or other placement. The University’s commitment to engaging and supporting students in their learning was reinforced with the introduction of its Standards and Guiding Principles for Academic and Pastoral Support in June 2010. It has been evident across reviews that considerable attention is being paid to implementing the Standards and Guiding Principles. In some subject areas projects are underway to re-organise and centralise the support available to students. Within the College of Humanities and Social Sciences the more routine administrative aspects of support are delivered by professional Student Support Officers, although the role also provides a model of good practice in offering first-line basic pastoral support to students. The model operating in the School of Languages, Literatures and Cultures was highlighted as outstanding in the reviews of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies and the Division of European Languages and Cultures, and promoted to a wider audience in the inaugural ‘Sharing Good Practice from Internal Subject Review’ event1. Other similarly high levels of commendation were noted for the support systems in Nursing Studies and Medicine. The contribution of the University’s Institute for Academic Development to training Directors of Studies is highlighted. Reviews consistently identified that subject areas benefit from high quality administrative staff who support both the management of teaching and the student learning experience. Developments in student support are being carried out with an awareness of the need to maintain students’ close identity with the subject area and a sense of connection and belonging to a community. Reviews continue to identify and promote student academic and social communities, with thriving societies were noted in several instances, notably in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies. The encouragement given by reviews to this aspect of the student experience in 2010/11 has supported a priority of the EUSA Vice President (Societies and Communities) to map and encourage the development of student communities. 1 See Section 3.

6

The provision of academic feedback to students continues as a key strategic priority at all levels in the University. Internal subject reviews have contributed to delivery of the strategy by focusing on subject areas’ feedback mechanisms, identifying good practice and recommending practical measures with which to strengthen further subject areas’ arrangements. The University is likewise committed to gathering and responding to feedback from students. The review of Medicine commended particularly effective systems in this respect, managed electronically via the Edinburgh Electronic Medical Curriculum (EEMeC), and with exemplary onward planning for follow-up action. Work across the University to enhance the effectiveness of the student representation system is ongoing. The management of this aspect forms part of the remit for all reviews. In 2010/11 reviews identified a range of developments, including the growth of wikis and student intranets to support contact with student representatives and facilitate discussion of current issues beyond formal meetings of staff-student liaison committees. The extension of the University’s research culture to undergraduate teaching continues to be evident in its feed through to inquiry-based learning. Students interviewed during reviews were very positive about the enthusiasm of staff for their research interests, which contributes greatly to the sense of community in the subject area. The promotion of sustainability and social responsibility was highlighted in several subject areas reviewed in 2010/11. From the review of Medicine it was evident that the MBChB programme includes teaching on a range of topics which promote social responsibility and sustainability, including medical ethics, sociology, public and international health, and pharmaco-economics. From September 2011 student handbooks in Ecology will be available in on-line format only. Students on Ecology programmes contribute to a variety of community-based projects, with the aim of leaving groups with a tangible resource which can be used by the client long after the end of the project. Students have also been involved in providing Ecology material to local schools and advising teachers on how it can be taught in class, bringing teachers up-to-date with the latest innovations in Ecological and Environmental research. Personal Development Planning (PDP) continues to develop within discipline-specific contexts. Within the College of Humanities and Social Science it forms part of the College Learning and Teaching Enhancement Strategy, and Schools are involved in a variety of initiatives. Particularly effective use of PDP was noted in the review of Medicine, where it forms part of EEMeC and plays a significant role in promoting the development of the University’s graduate attributes in medical students. Several discipline-specific developments in e-learning were commended in reviews held in 2010/11, including the use in Asian Studies of Wimba classroom and Nintendo DS with students on their period of residence abroad, and innovative e-self assessment methods in the Division of European Languages and Cultures. Evidence of effective peer-assisted learning was seen particularly strongly in the reviews of Medicine and Nursing Studies, where both reviews commended the scheme whereby 5th year medical students and 4th year nursing students teach 3rd year medical students and 2nd year nursing students. Subject areas reviewed are engaged in further embedding graduate attributes in their programmes and in articulating these to students. The Asian Studies subject houses the only approved centre in Scotland for the Chinese Language Proficiency Test: Hanyu

7

Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK). The HSK the only language certificate acknowledged in the PRC for working and study purposes. This will be complemented by the future establishment of a language testing centre for the Japanese Language Proficiency Test, an internationally recognised test of competence. Subject areas preparing students for entry to professions continue to show ample evidence of good practice in integrating knowledge, a firm base for life-long learning, and professional attributes. The very successful role played by the Social Work Service User and Carer Forum in readying students for practice is particularly highlighted, as is the annual publication of an alumni handbook in Ecology which provides students with information on the requirements of graduate careers. Reviews of subject areas in which some teaching is delivered by non-University staff who are members of professions covered a range of issues relating to staff development and engagement with University culture in order to ensure consistency in teaching, assessment and feedback. In some subject areas professional body standards help support the delivery of an appropriate standard of teaching or mentoring by non-University staff, and are supplemented by face to face updating. The range of good practice in this respect is illustrated by activity in Medicine, which is playing a key role in defining national competencies in medical education which will be aimed both at supporting effective training and the development of a community of thinkers and leaders in medical education. At the local level, the MBChB Programme Committee requires all modules to hold an annual meeting of all their teachers in order to provide information about the programme and to discuss feedback received from students and relevant educational enhancements. The meeting also provides an opportunity for delivery of staff development. A peripatetic programme of staff development for clinical tutors has been launched whereby staff delivering teaching are updated on the latest assessment thinking and educational developments. Pilot training has been delivered to address the specific issue of provision of feedback to students, and student satisfaction in this area will be monitored as one of the measures of success. The intention is to have the courses accredited so that staff development can be tracked via a database. Issues for further development Recommendations were aimed at strengthening further the developments in academic and pastoral support for students, by identifying that where possible the administrative aspects of student support should be undertaken by professional staff in order to reduce the administrative load on academic staff and release more time for advising on specialist academic issues. In the case of periods of residence abroad for modern language students (typically a half or whole academic year), there have been recommendations for enhancing the provision of pastoral and academic support for students. The quality of the student experience in distributed learning will also form part of the remit of the 2011/12 Senate Quality Assurance Committee task group on Distributed Learning & Employer Engagement. Despite robust entry standards and high quality of entrants, there are inevitably some variances in the level of proficiency of individual entrants in terms of core subject competence. This has been noted by reviews of modern languages and certain sciences. Similarly, students on languages programmes who return from a period of residence abroad have developed their language skills at individual rates. The further development of e-learning within these subject areas has been recommended as a way of providing supplementary material on a flexible basis while sharing good practice to balance the pace and retain student motivation in a diverse group. In making such recommendations review teams recognise the financial and staff resource commitment required, as well as pedagogical issues in terms of personal interaction and spontaneity. A particular focus has been on assuring the quality of accessible learning for all students, including students with Learning Profiles who spend the year abroad where different cultural

