Knowledge Strategy Committee

Elder Room, Old College Friday 22 January 2016, 2pm

AGENDA

1 Minute A

To approve the minute of the meeting held on 29 September 2015.

2 Matters Arising

To raise any matters arising.

SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS

3 Information Services 10 Year Strategy:

Digital Transformation of Core Services

Learning, Teaching and Student Experience

Research IT and IT Infrastructure

Libraries, Museums and Collections

B

To consider and comment on the presentations by IS Directors.

ITEMS FOR NOTING OR FORMAL APPROVAL

4 Projects and Ongoing Activities Update C

To consider and note an update paper by the Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University.

5 9 IT Infrastructure Governance Process D

10 To approve.

9

6 10 Thesis Digitisation Proposal E

11 To approve.

7 University Collections Advisory Committee (UCAC) Terms of Reference

F

To approve.

12

8 13 Library Collections Facility G

14 To approve.

9 Committee Reports

IT Committee Report Library Committee Report University Collections Advisory Committee

H1 H2 H3

10 Any Other Business

To consider any other matter.

11 Date of next meeting

11 March 2016 at 10.00am

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

29 September 2015

Minute

Present: Ms Doreen Davidson (Convenor) Vice-Principal Professor Jeff Haywood Mr Gavin McLachlan Dr Gordon McDougall Ms Angi Lamb Ms Alison Grant Professor Allan Cumming Ms Imogen Wilson In attendance: Ms Jo Craiglee Mrs Tracey Slaven Dr Catherine Elliot Professor James Loxley Ms Pauline Jones, Governance & Strategic Planning (for Item 4) Mr Barry Neilson, Director of Student Systems (for Item 5) Ms Kirstie Graham, Deputy Head of Court Services Dr Lewis Allan, Head of Court Services Apologies: Mr Peter Budd Professor Richard Coyne Vice-Principal Professor Sue Rigby Mr Hugh Edmiston Mr Phil McNaull Assistant Principal Professor Arthur Trew

1 Minute Paper A

The Minute of the meeting held on 5 June 2015 and the electronic meeting concluded on 28 August 2015 were approved as a correct record. The Committee noted apologies and welcomed Alison Grant to her first meeting as a Court member, Imogen Wilson to her first meeting as EUSA representative (Vice-President Academic Affairs) and congratulated Doreen Davidson on her appointment as Convener of the Committee.

2 Matters Arising Verbal There were no matters arising.

A

2

3 Membership Verbal

It was noted that:

Nominations Committee has approved the appointment of Doreen Davidson as Convener of the Committee and the appointment of two new Court members, Alison Grant and Peter Budd;

One vacancy remains for a Court member;

Professor Sue Rigby will leave the University on 30 October to take up a new post as Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Lincoln – creating a vacancy for a Senate member.

The Committee noted its thanks to Professor Rigby for her significant contribution to the work of the Committee and across the University.

SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS 4 Developing the 2016-2021 Strategic Plan Paper B

The Head of Strategic Performance & Research Policy introduced a discussion on the development of the University’s new Strategic Plan 2016-21. The following suggestions were raised:

The enabler ‘Infrastructure’ may be understood as purely physical infrastructure – ‘digital infrastructure’ or ‘information infrastructure’ could be included as an additional enabler or alongside ‘physical infrastructure’.

Alternatively, ‘digital environment’ and ‘physical environment’ may be more suitable.

‘Data’ could be an additional enabler (with sub-plans on digital and data sitting underneath the Strategic Plan), as could ‘working in partnership with students’

On the distinctiveness of the University, meshing research and teaching is key and advertising MOOCs to existing Edinburgh students could also assist

The plan should be concise, written in an accessible style for all likely audiences (including students) and link with supporting strategies (IS, internationalisation etc). Case studies could also be used.

5 Student Data Project Paper C

The Director of Student Systems informed the Committee of a project investigating the use of student data to support the enhancement of learning and teaching, the student experience and operational effectiveness. It was noted that a final presentation will be delivered at the Academic Strategy Group meeting in November, with a decision on next steps to be taken. The likely prioritisation of the six broad areas identified were discussed – with understanding of applications and admissions, understanding the student cohort,

3

analytics/predictive work linked to learning & teaching (benchmarking, survey data) highlighted. It was noted that some work on learning analytics is being undertaken elsewhere in the University and this should be connected. Members requested a brief update at the next meeting and commented that:

Schools may use different data sources but a consistent dashboard would be helpful;

Using student data can help in identifying problematic areas;

Thought should be given in advance as to how likely problematic areas can be tackled after they have been identified.

6 Information Security Audit Paper D

The summary results of the Cyber Security Maturity Assessment undertaken by external consultants to the University were considered. Improvements in information security controls made over the previous year were welcomed but it was noted that University’s information security maturity state requires strengthening. Top level challenges identified as priorities (security culture and awareness, information security risk management, unsupported computer usage, management of access rights for internal staff moves) were discussed and the intention to establish an information security team to respond to the assessment, including an international recruitment exercise for a Chief Information Security Officer, strongly supported. It was noted that an update will be provided at the following meeting.

7 Data Architecture Review Paper E

The findings of a scoping study on the University’s Enterprise Architecture capability performed by external consultants were reviewed. Members commented on links with the student data project, e.g. avoiding creating dashboards that sit above an old data architecture of disparate systems, and noted the intention to establish a data architecture practice and a data dictionary. The need to remove obstacles and importance of communication and engagement was stressed. It was noted that the University’s target maturity level for enterprise architecture was still under consideration, with an update to be provided at the next meeting.

8 Outcome of Effectiveness Review Paper F

The Convener thanked members for contributing over the summer period to the effectiveness review. No further comments were received and the review was approved for submission to Court.