8

and legislative requirements operate, and work in this area is ongoing both through recommendations made in individual reviews and through the 2011/12 task groups of Senate Quality Assurance Committee: Accessible Learning, and Distributed Learning & Employer Engagement. Reviews continue to identify ongoing work with the Student Disability Service, for example in supporting students with sensory impairments. Reviews address the quality of the learning environment and its suitability for supporting students’ learning and sense of academic and social community. Recommendations for strengthening academic and social community have included ensuring that learning space is appropriate for skills teaching in professionally-orientated disciplines, a buddy system between honours and first year students, running informal social events around the formal induction programme, the use of new media, and holding subject-based periodic ‘café’ events for students across years and across Schools to meet with each other and academic staff. Several recommendations have been aimed at giving students further opportunities to acquire graduate attributes. Within the modern languages area, for example, one subject area has been recommended to promote the TANDEM scheme to its student body as a means of making contact with native speakers. TANDEM is a popular language exchange programme run by Edinburgh University Students’ Association. In some instances where peer-assisted learning takes place, consideration is being given to supporting students further in their teaching role by providing specific training. In an area preparing students for entry to a profession, further development of the graduate attribute of team working and communication within a professional, multi-disciplinary team has been recommended. Recommendations in several reviews have concerned the enhancement of current systems for gathering feedback from students and responding to the issues identified. While much good and indeed excellent practice exists (as highlighted in the case of Medicine’s EEMeC system, above), the need has been identified to define core content for monitoring activity and explore means by which the administration of surveys can be managed most effectively, and usefulness and consistency of data maximised. A task group of Senate Quality Assurance Committee on ‘Assuring the Quality of the Student Experience’ will therefore operate in 2011/12 and will work closely with the Student Voice project on externally run surveys being taken forward by the Governance and Strategic Planning section. The task group’s outputs will support one of the strategies in the University’s Strategic Plan 2008-12 within the “enhancing our student experience” theme, namely “[to] standardise analysis of, and action taken in response to, internal and external student feedback”. The outputs of this work will inform follow-on work by Senate Learning and Teaching Committee on enhancements based on evaluations of the student experience. Recognising the contribution of student academic and social communities to the overall student experience, review teams have recommended where subject areas should put in place structures to ensure that student communities continue to thrive and are not dependent on the enthusiasm of individual cohorts. The management of tutoring delivered by postgraduate students is included in the remit of all reviews, and was found to be of an appropriate standard in all reviews in 2010/11. Where necessary, recommendations are made for the further enhancement of structures for the support and development of postgraduate tutors and demonstrators, including designation of subject area management roles, further development of appraisal systems of tutors’ and demonstrators’ performance, including feedback from students, mechanisms to support peer review among tutors and demonstrators, and promoting the integration of tutors and demonstrators into the teaching team.

9

Management of Quality and Standards Work is ongoing in several subject areas to achieve greater standardisation of course monitoring forms and therefore higher quality data on the student experience. This aspect will be further developed through the ‘Assuring the Quality of the Student Experience task group, which will focus on maximising the value derived from internal monitoring activity. Very effective management of quality and standards was evident in some of the management of placement activity, and it is intended to use good practice from these areas in the work of the Senate Quality Assurance Committee task group on the Quality Assurance of Collaborative and Distributed Learning. Within one of the University’s Colleges work is underway to develop a cross-School workload model which will allow recording of various teaching, administrative and research activity. In principle development of a successful model will allow the enormous pressure on staff to strive for excellence in both teaching and research to be managed in a more deliberate and controlled fashion. Exploration of the management of assessment through internal subject reviews is often enriched by the experience of external members of review teams, and by discussion of sector-wide good practice with the subject area. Discussions in the review of Nursing Studies brought to the fore the practice in other institutions whereby academic credits for practice learning are awarded without the assessment including written coursework, and where credit for practice learning is predominantly based on the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s competency framework. Information of this nature is valuable to the University’s wider exploration of assessment methods as outlined in the section below. Issues for further development An area identified for further development has been the strengthening of methods of gathering feedback from returning exchange students to monitor quality assurance, particularly for those exchanges that are arranged by students independently and are not part of an existing formal University exchange agreement. These enhancements will build on existing mechanisms for gathering feedback from returning exchange students on their academic experience. Reviews have again paid close attention to the extent to which subject areas take account of external reference points, and in particular the external examiner system, which reviews have found to be working effectively in assuring academic standards. In addition to scrutiny of comments made in external examiners’ reports and discussion of actions taken by subject areas in response, the majority of reviews include a telephone interview with an external examiner. Any recommendations by review teams have focused on administrative process improvements. Assessment has been a focus of activity under the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee, with a task group on ‘Assessment Futures’ operating in 2009/10 and undertaking further work in 2011/12. This has created a climate of enquiry within the University as to how assessment practices and processes at Edinburgh can and should evolve over the coming decade if they are to continue to be fit for 21st-century purposes. The exploration of assessment issues through internal subject reviews continues benefits from this climate, with one review referring to sector good practice and professional body competency framework in recommending consideration of a credit-rated assessment tool for the achievement of practice learning outcomes. Attention has also been given to exit routes for students on professional programmes so as to recognise appropriate academic achievement and support students’ entry to a competitive employment market. The review of Medicine

10

commended the subject area for its current project on the quality assurance of assessment, which will include the quality assurance of marks awarded for performance on medical attachments. Management of Enhancement and Promotion of Good Practice The first ‘Sharing Good Practice from Internal Subject Review’ event was held during the joint EUSA/University ‘Inspiring Teaching Conference’ in January 2011, and was repeated in May 20112. Presentations covered research-teaching linkages in Architecture and in Psychology, the Student Support Officer system in Literatures, Languages and Cultures, peer tutoring in Mathematics (with the very well received presentation delivered by a 4th year student), and the Veterinary Studies final year Professional Skills Week. All presentations generated audience discussion, and particularly the Professional Skills week. Participants at the May event identified common aspects in their preparation of students for entry to professional practice, and thus the need for greater sharing of good practice and cross-University working in preparing students for not only for entry to these areas but for the vital early years of career development. As a result of discussion at this event, a ‘Transitions to Professional Practice’ group has been established, convened by the Assistant Principal for Academic Standards and Quality Assurance. Three of the subject areas reviewed in 2010/11, Social Work, Nursing Studies and Medicine, have joined Engineering, Architecture, Design (from the post-merger Edinburgh College of Art), Veterinary Medicine and Law as founding members, and it is intended to widen the scope to other interested disciplines. The instances of good practice in preparation for professional life and the issues for future development identified in this report illustrate some of the aspects with which this group will engage. It is intended to run the Sharing Good Practice event annually, and to include topics from Postgraduate Programme Reviews. Nursing Studies has been a key driver in setting up the Clinical Academic Research Career Scheme (CARC) in conjunction with Lothian NHS, NHS Education for Scotland and Edinburgh Napier and Queen Margaret Universities. CARC supports the development of a clear career structure for nursing going from undergraduate studies to masters, doctoral and postdoctoral progression to achieve advanced clinical leadership and a smooth interface between undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. The Social Work subject area used the Scottish Government sponsored Change Academy as a vehicle to undertake the comprehensive revision of one of its programmes. The review had had a particular emphasis on the Enhancement Theme of assessment. The Division of European Languages and Cultures is engaged in an examination of the possibility of adopting the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), a European Union initiative based on the mutual recognition of language qualifications, with the aim of facilitating educational and occupational mobility. Workshops on professional development planning run by the HEA feed in to ongoing development of the student experience in this area. Similarly, the Enhancement Themes of the 21st Century Graduate, Integrative Assessment and Integrating Research and Teaching influence curriculum development. The School of GeoSciences is working to identify examples of best practice across all the School’s Subject areas, codifying these in the School’s teaching policies and procedures, and ensuring that they are disseminated to all teaching support staff, on a day-to-day basis 2 http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-enhancement/good-practice

11

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-enhancement/good-practice

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-enhancement/good-practice

through e-mail and in person communication, and annually through a Teaching Administration Away Day. Issues for further development Reviews have identified much individual good practice in the course and programme handbooks provided to students. There are clear benefits for the student experience in the further systematic promotion of common content across the University, and this area has been earmarked for a future task group of Senate Quality Assurance Committee. 1.5 Reviews of student support services undertaken in 2010/11 Student support services are reviewed annually by a separate process. In 2010/11 six support services were reviewed by Senate Quality Assurance Committee. The date of the meeting at which the service was reviewed is noted in each case: Careers Service (9 December 2010) EUSA Advice Place (9 December 2010) Information Services (3 February 2011) Counselling Service (14 April 2011) Student Disability Service (25 May 2011) Chaplaincy (25 May 2011) Centre for Sport & Exercise (25 May 2011) The reports are available within the committee papers for the relevant meeting at http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/committees/quality-assurance/agendas-papers The reviews of student support services showed evidence overall of service development, business improvement, sharing of expertise, dissemination of knowledge and partnership working. A common theme was the increased demand on services from the student body as a whole, and in some areas from international students in particular. Services have responded to increased demand by targeting resource appropriately and introducing new options for support. Among solutions are the rescheduling by the Careers Service of resource-intensive one-to-one sessions in the peak periods for careers advice, the piloting of virtual careers fairs with employers from China and South East Asia, and developments in the Student Counselling Service aimed at continuing to deliver an effective service to students while reducing staff time spent on preparation of one-off events. Among these, the development of a suite of off the shelf workshops will be available for use at times of peak pressure on waiting times. Student support services are increasingly active in partnership working with relevant services across the University. Information Services has naturally been at the forefront of developments in e-learning and innovative assessment practices. Staff at the EUSA Advice Place contribute to ensuring that the University’s appeals and complaints procedures are as effective as possible, and to identify areas of good practice. The development of ‘preventative’ support by the Advice Place is ongoing, and is particularly aimed at helping international students negotiate different cultural expectations. The Student Disability Service has in the past year delivered bespoke training to Student Counselling Service staff, and has carried out a wide range of on-request targeted induction sessions for academic departments and support staff.