4

ROUTINE ITEMS 9 Chief Information Officer’s Communications Verbal

The Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University provided a verbal update on activities since the last meeting. Topics included:

The success of IT systems over Welcome Week, the period of greatest system demand, with a small number of outages swiftly rectified

New students received University cards in the Library for the first time, with induction events, a showcase of the DiscoverEd platform and tours offered

The planned consolidation of Information Services Group staff in Argyle House, with the first moves expected prior to Christmas and the majority of staff to follow in the third quarter of 2016

Preparations for the budget planning round, with the intention to submit long-term plans for the Library, core systems, research systems and learning & teaching – all to be submitted to the Committee in the first instance

Court approved a minor update to the Computer Regulations at its 21 September meeting to make reference to new legislation known as the ‘Prevent duty’.

10 IT Committee Report Paper G

The Committee noted the key points and commented that a fuller report in a format similar to reports from Library Committee and UCAC should be provided in future.

11 Library Committee Report Paper H

The Committee noted the key points in the report.

12 University Collections Advisory Committee Report Paper I

The Committee noted the key points in the report and welcomed the statistics provided showing substantial increases in engagement with the collections by students and members of the public.

13 Projects & Ongoing Activities Report Paper J

The report was noted.

14 Topics for future meetings Verbal

The Committee discussed future agenda items, including the four budget round submissions raised under Item 9. In addition, members suggested:

5

More information/benchmarking on the University’s performance relative to its peers in Information Services

Academic staff engagement, communication and branding of Information Services Group (ISG)

Key Performance Indicators for ISG

Digital literacy of staff and students

Reviews of a sample of completed projects to understand lessons learned and check efficiency and efficacy

Working with other support services (e.g. careers, accommodation) that generate student experience related data.

15 Any other business Verbal

There was no other business.

ITEMS FOR FORMAL APPROVAL/NOTING (Please note these items are not normally discussed). 16 Revised Library Regulations Paper K

The revised Library Regulations were noted.

17 Library Service Response to Public Sector Information Legislation

Paper L

The Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning, explained the Public Sector Information Legislation and the proposed approach by the University Library in implementation. The associated Statement of Public Task and the required changes to be made to charging models used when licencing the re-use of library assets were approved.

18 Delegation of Authority Paper M

Planned IT and Library expenditure in excess of £200,000 during 2015-16 was noted and Delegated Authority to progress with the items set out in the paper granted to the Chief Information Officer.

19 Date of next meeting

22 January 2016 at 2pm

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2016

Information Services 10 Year Strategy

Description of paper 1. This paper is an introduction to presentations that set out the draft 10 year roadmap for Information Services (IS). The roadmap will be part of the Information Services submission to the University’s 2016-19 planning round. Action requested/Recommendation 2. The Committee is asked to consider and comment on the presentations by IS Directors.

Background and context 3. IS has been considering the landscape of services against the University’s 2025 Vision.

Discussion 4. IS has identified 4 major themes:

Digital Transformation of Core Services and Systems

Learning, Teaching & Student Experience

Research and Innovation

Library National and International Leadership 5. These themes will be supported by a Change Programme to ensure that IS have the necessary capabilities to support the themes. Resource implications 6. This 10 year roadmap will require funding. There will be a request for additional resources from IS in the 2016-19 planning round.

Risk Management 7. Failure to invest in this roadmap would mean that the services needed to underpin the University's 2025 strategy would not be available leading to failure to deliver on the strategy. Equality & Diversity 8. There are no equality and diversity impacts at this stage. At implementation stages there will be a need to review impacts again. Next steps/implications 9. The strategies will form the core of the IS Plan for 2016-19 and will be presented to Central Management Group accordingly.

Consultation 10. Digital Transformation of Core Services and Systems; Learning, Teaching & Student Experience; and Research and Innovation, were presented at Information Technology Committee on 19 November 2015. The strategies have also been

B

2

shared with the University’s Senior Management Team and more specifically with the Heads of Colleges and Heads of Support Groups.

Further information 11. Further information can be supplied by: Author Presenter Jo Craiglee Gavin McLachlan Head of KM & Planning CIO and Librarian to the University Freedom of Information 12. This paper can be included in open business.

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2016

Projects and Ongoing Activities Update

Description of paper 1. An update on various University-wide projects that fall within the remit of KSC.

Action requested/Recommendation 2. KSC is asked to note this update on ongoing activities.

Background and context 3. At each meeting of KSC an update is provided on projects falling within the remit of the Committee which do not fall into any additional agenda items. Discussion Business Intelligence / Management Information (Craig Middlemass, BI/MI Coordinator)

5. A year into the BI/MI Programme Coordination and there is a lot to celebrate. The Programme has evolved as new initiatives and external influences emerge. 6. HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) Data Futures is a programme of high impact to the University. HESA plan to rejuvenate the HESA return and seek to establish themselves as the provider of student data for HE data collectors. The Programme Coordination team collated a response on behalf of the University on HESA’s proposal. The Programme Coordinator along with a representative from Student Systems have joined the HESA Technical working group in order to keep the University engaged. 7. The Data Governance Sub Group have continued to develop the template for data definitions. The Enterprise Architecture practice now established in IS have engaged with the data definitions and support the aim to create a common language for University data. The next major step is to embed the data definitions into all development and support methodologies to ensure they are created and maintained as part of normal business. 8. The Programme Coordinator continues to push the development of a BI Architecture strategy and roadmap. This will set out the principles and vision for what the University needs to aspire to for long term reporting solutions. 9. Dashboard developments have been progressing well, Student Systems have a working prototype, Human Resources have launched a staff dashboard and Procurement have created a series of reports that look like dashboards and automated their production. These development have been invaluable to the toolset review as the dashboards are pushing the limitation of BI Suite. 10. The Programme Coordination team held its first Evidence network meeting in December. The event was attended by around 35 people who as part of their role need to make informed decisions, monitor performance or prepare comparisons and forecasts as part of their job. The event was well received and the team are looking

C

2

forward to running more information sharing sessions. 11. The main actions for the Programme Coordination Team in 2016 are:

Embed the Data Governance Group

Continue BI Community Engagement

Create a Learning and Development Strategy and Framework

Conduct a Toolset Review

Complete the improvements to the BI Support Arrangements

Embed the Evidence Network

Develop the BI Architecture Strategy and Roadmap

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

3

19. Further collaborations are also being explored with the World Bank, British Council, and Visit Scotland, all as a result of successes within MOOC delivery to date.

Enterprise Architecture (Dave Berry, Enterprise Architecture) 20. The digital transformation the University wishes to see requires an agreed architecture that enables services to be coordinated, integrated and both seen and experienced by the staff & students as a holistic service. The purpose of enterprise architecture (EA) is to optimize IT and business processes across the University into an integrated whole that is responsive to change and supports the University strategy. 21. The purpose of the EA team is to lead and co-ordinate the creation, maintenance and exploitation of architectural resources and standards in order to increase the flexibility and efficiency of the University’s IT systems and business processes. The team work across IS and the wider University. 22. A paper presented to the IT Committee on 19 November 2015 gives a detailed explanation of the problems we are addressing by setting up the EA team and the benefits the team will bring to the University. http://www.itc.isg.ed.ac.uk/docs/open/Paper_C_Creation_of_Enterprise_Architecture_Practice.pdf

Work strand 1 – Developing the architecture function: 23. The initial part of the year was necessarily focussed on establishing the EA team. Dave Berry is seconded to the post of Enterprise Architect and an Enterprise Data Architect is contracted for six months beginning in December. The reporting structure has been established and the team are implementing processes for architecture governance. Relationships are being created with the divisions of IS, with Student Systems, HR, and with the colleges. The priority is to establish similar relationships with the other units involved in the Digital Transformation roadmap. 24. A set of agreed EA Principles will guide the application of enterprise architecture across the university and ensure that EA addresses the University strategy and IS strategy. A first draft has been reviewed by the CIO and other parties. This draft is being reviewed to ensure the principles align fully with those set out in the digital transformation initiative. 25. Universities elsewhere have been consulted in order to learn from their experience. UK universities consulted include Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Plymouth, and UCL. The UCISA EA Community of Practice provides a useful channel for sharing information, as does the USA/Canada-based ITANA working group of EDUCAUSE. Three USA universities will be consulted in detail during January 2016. 26. A key task for the EA team in its first year is to create the first instance of the architecture repository. This will hold artefacts such as data models, API descriptions, process flow diagrams, policies and standards. It will include

4

catalogues of applications, interfaces, data descriptions and other artefacts so that projects can find IT functionality that they can reuse.

Work strand 2 – Delivering business outcomes: 27. The EA team are working on several activities with direct business outcomes. One major strand is BI/MI, where we are working with the BI/MI programme co-ordinator and service owner to review the BI ETL architecture, to agree a common template for data definitions, and on responses to the UK Higher Education Data & Information Improvement Programme. 28. The EA team are providing input to several ongoing projects, including student data dashboards, the RMAS reporting project, and the Moodle integration project. The EA contribution to these projects is primarily technical: to clarify data definitions and data flows, and to provide methods and templates for recording these. 29. The EA team will contribute to the Digital Transformation strands on HR transformation, Estates and Buildings, and CRM. The EA engagement with these strands begins at a higher level, including analysis of business capabilities and contributing to the mapping of user journeys. We have consulted several parties regarding their aims and ambitions for CRM and will analyse the implications. A goal will be to create a consistent framework for these analyses so that work produced on different strands and by different contractors is presented in a consistent and comparable manner. 30. The current projects for the Notifications Backbone and for MyEd Mobile, along with the innovation funding for Enterprise Data APIs, will contribute substantially to the vision for the Applications Architecture.

Student Systems Roadmap (Barry Neilson, Director of Student Systems) 31. The Student Systems Roadmap 2013-16 was approved by the Student Systems Board in October 2013 and is available here: https://www.projects.ed.ac.uk/webfm_send/2566 32. Knowledge Strategy Committee received a paper in May 2015 which indicated that work was starting on the new Student Systems Roadmap. The initial action was to return to KSC with an update on the emerging roadmap and this is scheduled for the March meeting. 33. Given the development of the Digital Transformation Strategy and the 10 year plan, this provides Student Systems with the opportunity to engage in the development of the plan and start to understand the impact the emerging strategy will have on the work of the area. 34. The box below provides a high level summary of the 4 key areas that have emerged from the initial thinking on the Student System priorities over the next 3 years.

5

1. Roadmap developed with 7 key strands – step-up (faster delivery) recommended

Enhanced student digital experience;

Enhanced systems to support staff enhance student experience and learning & teaching;

Efficiency and effective processes. 2. Use of Student Data (Student Record, Courses, Programmes and Survey data)

Help schools enhance learning & teaching and student experience;

Efficiency, effectiveness and compliance. 3. CRM for student recruitment enquiries and admissions activity. 4. Scan environment for alternative systems for medium term.

35. Academic Year 2015/16

The Student Systems Board has prioritised project/development activities for the 2015/16 academic year. The table below provides a high level overview of the key deliverables.

Assessment & Progression

The development and roll-out of the EUCLID assessment and progression tools. This will provide benefits to students, Personal Tutors and School administration including the staged replacement of current in-house SMART system.

Student Data Dashboards Developed prototype dashboards to help schools use to data to enhance learning & teaching and student experience. Next stage funding dependent.

Student record hub Redesign of key staff interface with EUCLID – the student record hub. Enhance usability and availability of data, notes and documentation but also crucially enable the delivery of the PGR Student Lifecycle and Student Administration in Schools project.

PGR Student Lifecycle Develop a set of tools to support the management of the PGR Student Lifecycle and the data needed within Schools to manage this activity effectively.

Student Administration Seek to expand processes which are started and completed online and locally – programme and course changes next on list.

Funds Development of a system which will support the Scholarship application and allocation process along with the management information required by the University – covering Scholarships managed centrally, centrally/locally and at School level.

Direct Admissions (Year 3)

Delivery of new online application form and development of an application form to support ‘other admissions’ process.

Student Disability Services

Bring the system of requirement of the Student Disability Service into EUCLID – bringing benefits to students, Schools and Disability Services.

Compliance & contingency

Annual compliance activity plus some technical enhancements.