12

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/committees/quality-assurance/agendas-papers

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/committees/quality-assurance/agendas-papers

Student support services showed consistent evidence of good practice in approaches to gathering and responding to feedback from users. The Centre for Sport and Exercise makes particularly effective use of cross-unit fora as a means of developing new ideas and enhancing service provision. Representatives of student support services will be involved in the 2011/12 task group of Senate Quality Assurance Committee on ‘Assuring the Quality of the Student Experience’ and are expected to contribute significantly to its work. The interaction of building/infrastructure quality and provision of effective student support has been a focus of reviews, as recommended to services by Senate Quality Assurance Committee in 2009/10. Three of the services – Careers, Student Counselling and Student Disability – are now co-located in the Main Library, and the impact of this move on the quality of the student experience will be included in the focus of future reviews. Information Services holds an annual strategic planning meeting with EUSA officials to communicate the likely major developments that it will put forward in its plans, and for EUSA to make Information Services aware of what changes to facilities and services it would like to see and not see taking place in the coming year. External surveys of student satisfaction are used by support services to inform their enhancement strategies. These include the LibQual survey, the National Student Survey, the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey, the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey and the International Student Barometer. Evidence from the International Student Barometer of the high impact of the Chaplaincy on the student experience was particularly commendable given the number of Chaplaincy staff in relation to the size of the student population. Presentations on the University’s revised student support services review method were made at the 5th European Quality Assurance Forum in November 2011 and at the annual Enhancement Themes Conference on 2 and 3 March 2011. Issues for development Common areas for development from 2010/11 reviews will be a continuing emphasis on surveying the student experience, and the provision of support for distance learning students, as the University’s Distance Education Initiative gathers momentum. The identification of common themes across the student support services and a greater degree of articulation with themes arising from internal subject review will be enhanced by the University’s new process for review of student support services, to be launched in 2011/12. The revised review method aims to foster a positive attitude towards quality assurance of service provision, disseminate good practice across the Services and enhance the quality of service provision throughout the University. The Student Support Services Quality Assurance Framework will use both report-based and panel review methods. The majority of Services will self-assess their service provision annually to a sub-committee of Senate Quality Assurance Committee using a report template. The revised report format will allow a greater emphasis on the quality of the student experience and the extent to which support services meet students’ needs, as well as strengthening the identification of emerging common themes across the services. In addition to submitting an annual report, the key front-facing services will be subject to a periodic enhanced review by panel on a five yearly cycle and which also reports to the sub-committee. Services which are key front-facing but which hold an accreditation award may be eligible for an accreditation review using the annual report template and the Professional Regulatory and Statutory Bodies (PRSB) Accrediting Body’s Report. A fourth method of review will be the thematic review, whereby key interests and issues are reviewed in more depth across clusters of Services. The first thematic review will take place in 2012/13, and

13

will focus on the international student experience in relation to student support. It is hoped that this review will be informed by forthcoming QAA guidance for higher education institutions on integrating support for international students studying in the UK. Further information on the Student Support Services Quality Assurance Framework is attached in Appendix 1. 2. Reviews by professional and statutory bodies undertaken, or reported on, in

2010/11 Reviews by professional and statutory bodies undertaken in 2010/11 are set out in Appendix 2, together with the results of the reviews. All provision reviewed by professional and statutory bodies was approved. The information in Appendix 2 is drawn from the University’s new database-driven Register of Accreditations by Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies. The database has been designed for easy retrieval of information, and for multi-user upload of data. Its location on the University’s Quality website means that it will available as a resource to the University community and will also be accessible to key stakeholders and the general public. The database is publicly available from September 2011 at http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-assurance/accredit-collaborative 3. Internal reviews planned for Academic Year 2010/11 3.1 Internal undergraduate reviews Biomedical Sciences (undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision) Childhood Practice Community Education English Literature Physics Social Anthropology (undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision) Sociology The inclusion of undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision in the same review demonstrates the consideration now being given to the optimum scope of review for each subject area. The University sees it as vital that its review method is sufficiently flexible to respond to the needs of its very wide range of disciplines. During 2010/11, preparatory discussions with subject areas being reviewed in 2011/12 identified that in some cases taught postgraduate provision would be more usefully reviewed with undergraduate than with research provision. The first reviews to combine undergraduate and taught postgraduate levels will take place in 2011/12. Reports from such reviews will be located under the TPR section of the internal review web pages, and will clearly indicate the inclusion of taught postgraduate provision. Reviews of Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Electrical & Electronic Engineering were scheduled for 2010/11, and the review of Mechanical Engineering for 2013/14. The School of Engineering has requested that all four disciplines be reviewed together, in order to maximise the impact of the review by allowing common issues to be identified, particularly in respect to the management of the student learning experience. The University has requested that the combined review takes place in 2012/13, thus delaying Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Electrical and Electronic Engineering by a year and bringing the review of Mechanical Engineering forward by a year. All deferred disciplines will

14

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-assurance/accredit-collaborative

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-assurance/accredit-collaborative

have been subject to an accreditation in the meantime, and there are no outstanding requirements from accreditations which have taken place to date. Annual monitoring will continue according to the University’s procedures, and any problematic issues which may arise will be dealt with expeditiously. The Council has agreed to this request. 3.2 Internal postgraduate reviews Biomedical Sciences Chemistry Engineering The review of Arts, Culture and the Environment scheduled for 2011/12 has been rescheduled to 2012/13 following the merger of Edinburgh College of Art with the University on 1 August 2011. The new Edinburgh College of Art within the University will encompass the disciplines of the former School of Arts, Culture and the Environment and the disciplines of the former Edinburgh College of Art. In order to maximise the effectiveness of the PPR following the merger, the University has requested its rescheduling to 2012/13 (6.5 years since the previous review of Arts, Culture and the Environment). Annual monitoring will continue according to the University’s procedures, and any problematic issues which may arise will be dealt with expeditiously. The Council has agreed to this request. 4. Reviews by professional and statutory bodies planned for Academic Year