36. Related areas There are a number of related areas of work which may impact on the programme of activity this year:

Student Systems will be leading the roll out of the EvaSys course evaluation system to all Schools, UG and PGT courses for the start of the 2016/17 academic year;

Student Systems with the Learning, Teaching and Web Services in IS are undertaking analysis on the way systems can support the measurement of Assessment & Feedback turnaround times as a set of measures in this area;

6

Student Systems are working with Vice-Principal Jeff Haywood and Information Services regarding the development of Learning Analytics policy and pilot in this area for online distance learning students.

Learning Analytics (Jeff Haywood, VP Digital Education / Jo Craiglee, Head of KM and Planning) 37. We are piloting learning analytics focussing on fully online Masters programmes and courses and have partnered with Civitas Learning (a leading US company now expanding into the UK and setting up a pioneer group with some of our peers). The pilot will run for 2 years and be limited to the fully online Masters level programmes and courses, as these are simpler to isolate and work with as a group, are a key growth area, have students who engage strongly in the digital domain, and mainly use the IS-provided Moodle and Learn platforms. We were offered a very much reduced rate to join the pioneer group and we agreed the contract with Civitas in early December 2015. One of the key benefits will be the opportunity to learn from the other members of the group. 38. We have now established a governance group (Learning Analytics Governance Group, LAGG) that will provide academic and administrative oversight to the development of a learning analytics capacity across the university, up to the point at which it is deemed to be a stable service under normal service oversight arrangements. 39. This group meet 4 times per annum and will report progress to Knowledge Strategy Committee. Its primary roles will be to:

Guide the development and approval of a university learning analytics policy

Provide expert advice to the Support Services involved in providing learning analytics services to the university, and in ensuring the policy is enacted

Provide oversight for pilots of learning analytics

40. Membership of LAGG comprises:

VP DE (Prof Jeff Haywood), Convenor

A representative of Records Management (Susan Graham)

A representative of Student Information Systems (Barry Neilson)

A representative of Student Services (Shelagh Green)

A representative of EUSA

A representative from the academic management of CHSS

A representative from the academic management of CMVM

A representative from the academic management of CSCE

Prof Dragan Gasevic, Schools of Education & Informatics

Two representatives of Information Services

Secretary WorkTribe Research Management (formerly known as RMAS) (Simon Marsden, Director of IS Applications) 41. Work on delivering the new WorkTribe Research Management service has progressed well. We stared a pilot service with 3 schools as planned – Institute of

7

Genetics and Molecular Medicine (CMVM), Informatics (CSE) and Philosophy, Psychology and Language Science (CHSS) in late November. 42. Across the three schools we have more than 1,000 active research grants or projects. This is about 14% of all active projects. To date (8 January) 13 new applications for grants and 8 awards have been made using WorkTribe Research Management. 43. There has been one significant issue raised which requires a straightforward workaround from Finance until it can be fixed. Feedback from the schools has been very positive. We are expecting to complete our evaluation of the pilot during January. Assuming a positive outcome of the evaluation, we will deploy to the remaining Schools during April well ahead of our deadline of having all schools on board by end of July. Resource implications 44. There is no additional resource implication not considered within the project remits of the projects listed in this paper.

Risk Management 45. There are no additional risks not considered within the project remits of the projects listed in this paper.

Equality & Diversity 46. There are no additional equality and diversity impacts not considered within the project remits of the projects listed in this paper.

Next steps/implications 47. There will be a further update on these activities taken to the next meeting of Knowledge Strategy Committee.

Consultation 48. Knowledge Strategy Committee is the location for any discussions based on this paper – it has not been circulated to any other Committee.

Further information 49. Further information can be supplied by: Author Presenter Claire Maguire Gavin McLachlan Information Services CIO and Librarian to the University

Freedom of Information 50. This paper is open.

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2016

IT Infrastructure Roadmap Governance: Proposal Description of paper 1. Following on from the presentation of the IT Infrastructure Review paper to Knowledge Strategy Committee in January 2014, it was agreed that there would be a governance process put in place for the operation of, and changes to the roadmap. A proposal for that governance process was put to IT Committee in November 2015 and following their endorsement, is presented here to Knowledge Strategy Committee for approval. Action requested/Recommendation 2. The Committee is asked to approve the adoption of the proposed governance process; noting in particular the proposal in section 8 that the Governance Group be authorised to re-profile the annual budget where required, across years. Background and context 3. The IT Infrastructure Roadmap covers a five-year map for the University’s IT Infrastructure, with the objective of bringing the infrastructure up to the desired standard. The Roadmap was funded through the planning round, allocating an envelope of approx. £4m per annum of capital investment.

4. It was recognised that the roadmap would require to be reviewed and adjusted and KSC required that this be an annual process. It was agreed that a governance group would be created under IT Committee, reporting through IT Committee to KSC.

5. During the IT Infrastructure Review, it was noted that there is an order of uncertainty about the scale of changes that will be needed to keep pace with growth in the University’s business. To this end, it is expected that activities will shift and therefore the roadmap will require to be revisited. Furthermore, it was clear that College priorities were aligned to things that needed to be addressed at an early stage, and less clear for those things scheduled later in the roadmap.

Discussion 6. The IT Infrastructure Governance Group will be responsible for:

Reviewing the IT Infrastructure Roadmap and advising on any adjustments to existing projects or new requirements that require to be added to the roadmap;

Recommending to IT Committee any adjustments to the roadmap, including alignment of new and existing projects;

Examining the financial implications of proposed changes to the agreed 2015-20 Roadmap and recommending them to IT Committee;

Signing off the annual review of the roadmap and recommending the next year’s work programme and budget to IT Committee for recommendation to KSC.

D

7. It is recommended that the Group be authorised to approve re-profiling of the budget within or across years, up to a maximum of 10% of annual budget. This does not include increases to the baseline budget which would require authorisation through the normal planning process.

8. The initial focus of IT Infrastructure Governance Group will be on the IT Infrastructure Roadmap, but the group may consider wider IT Infrastructure governance and make recommendations accordingly to ITC.