2011/12 Reviews by professional and statutory bodies planned for 2011/12 are set out in Appendix 3, with the information being drawn from the Register of Accreditations by Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies. Dr Linda Bruce, Registry Academic Services August 2011

15

Appendix 1


Student Support Services Quality Assurance Framework under the auspices of the

Senate Quality Assurance Committee

Background Information Purpose of the Student Support Service Quality Assurance Framework The SSSQAF assures the quality of the student experience in regard to student support services as designated by Senate Quality Assurance Committee. It provides the Service with an opportunity to identify key issues in its service provision and to reflect on its quality assurance structures. Key outcomes of the process are the potential to receive recommendations for service enhancement and to disseminate good practice, identified by the process, throughout the Services across the University. The SSSQAF cycle is one of the main ways by which the University assures itself of the: • Quality of the student experience. • Provision delivered by student support services. • Extent to which these meet the needs of students. Overview of Process The SSSQAF uses both report-based and panel review methods. The majority of Services self-assess their service provision using the Annual Quality Assurance (QA) Report template which is submitted to Senate Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) Sub-committee on an annual basis. In addition to submitting the Annual (QA) Report, the key front-facing Services are subject to a Periodic Enhanced Review by panel on a five yearly cycle which also reports to the QAC Sub-committee. Services which are key front-facing but which hold an accreditation award may be eligible for an Accreditation Review using the Annual (QA) Report template and the Professional Regulatory and Statutory Bodies (PRSB) Accrediting Body’s Report. A fourth method of review is the Thematic Review, whereby key interests and issues are reviewed in more depth across clusters of Services. The focus of the SSSQAF is to foster a positive attitude towards quality assurance of service provision, disseminate good practice across the Services and enhance the quality of service provision throughout the University. Time line for the introduction of the Student Support Service Quality Assurance Framework The new system of review and reporting will be introduced in A/Y 2011/12 with the submission of the Annual Quality Assurance (QA) Report by all of the identified Services to the QAC Sub-committee. The Periodic Enhanced Reviews are to be introduced in A/Y 2012/13. The first Thematic Review will take place in A/Y 2013/14.

16

Method of review and reporting by QAC Sub-committee for the Student Support Service Quality Assurance Framework Purpose and role: The QAC Sub-committee, with delegated authority from QAC, is responsible for the review and monitoring of Services’ provision from the perspective of quality assurance in terms of the student learning experience. It reports an overview of its findings to the QAC including recommendations and commendations. Remit: • To monitor and assess the quality assurance of the Services by consideration and

scrutiny of Annual (QA) Report and Professional Regulatory and Statutory Bodies (PRSB) Accrediting Body’s Report and Periodic Enhanced and Thematic Reviews’ findings.

• To make recommendations regarding quality assurance principles and practice as appropriate.

• To disseminate good practice arising from reports and reviews. • To ensure that the procedures and process of the SSSQAF are fit for purpose. Governance: • The Sub-committee will act with authority, as delegated by the Quality Assurance

Committee, in order to monitor the quality assurance of Student Support Services in relation to the student learning experience.

• The Sub-committee will report on an annual basis to the Quality Assurance Committee. • The Sub-committee will liaise with Services and Colleges in respect of the student

learning experience as issues and incidents arise within the SSSQAF. Composition of Sub-committee: • The Convener of QAC will be the Convener of the Sub-committee. • The Vice-Convener of QAC will be the Vice-Convener of the Sub-committee. • Associate Deans for Quality Assurance CHSS, CSE and Director of Quality Assurance

CMVM. • EUSA Vice President Academic Affairs or EUSA Vice President Societies and Activities. • Heads of Student Support Services (or their representatives) submitting reports. • External member from a Student Support Service within the higher education sector. • Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services. Operation: • Services submit their reports by 31st January each year. • The Sub-committee will hold two meetings per year, both in March of each year, to

consider the reports and reviews of the Services. • At the meetings, the Services will be grouped into related categories for the benefit of

sharing experiences and good practice. • The findings of the Sub-committee will be reported as an overview to the April meeting of

QAC.

Reporting schedule: • QAC Sub-committee reports its findings on an annual basis to same QAC meeting at

which the College Reports are submitted. • QAC in turn reports its findings to Central Management Group and/or Senate as

appropriate.

17

Different types of review in the Student Support Service Quality Assurance Framework The type of review carried out under the auspices of QAC will be determined upon the Review Criterion; however, the QAC Sub-committee may recommend to QAC that any of the Services under the auspices of the QAC SSSQAF may be subject to a Periodic Enhanced Review. 1. Annual Quality Assurance (QA) Report The Annual (QA) Report comprises of six sections: Management of student support opportunities; Quality and Standards; Management of enhancement and sharing of good practice; Issues and themes specific to the Student Support Service; Forward Look; Thematic Report. This is a self-analysis/assessment process which is based on an evaluation of the Student Support Service rather than a description of the services provided. 1.1 Criterion When the Service is a front facing support service, however, it is an elective service with little direct impact on the overall student learning experience. 1.2 Student Support Services in this category: • Academic Registry with particular emphasis on Student Centre, Student Appeals,

Complaints and Discipline Unit and Student Finance and Loans Unit • Advice Place • Centre for Sport and Exercise • Chaplaincy 2. Accreditation Review In addition to the Annual (QA) Report, the Service submits the Accreditation Report or, if one is produced, its annually updated version. It is at the discretion of the QAC Sub-committee to approve the appropriateness of the contents of this report for University of Edinburgh quality assurance purposes. 2.1 Criterion When the Service is a front facing support service and has a significant impact on the student learning experience, however, it is accredited/recognised by its professional governing or an accrediting body, QAC may agree to a Service Accreditation Review under the auspices of QAC. 2.2 Student Support Services in this category: • Careers Service (Resolution of new accrediting body pending) • Student Counselling Service 3. Periodic Enhanced Review This is an assessment process by review panel visit and feedback report based upon the Annual (QA) Report template, a Service Specific Remit and an Analytical Report submitted by the Service. 3.1 Criterion When the Service is a front-facing support service and has a significant direct impact on the student learning experience or has a significant impact on the ability of the student to embrace fully the learning experience or when it has been considered by the QAC sub-committee not to have fully satisfied the standard generic remit and Service specific themes. 3.2 Student Support Services in this category: • All Student Support Services are potential participants in this type of review. • Accommodation Service • Disability Office • Information Services with particular emphasis on Library Services, Computing Services

and E-learning • International Office

18

4. Thematic Review Themes and relevant clusters of Services are identified by QAC and the QAC Sub-committee. The process governing the Thematic Review is being considered and will be further developed post ELIR. 5. No Review under the auspices of QAC 5.1 Criterion The Service will not be subject to separate dedicated review and reporting within the SSSQAF when the Service is front facing and/or it: • is subject to review by the Internal Subject Reviews; or • has already been assessed in relation to its impact on the work of other Services which

are part of the SSSQAF; or • is not within the authority of the University of Edinburgh; or it reports within the

jurisdiction of the Colleges/Schools quality assurance procedures.

19

Appendix 2 The University of Edinburgh Reviews and Accreditations by Professional and Statutory Bodies 2010-2011

School Programme or Course UCAS Code Level of Study Accrediting Body Accreditation

Outcome Date of Review

Expected Next Full Review Date

Business School

MA Accounting and Finance UTACCF1MAH Undergraduate

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (AC Successful 01-Sep-10 01-Sep-12

Business School


Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIM Successful 01-Sep-10 01-Sep-12

Business School


Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Successful 01-Sep-10 01-Sep-12

Business School


Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (IC Successful 01-Sep-10 01-Sep-12

Business School

MA Business Studies and Accounting UTBSTAC Undergraduate

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (AC Successful 01-Sep-10 01-Sep-12

Business School


Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIM Successful 01-Sep-10 01-Sep-12

Business School


Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Successful 01-Sep-10 01-Sep-12

Business School


Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (IC Successful 01-Sep-10 01-Sep-12

Law, School of Law & Medical Ethics (eCPD) CPD http://www.rcn.org.uk/ Accredited 17-Sep-10 19-Aug-11

20

http://www.accaglobal.com/


http://www.cimaglobal.com/


http://www.icaew.com/


http://www.icas.org.uk/icas/










http://www.rcn.org.uk/

Art, Culture & Environment, School of

Architectural Design MA (Hons) K100 Undergraduate

Royal Institute of British Architects Full Validation 30-Sep-10 31-Aug-12

GeoSciences, School of BSc (Hons) Geology F600 Undergraduate

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/index.html Approved 16-Feb-11 01-Jun-14

GeoSciences, School of

MEarthSci (Hons) Geology F640 Undergraduate

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/index.html Approved 28-Feb-11 01-Jul-14


BSc (Hons) Geology and Physical Geography FF68 Undergraduate



MEarthSci (Hons) Geology and Physical Geography FF6V Undergraduate


Health in Social Science, School of BN with Honours B700 Undergraduate

UK Nursing and Midwifery Council Accredited 07-Apr-11 15-Feb-12

Education, The Moray House School of

Post-Graduate Certificate in Academic Practice

Postgraduate Taught

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

Accredited for 5 years 13-Apr-11 13-Apr-16


Architecture - Master of (MArch ARB/RIBA Part 2)

Postgraduate Taught Architect's Registration Board Annual Validation 19-Apr-11 01-Jul-11


Architectural Design MA (Hons) K100 Undergraduate Architect's Registration Board Annual Validation 19-Apr-11 31-Aug-12

Art, Culture & Environment, School of Architecture MA (Hons) K100 Undergraduate Architect's Registration Board Annual validation 19-Apr-11 13-Sep-13 Art, Culture & Environment, School of Architecture BA (Hons) K100 Undergraduate Architect's Registration Board Annual Validation 19-Apr-11 13-Sep-13

21

http://www.architecture.com/


http://www.nmc-uk.org/


http://www.arb.org.uk/




Law, School of Diploma in Professional Legal Practice

Postgraduate Taught http://www.lawscot.org.uk/ Accredited 18-May-11 01-Sep-14

Art, Culture & Environment, School of Architecture BA (Hons) K100 Undergraduate

Royal Institution of British Architects

Full validation (draft form) 30-May-11 23-May-14


Architecture - Master of (MArch) (ARB/RIBA Part 2)

Postgraduate Taught

Royal Institute of British Architects Full validation 30-May-11 23-May-14

Engineering, School of

MEng Civil Engineering; MEng Structural Engineering H203 Undergraduate Joint Board of Moderators

Accredited as fully satisfying the educational base for a Chartered Engineer (CEng) 15-Jun-11 01-Jan-16


MEng Civil Engineering; MEng Structural Engineering H2KC Undergraduate Joint Board of Moderators



BEng Chemical Engineering; BEng Chemical Engineeri H800 Undergraduate

Institution of Chemical Engineers

Accredited as partially satisfying the educational base for a Chartered Engineer (CEng) 15-Jun-11 01-Jan-16


MEng Chemical Engineering; MEng Chemical Engineerining H804 Undergraduate



22





http://www.icheme.org.uk/





BEng Chemical Engineering; BEng Chemical Engineering H810 Undergraduate




MEng Chemical Engineering; MEng Chemical Engineering H881 Undergraduate




BEng Chemical Engineering; BEng Chemical Engineering H8N2 Undergraduate




MEng Chemical Engineering; MEng Chemical Engineering H8NF Undergraduate



Health in Social Science, School of DClinPsychol

Postgraduate Taught

HPC (Health Professions Council) and BPS (British

Approved and fully accredited 04-Jul-11 01-Jun-12

23

http://www.hpc-uk.org/


Appendix 3 The University of Edinburgh Reviews and Accreditations by Professional and Statutory Bodies planned for 2011-2012