9. The Group will meet at least once per annum. Membership 10. It is proposed that the IT Infrastructure Governance Group is comprised as follows:

CIO, Convenor;

One representative from each of the 3 Colleges;

Director, IT Infrastructure, Information Services;

Director, Applications Division, Information Services;

IS Management Accountant;

One external member (normally by correspondence) Risk Management 11. The establishment of the Governance Group is intended to reduce the risk to the University. Equality & Diversity 12. As noted in the original Review Report, the complexity of each project is such that an individual Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) will be conducted for each one in order to ensure that all potential positive and negative impacts to all nine protected characteristics are considered. The EqIAs will be the responsibility of each Project Manager. The introduction of the Governance Group has no impact on that original position. Next steps/implications 13. If KSC approves the creation of the Group, Information Services will invite nominations as outlined in section 8 above. These will be presented electronically for agreement by IT Committee before being submitted to KSC for formal approval.

14. It is intended that the Group will meet in early 2016 to review the 2016/17 roadmap. Further information 15. Authors Presenter

Jo Craiglee Gavin McLachlan Head of Knowledge Management CIO and Librarian to the University Tony Weir Director, IT Infrastructure 13 January 2016

Freedom of Information 16. This paper is open.

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2016

Thesis Digitisation Proposal

Description of paper 1. The purpose of this paper is to propose a programme of digitisation of the University’s physical thesis collection. By undertaking this work, the library will be able to further promote this collection of unique and important research material, rationalise the space requirements of the existing physical collection, and gain experience in mass digitisation of materials that will inform further programmes of such activity. 2. The Library is currently working on an ambitious ten-year digitisation plan to digitise other parts of its physical collections. The experience gained from this project would directly contribute to, and enhance this programme. 3. This proposal was included in the Information Services Group Plan for 2015/18 and a budget allocation was approved. The project has been fully scoped and was approved by Library Committee; and approval is now sought from Knowledge Strategy Committee. Action requested/Recommendation 4. The Committee is being asked to discuss the proposal of thesis digitisation and to approve the programme of work to digitise the University’s thesis collection. Background and context 5. The University Library’s entire PhD thesis collection consists of approximately 25,000 theses, around 40% of which have already been digitised. Existing digitised theses and newly collected electronic theses are stored and made available in the Edinburgh Research Archive1 (ERA), and are discoverable directly through the Library’s new DiscoverEd2 search interface. 6. There are three particular benefits that would be gained from digitising the complete collection of theses:

a) This is a unique collection of materials, the majority of which are only held at the University of Edinburgh. Digitising them will make them more widely accessible. Statistics gathered by the national IRUS-UK typically show over 30,000 downloads of the existing 7,000 online theses per month, demonstrating the impact of the collection. b) Over ten thousand of the theses are held in duplicate. Of this subset it is possible to undertake destructive scanning. This involves the spine being removed, and the theses scanned in an automatic sheet-fed scanner. This is quicker and more efficient than scanning with a traditional page-turning scanner.

1 Edinburgh Research Archive: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/ 2 DiscoverEd: http://discovered.ed.ac.uk/

E

2

This would also free up approximately 500 linear metres of storage space, whilst still retaining a paper copy of each thesis.

c) The Library is currently working on an ambitious ten-year digitisation plan to digitise other parts of its physical collections. The experience gained from this project would directly contribute to, and enhance this programme. In addition, the equipment used in the project may have additional life to undertake further digitisation.

Discussion Methods of Digitisation 7. At present the Library undertakes two types of digitisation:

Photography of manuscripts and other materials that require very high resolution imaging, or are too fragile or not suitable for a scanner. The library employs two full time photographers.

Ad-hoc digitisation of materials such as theses or books. These are undertaken on an ad-hoc basis according to user requests for these materials, or for purposes such as e-reserve and inter library loan, and are made using flatbed scanners.

8. Digitisation can either be undertaken by the Library, or outsourced to a specialist document scanning company. 9. Documents that are in good condition and which can be scanned by having their spines removed, and be fed automatically into large sheet-feed scanners. Unique theses must be scanned page-by-page, requiring more significant effort. 10. This paper proposes that a mixed approach is taken:

Theses that can be destructively scanned should be scanned in-house. This saves resources in not having to ship theses to an external company, and allows us to build some expertise in mass digitisation and workflows. Investigations suggest it is cheaper to undertake this work in-house.

Theses that need to be scanned manually are more cost-effectively processed by large companies who have the infrastructure to work at scale. Care should be taken to only provide such companies with batches of documents at a time, to reduce the risk of loss or damage to unique collections.

Theses that are in a poor condition and require specialist intervention and careful scanning should be scanned in-house.

Costs of Digitisation 11. The theses that need to be scanned fall into three categories, depending upon their age, condition, and the number of copies held:

Group 1: 10,500 duplicate theses suitable for destructive scanning This group could be digitised internally for a total cost of approximately £115,000. This sum would cover all costs including the purchase of a document scanner, the employment of scanning staff at Grade 3 and all transport and disposal costs.

3

Group 2: 3,300 unique theses in a good condition, requiring a manual scanner This group could be digitised externally for a total cost of approximately £120,000. A competitive procurement exercise will be required. Group 3: 1,200 unique theses in poor condition This group requires the attention of a Conservator prior to digitisation. The cost of digitising this collection internally, including conservation, the purchase of two book scanners and the employment of scanning staff at Grade 3 would be £140,000.

Additional costs 12. To cover project management, software development time, cataloguing, storage, backup and admin costs, an additional sum of £150,000 will be required over the two and a half year programme. Resource implications 13. The approximate cost for digitising the complete collection of theses, including associated costs such as retrieval, re-shelving, project management, conservation, and cataloguing, is estimated to be approximately £600,000. This includes a 14% contingency as the exact size of the thesis collection is currently estimated because a large proportion of the collection is not catalogued. If the contingency is not required, it would be used to digitise further collections.