School Programme or

Course UCAS Code Level of Study Accrediting Body

Accreditation Outcome

Date of Review

Expected Next Full Review Date

Physics & Astronomy, School of BSc Physics F300 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11 Physics &

Astronomy, School of MPhys Physics F303 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11 Physics &

Astronomy, School of

BSc Physics with Meteorology F304 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11

Physics & Astronomy, School of BSc Physics with Music F305 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11 Physics &


MPhys Mathematical Physics F325 Not applicable Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11

Physics & Astronomy, School of

BSc Mathematical Physics F326 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11


MChemPhys Chemical Physics F333 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11

Physics & Astronomy, School of BSc Chemical Physics F334 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11 Physics &


MChemPhys Chemical Physics with Industrial

Experience F336 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11 Physics &

Astronomy, BSc Computational

Physics F343 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11

24

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

School of


MPhys Computational Physics F355 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11

Physics & Astronomy, School of MPhys Astrophysics F361 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11 Physics &

Astronomy, School of BSc Astrophysics F510 Undergraduate Institute of Physics Accreditation 30-Nov-05 30-Nov-11

Law, School of

Professional Competence

Course/Trainee CPD CPD http://www.lawscot.org.uk/

Accredited 01-Sep-09 01-Jan-12 Health in Social

Science, School of BN with Honours B700 Undergraduate

UK Nursing and Midwifery Council Accredited 07-Apr-11 15-Feb-12

Law, School of LLB Undergraduate Law Society of Scotland Successful 31-Dec-07 14-Apr-12 Health in Social

Science, School of DClinPsychol

Postgraduate Taught

HPC (Health Professions Council) and BPS (British

Approved and fully accredited 04-Jul-11 01-Jun-12

Health in Social Science, School of

Master of Counselling (Interpersonal Dialogue)

Postgraduate Taught COSCA

Conditional accreditation (as a new Programme) 01-Jun-09 01-Aug-12

Edinburgh College of Art

Architectural Design MA (Hons) K100 Undergraduate

Royal Institute of British Architects Full Validation 30-Sep-10 31-Aug-12

Edinburgh College of Art

Architectural Design MA (Hons) K100 Undergraduate Architect's Registration Board Annual Validation 19-Apr-11 31-Aug-12

Medicine, School of

Transfusion, Transplantation and

Tissue Banking (MSc) PTMSCTTAT

B1P Postgraduate

Taught http://www.ibms.org/

Accredited 01/09/11 01/09/2014

25

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.iop.org/

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/



http://www.lawscot.org.uk/



http://www.cosca.org.uk/




http://www.ibms.org/

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 O



26 September 2011

Programme of risk reviews in 2011/12

Brief description of the paper This paper proposes a rolling programme of risk reviews for the risks in the latest University Risk Register. Action requested The Committee is invited to discuss and comment on the proposals. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? Yes. There is work involved in reporting to the RMC but these are risks which the University has agreed should be managed appropriately as they are of key University significance. Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? The Risk Register and Risk Reviews are part of the University’s risk management controls. Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No. Freedom of Information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes. Originator of the paper Helen Stocks 16 September 2011

Programme of risk reviews in 2011/12

This paper proposes a rolling programme of risk reviews continuing into 2011/12 for the risks in the updated University Risk Register and assigns possible individuals to take forward this work, coordinating and liaising as appropriate, as per previous year. All reports would be linked to the University Risk Register on the web, unless the Committee agreed otherwise for a specific report. Assigned individuals would be asked to provide a risk review (or update the risk review submitted in 2010/11, for risks in the Risk Register last year). The Committee is invited to discuss and comment on the proposals, in particular:

• whether the allocation of reports to meetings is appropriate (for all risks in last year’s register, the dates are approximately a year after last year’s review was scheduled unless the date is in italics, which indicates that it is a new risk, or has been brought forward as indicated); and

• whether the correct individuals have been identified / are still appropriate. For information, in 2010/11, the numbers of risk reviews submitted to meetings were as follows:

• 13 January: 9 • 31 March: 6 • 19 May: 5

The programme below for 2011/12 proposes the following (allows for possible slippage from the April to the May meeting):

• 17 January: 10 • 3 April: 8 • 15 May: 4

Risk University Risk

Register Lead Manager

Assigned individuals

RMC proposed to receive report

Critical Probable Risks 1. Insufficient funding to develop the University and maintain its UK and international competitiveness: - e.g. due to Government funding policies for universities in Scotland and the rest of the UK - consequential impact of reduced funding or policy changes made by research funders e.g. research councils, charities etc. - inability to generate new non-governmental income

Lead: Principal Supported by: Director of Planning, Heads of College and Director of ERI

Director of Planning with input from Director of Finance

15 May 2012

2. Changes to cross-border flows of students which present political and operational challenges, arise as a result of divergence in fees policy

Lead: Principal Supported by: Director of Planning, HoC’s

Director of Planning with input from HoC’s

17 January 2012

2

Risk University Risk Register Lead Manager



between Scotland and the rest of the UK in 2012/13 3. Changes to University governance processes or structures result from developments in government policy/legislation

Lead: Principal Supported by: Director of Planning

Director of Planning

17 January 2012

4. Growth of international, PG and distance learning student recruitment fails to achieve targets and falls behind UK and international competitors eg due to: - UKBA policies and practice resulting in UK perceived as unwelcoming to international students - marketing and quality of distance learning programmes