Group 1: Destructive scanning

Group 2: Good condition single copy

Group 3: Poor condition single copy

Project costs: Management, metadata, development, storage space

Contingency Total

£115,000 £120,000 £140,000 £150,000 £75,000 £600,000

14. The total cost equates to approximately £40 per thesis (£35 per thesis ignoring contingency). As a comparison, the British Library charges £54.48 to digitise a thesis. It is proposed to undertake this work over a staged two and a half year process. However, it could be undertaken in a shorter time period if required. 15. A full break-down of the costs are provided in Appendix A. 16. As part of the 2015/18 planning round, Information Services secured £405k in funding for the proposal. Having now fully scoped the project, there is a differential of £200k from the original estimate. If the Committee approves this programme of work, the differential will be requested as part of the 2016/19 planning round. The breakdown of costs per fiscal year is as follows:

2015/16 £k

2016/17 £k

2017/18 £k

2018/19 £k

Annual Cost 133 240 129 26

Cumulative Total 133 373.5 502.8 529

4

Risk Management 17. There are two elements of risk to be considered: risk to the collection, and risk of putting the theses online:

Risk to the collection: Fragile items will be digitised in-house by staff with appropriate training in handling and digitising such materials, and only once any appropriate conservation work has been undertaken. External suppliers used will be subject to due diligence and quality assurance checks, and regular reviews will take place. Only part of the collection would ever be with the supplier at a time.

Risk of putting theses online: Existing risk management processes are already in place when putting theses online, although generally theses are considered low risk, have a stringent take-down policy, and many are out of copyright due to their age.

18. Undertaking the work to digitise the thesis collection will lower two other risks, those of physical space available to hold other collections, and the risk of loss of collections were the physical collection to be damaged by natural disaster. Digitising the collection will vacate some amount of storage space, and will provide a digital backup to the physical thesis. Equality & Diversity 19. Providing online digital access to theses will enhance the current accessibility of the thesis collection. The discovery and access mechanism for this, DiscoverEd, is covered by an existing Equality Impact Assessment3. Next steps/implications 20. If approved, the next steps for this project would be to initiate the different phases of the digitisation. One or more external suppliers would be needed for out-sourced scanning, while staff and equipment would need to be sourced for in-house works. Workflow, conservation, and metadata elements also need to be put in place, and the work scheduled over the three years. Consultation 21. This paper has been discussed by Library Committee and is recommended to Knowledge Strategy Committee for approval. Further information 22. Further information can be supplied by: Author Presenter Stuart Lewis Jeremy Upton Deputy Director Director Library & University Collections Library & University Collections October 2015 Freedom of Information 23. This paper can be included in open business.

3 Library Management Platform EqIA: http://www.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity/impact-assessment/a-z-assessments/Library%20_Management_Platform(Library_and_University_Collections).pdf

5

Digitisation by group

Group 1: 10,500 for destructive scanning This is the largest group for digitisation and consists mainly of theses in good condition which are to be destructively scanned. This group should be digitised internally, using a high-speed document scanner.

Item Detail Cost

Staff costs (10,500 theses x 0.5 hours per thesis x £14.51 per hour (Grade 3 temp + VAT)

£76,178

A4 Document scanner (e.g. Kodak i4650 Plus) = £18,000 (£15,000 + VAT) + £1,500 (3 year maintenance)

£19,500

Scanning software (e.g. Kodak Capture Pro = £6,960 (£5,800 + VAT) including 3 year support licence

£6,960

Guillotine

For despining (£500) x 2 £1,000

Waste disposal Hire of two skips, including 20 collections and VAT for three years

£4,000

Transportation Cost to pack and transport 15,751 theses from Main Library to Annexe (£6,000 + VAT)

£7,200

Total £114,838

The alternative to digitising internally would be to outsource. We have received several quotes for this work, the cheapest of which offered £21.50 + VAT per thesis. For 10,500 theses, this would come to £270,900. Group 2: 3,300 unique theses in good condition (require manual scanner) This group will be outsourced through a competitive procurement exercise for a total cost of approximately £118,800, assuming a cost of £30 + VAT per thesis. The exact figure will be determined through the procurement process. The alternative to outsourcing would be to digitise internally. However, this option would be prohibitively expensive because it would require the Library to purchase several scanners and hire a number of staff. Based on an average time scale of 4.5 hours per thesis, it would take staff 14,850 hours (over 3,000 working days) to digitise the collection. Staff costs alone would be over £250,000 and at least another £50,000 would be required to purchase scanners. Group 3: 1,200 theses suitable for a manual scanner but requiring conservation work This collection contains the most fragile theses in the collection and would require considerable conservation treatment prior to any digitisation activity. This work would need to be undertaken by a Project Conservator and would add an additional £32,256, including materials.

Appendix A

6

Item Detail Cost

Staff costs 1,200 theses x 4.5 hours per thesis x £14.51 per hour)

£78,354

Two A2 scanners @ (£13,500 (£12,000 (£10,000 + VAT) + £1,500 (3 year maintenance)) each = £13,500)

£27,000

Scanner software Software (£1,000 per scanner)

£2,000

Conservation 11 months including materials

£32,256

Total £139,653

Alternatively, the collection could be digitised externally. While this would certainly be a cheaper option (approximately £85,867 based on ProQuest’s best price and including VAT and conservation cost), it would be wiser to pay a premium to keep this unique and fragile collection on site in order to avoid potential damage. Additional costs As well as the above costs, the following costs need to be included:

Item Detail Cost Storage and backup 1 TB of storage (£1,268)

plus backup (£857) multiplied by two (for live and test environments)

£4,250

Project management 2.5 years at Grade 6 plus £5,400 operational costs

£100,000

Developer 1 month £4,006

Sorting theses 6 weeks (210 hours) @ £14.51 per hour (Grade 3 temp + VAT)

£3,047

Metadata creation 360 days (Grade 3) £34,878

Total £146,181

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2015

Proposal to revise the Terms of Reference for University Collections Advisory Committee

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

F

8. UCAC is supported by two curatorial sub-committees (Committee of Curators for University Collections (CCUC)) for museums and a new sub-group (Special Collections Advisory Committee (SCAC)) to represent comparable special collections of archives, rare books and manuscripts (including those not held in the Main Library). 9. Benefits of revision

Creation of terms of reference

Revision of elements of membership for first time since 1990s

Clarity of approval routes for planning purposes and for purposes of external validation (e.g. Accreditation schemes)

Proper representation and visibility for Special Collections (archives, rare books and manuscripts)

10. Current Remit

To maintain an oversight of the care and development of the University Collections and report to the Knowledge Strategy Committee through the appropriate Vice-Principal.

To advise and assist the Director of Library & Collections and curators on any matter falling within their terms of reference, including the acquisition and disposal of materials from the collections.

To receive annual written reports from the curators of the Talbot Rice Art Gallery, the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments, the Anatomy Museum, the Cockburn Museum of Geology and the Natural History Collection of the University of Edinburgh, and to comment thereon as appropriate to the Central Management Group.

To receive an annual report covering the issues affecting the University Collections from the Director of Library & Collections and to comment thereon as appropriate to the Central Management Group through the appropriate Vice-Principal.

In the event of serious conflict of opinion either within the Committee or between the Committee and the Director of Library & Collections, the Convener of the Committee will retain the discretion to report to the Principal.

The Committee will normally meet three times a year. 11. Proposed Remit

To advocate for University Collections and its long-term contribution to the strategic development of the University.

To support and promote greater access to and engagement with all the University Collections, in accordance with University strategy.

To support and promote the benefits of converged professional collection governance and the sharing of curatorial knowledge through the Centre for Research Collections and other cross-University networks and services.

To support, recognise and facilitate the professional care, management and development of University Collections and report to Knowledge Strategy Committee through the Information Services Chief Information Officer and Librarian to the University.

To advise and assist the Director of Library & University Collections and curators on any matter falling within their terms of reference, including the acquisition and disposal of materials from the collections.

To receive annual written reports from the curators of University Collections and to comment thereon as appropriate to the Knowledge Strategy Committee.

To receive reports on and recommendations for the issues affecting the University Collections from the Director of Library & University Collections and to comment thereon as appropriate to Knowledge Strategy Committee

In the event of serious conflict of opinion either within the Committee or between the Committee and the Director of Library & University Collections, the Chair of the Committee will retain the discretion to report to the Principal.

12. Current Membership Chair – Information Services Chief Information Officer Director of Library & University Collections – deputy chair Head of Museums Court member General Council member CCUC representative Student representative Director of Communication & Marketing CHSS representative/Watson Gordon Professor of Fine Art CSE rep CMVM rep

13. Proposed Membership

Academic Chair CHSS / School of Divinity (for New College Library) CHSS / School of Education (for Moray House collections) CHSS / School of LLC Literature (to include Scottish Studies) CHSS / ECA (to include Talbot Rice Gallery) CMVM (for Anatomical Collection) CSE (for Geological Collection, Natural History Collection, Chemistry

Collection) Communication & Marketing Development & Alumni Student representative Court Rep – appointed by Court General Council Rep – appointed by General Council Information Services Group Chief Information Officer Director of Library & University Collections Head of Museums, Deputy Head of the Centre for Research

Collections Head of Special Collections, Head of the Centre for Research

Collections CCUC rep SCAC (new sub-committee) rep

External Advisor 14. Proposed Terms of Reference

The Committee shall consist of up to 18 members.

The Committee shall meet three times a year and report to Knowledge Strategy Committee.

The term of officer duration will be three years.

An Academic Chair shall be the Convener of UCAC, and shall be in attendance at Knowledge Strategy Committee.

Committee membership, minutes and reports will be published on the internet.

Committee members will be supported by an induction programme and a succession planning process.

Resource implications 15. No resource implications. Risk Management 16. No identified risks.

Equality & Diversity 17. Equality and diversity implications have been considered within the drafting process. Next steps/implications 18. Pending comments by KSC and approval of the proposal, and appointment of the Academic Chair, the new remit and membership will be implemented for the May 2016 meeting of UCAC. Consultation 19. This paper was prepared by the Head of Museums and Director of Library & University Collections, at the instigation of the CIO of Information Services and with input from the Head of Special Collections. In the course of developing this proposal, consultation was conducted with relevant heads of Schools and College Registrars and the Principal of ECA as well as members of the Committee of Curators of University Collections and the Library Management Team. Further information 20. Presenter: Gavin McLachlan

Chief Information Officer Freedom of Information 21. This paper can be included in open business.

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2016

Library Annexe and University Collections Facility Description of paper 1. This paper updates the Committee on developments around the Library Annexe and the intention to develop a high-quality University Collections Facility in the existing building. It provides an update on the funding that was approved by the Exception Committee in October 2015, and the Estates Committee in December 2015. It also indicates the intention to request further funding to complete the required works. Action requested/Recommendation 2. The Committee is recommended to approve the proposal for the development of a University Collections Facility fit for the long-term storage and management of rare and unique collections; and to note the potential funding requirements associated with this development. Any future funding request will require a full business plan to be submitted to Estates Committee. Paragraphs 3 – 12 have been removed as exempt from release due to FOI. Risk Management 13. Estates and Buildings are developing a risk register for the forthcoming remedial works and for the proposed fit out of the currently vacant unit. The risks associated with not completing the fit out of the currently vacant unit relate to lack of capacity for additional collections, inadequate environmental environments for collection types, and loss of investment value in the facility. Should funding not be made available for a collection review team to undertake rationalisation, the risk is that the capacity offered by the additional unit may only be adequate for 2-3 years. Equality & Diversity 14. An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) is forthcoming, with the design phase. Next steps/implications 15. As outlined above, the project team will progress according to the timetable defined by Estates and Buildings, in order to meet the aspired for construction period. If funding is granted to complete collection review works, this will commence following the team’s establishment. Consultation 16 EUSA; Heads of College; College Registrars; the Director of Planning; the Vice- Principal Planning, Resources and Research Policy; the Director of Estates; have been consulted on the Collections project. Library Committee, University Collections Advisory Committee and Knowledge Strategy Committee have been kept informed of progress. ISG have also discussed the possibilities for shared storage with the

G

2

Research Libraries UK network, SCURL1 and with the National Museums and National Galleries of Scotland and it is clear that their facilities as they currently stand have inadequate capacity for our needs and would require significant development. Information Services Group will continue to work with these organisations on collaborative collection management activity. Further information 17. Further information on the project can be sought from: Jeremy.Upton@ed.ac.uk, Project Sponsor Laura.M.Shanahan@ed.ac.uk, Project Owner 18. Author Laura Shanahan Head of Collections Development and Access 13 January 2016 Freedom of Information 19. This paper should remain closed until the tender exercises for works identified in the paper are complete.