Lead: Principal Supported by: HoCs, VP International (c), VP Knowledge Management, Director of Planning (d)

Director of Planning with input from Director of Finance, Director ERI, Head of International Office

3 April 2012

5. Staff and/or student dissatisfaction leads to disruption to business continuity. This could arise as a result of: - the need to operate within funding constraints - pressures for changes in staff terms and conditions (including pension funds) - student tuition fees or graduate contribution proposals

Lead: Director of HR and University Secretary Supported by: Directors of Corporate Services and Finance

Director of HR with input from Director of Finance and Corporate Services

17 January 2012

Critical Likely Risks 6. Maintenance of financial sustainability and ensuring effective delivery of key strategic and operational plans

Lead: SVP Planning, Resources and Research Policy Supported by: HoCs, DoCS, Director of Finance, Director Estates and Buildings, Director of Planning, Director of HR

Director of Finance with input from VP Resources, Director Estates and Buildings, Director of Planning, Director of HR

15 May 2012

3




7. Changes to degree structures are required as a result of developments in government policy/legislation (eg changes to location of degree delivery, reduced length of UG degree courses etc) which impact on curriculum structures, academic quality, student experience and financial sustainability

Lead: Principal Supported by: Director of Planning

Director of Planning

17 January 2012

8. Rate of maintenance, enhancement and investment in the estate fails to support University growth aspirations (research, education and accommodation), provide a satisfactory student and staff experience, and maintain competitiveness with other leading institutions across the world.

Lead: SVP Planning, Resources & Research Policy Supported by: Director of Estates & Buildings; Vice Principal Development

Director of Estates & Buildings with input from Vice Principal Resources

17 January 2012

Critical Possible Risks 9. Inadequate performance in 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) Assessment.

Lead: SVP Planning, Resources & Research Policy Supported by: HoC, HoS, Director of Planning

SVP Planning, Resources & Research Policy with input from HoC, HoS, Director of Planning

17 January 2012

10. Failure to provide a high quality student experience e.g. in teaching and learning, pastoral and academic support, student services, living and social environment

Lead: Director of Quality Assurance Supported by: VP Academic Enhancement, VP Research, Training & Community, HoC’s and Heads of Support Groups

Director of Quality Assurance

15 May 2012

11. Inability to retain or attract sufficient key academic staff to meet University / College goals for

Lead: Principal College Leadership:

Director of Human Resources (HR)

3 April 2012

4




research and teaching

Heads of Colleges (HoC) Supported by: Heads of Schools (HoS) and Director of HR

12. Inadequate management of work priorities and major change projects both individually and as a combined programme of activity. Major projects in progress are: 12.1 academic timetable

project; 12.2 major estates projects e.g.

library, KBLRC, central area refurbishment;

12.3 implementation of PURE systems to meet REF information requirements

12.4 implementation of merger of Edinburgh College of Art

12.5 implmentation of merger of MRC Human Genetics Unit

Lead: 12.1 SVP Planning, Resources and Research Policy 12.2 Director of Estates & Buildings 12.3 Director of Planning 12.4 VP Prof David Ferguson 12.5 CMVM Executive Dean

12.1 SVP Planning, Resources and Research Policy 12.2 Director of Estates & Buildings 12.3 Director of Planning 12.4 VP Prof David Ferguson 12.5 CMVM Executive Dean

12.1 3 April 2012 12.2 3 April 2012 12.3 15 May 2012 12.4 17 January 2012 12.5 17 January 2012

13. Insufficient investment in systems developments and infrastructure resulting in failure to maintain fit for purpose systems and infrastructure, or serious breach of IT or data security

Lead: VP Knowledge Management and CIO

VP Knowledge Management and CIO

3 April 2012

Moderate Possible Risks 14. Inadequate engagement with changes in public policy, legislation, and practice affecting Higher Education, e.g. o UK Government; o Scottish Executive/Scottish

Enterprise/SFC; o City of Edinburgh; o European Union; o Research Councils

Lead: Principal Supported by: Director of Planning, University Secretary, DoCs

University Secretary

17 January 2012

15. Failure to appropriately position and support the

Lead: HoC, Principal

Director of Communications

3 April 2012

5




University’s image and reputation in the UK and worldwide

Supported by: VP International, VP Development, Director Communications and External Affairs

and External Affairs

16. Significant academic collaborations fail to be effectively managed and do not deliver benefit to the University

College Leadership: Heads of College Supported by: Vice-Principal (International)

College Registrars

3 April 2012

Critical/Moderate Rare Risks 17. Widespread damage to property and buildings (fire, explosion, malicious damage etc), including properties adjacent to the University estate

Lead: Director of Estates and Buildings Supported by: HoC/HoSG HoS Director of Estates and Buildings, Director of Finance

Director of Estates and Buildings

17 January 2012

18. Failure to achieve a rating of “confidence” in the 2011 Enhancement Led Institutional Review (ELIR)

Lead: Convenor of Quality Assurance Committee

Convenor of Quality Assurance Committee

3 April 2012

6

AC/01/05/23

RMC 11/12 1 P (Closed)



26 September 2011

Risks emerging from the University's RUK fees strategy

Brief description of the paper This paper is an extract from the cover sheet of the paper that Court discussed earlier this month on options for setting the University’s fee level for RUK UG students. The extracts cover the key points of the paper and the risk assessment made in the paper. Action requested For discussion. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? Yes, and these were set out in the Court paper. Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? Yes Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? The Court paper set out issues in relation to bursaries and widening access. Freedom of Information Can this paper be included in open business? No. Disclosure would substantially prejudice the commercial interests of any person or organisation. Originator of the paper Helen Stocks 21 September 2011

*** revised - the university of edinburgh | the …...2011/09/26 · ac/01/05/23 university of...

Documents