1 Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries.

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2016

Information Technology Committee Report

Committee Name 1. Information Technology Committee. Date of Meeting 2. 19 November 2015 Action Required 3. The Committee is asked to note the key points from the meeting.

Key points Information Services 10 Year Strategy 4. The Chief Information Officer presented the IS Strategic Vision. The Committee noted the intention to build a long term plan for IT, that aligns IS activities to the Strategic Vision, in turn providing guidance on prioritising activity. The 10 Year Plan comprises 4 key strategies:

Digital Transformation of Core Services

Learning, Teaching and Student Experience

Research IT and IT Infrastructure

Libraries, Museums and Collections.

These Strategies are underpinned by an IS wide Change Programme that will help to bring about fundamental changes within the Support Group. The Committee noted its support for the four 10 year strategies. Enterprise Architecture principles and approach 5. A presentation on the purpose of Enterprise Architecture was positively received. The purpose of the initiative is to optimise IT and business processes across the University into an integrated whole that is responsive to change, and supports the University Strategy. The Committee welcomed the initiative. Governance around the IT Infrastructure Roadmap 6. The Committee received two papers – ‘IT Infrastructure Roadmap 2015/16 Programme’ and ‘IT Infrastructure Roadmap Governance Proposal’. Members were fully supportive of the proposed governance process, including the membership of the IT Infrastructure Governance Group. It was noted that the Group will meet at least once a year; will be convened by the Chief Information Officer and will report to ITC and KSC. ITC endorsed the proposed changes and recommended to KSC for approval (see Paper D).

H1

Information Security Working Group 7. It was noted that there is continued activity and ongoing actions through the Information Security Group Work Plan. The Information Security Group submitted the Annual IT report to the Risk Management Committee. The Committee discussed Information Security Week and was noted that 500 staff had engaged online with the training programme. However, this is the first step on a very long journey and consideration needs to be given to a more targeted approach in the future. Full minute 8. Full papers and minutes are available online at http://www.itc.isg.ed.ac.uk/ Equality & Diversity 9. No equality and diversity implications were raised by the Committee or by the agenda items. Further information 10. Author Presenter Simon Marsden Gavin McLachlan Information Service CIO and Librarian to the University 15 January 2016 Freedom of Information 11. This paper is open.

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2016

Library Committee Report

Committee Name 1. Library Committee. Date of Meeting 2. 14 October 2015. Action Required 3. KSC is asked to note the key points detailed below, specifically relating to:

Thesis digitisation for discussion and approval by KSC.

Library materials budget 2014/15

Library materials budget 2015/16

Library Management Platform update

Library estates projects

Library related questions in the 2015 NSS survey

Research Data Management and Open Access compliance

Course Collections

Business schedule 2015/16 Key points Thesis digitisation 4. The paper outlines a proposal to digitise the University’s physical PhD thesis collection. The project will support the ten year digitisation plan for the physical collection. 5. The Committee are asked to discuss the options and approve the proposals in the full paper (Paper E). Library materials budget 2014/15 6. The overspend came in at £205,000. This was expected due to a deficit in the College of Science and Engineering’s budget at the start of the financial year. Library materials budget 2015/16 7. The annual budget was increased to £7.04 million, with annual increases expected to accommodate publisher inflation, and growth in student and academic numbers. 8. A top slice was introduced for Course Collections within each College which will ensure the resources are made available more efficiently for taught courses across the Colleges. The funding is allocated as follows: HSS £400,000; MVM £40,000; S&E £40,000.

H2

2

9. The Committee discussed the future of the allocation model and the introduction of the new Resource Allocation Model (RAM). It was noted that RAM will not necessarily be applied to the materials budget. It is expected that a shadow model will be applied in 2016/17 to assess what impact RAM will have across all areas of the University. 10. A further paper will be presented to a future Library Committee describing pressures on and risks to the materials budget. Library Management Platform update 11. The report updated the Committee on the implementation of DiscoverEd and Alma. 12. Initial user feedback has been positive. Feedback is continuing to be recorded with the Project team prepared to respond to and assist users during semester. The Discovery User Group will continue to meet throughout the year to address any issues and support development of the user interface. 13. The system has functioned well, with the exception of periods of unplanned downtime in late-September and early-October, which were as a result of incidents on the supplier’s firewall and load issues. 14. The project team were praised for the major achievement on delivering the implementation on time and to budget, given the complexity of the work. The project management model will be re-used as ‘best practice’ for other future major projects. 15. The paper also notified that the Audit Office will undertake a review of the LMP Programme, and will report on the Benefits Realisation at Audit Committee in autumn 2016. The report will be incorporated into a future Library Committee paper. Library estates projects Main Library 16. This was a follow up paper to the draft library estate and current redevelopments paper presented at the June Library Committee. 17. A working group – the Main Library Master Plan Group, including representatives from Estates, the project architects and the Library management Team - has been established and have begun discussions. The intention is to widen the group to include other stakeholders, most importantly including student representation. 18. The Library Committee and KSC will continue to be consulted regularly as the plans for the Main Library develop. Library Annexe 19. A paper will be presented to the Estates Committee in December. The facility is expected to house up to fifty thousand linear metres of library and museum collections over the next twenty years. This will ensure that University collections can continue to develop, be properly cared for, and remain easily accessible to researchers and learners.

3

King’s Buildings 20. The King’s Buildings estates master plan work will be presented to the Library Committee in due course. Law Library 21. The library will review its print collections ahead of the move to the David Hume Tower in June 2016. A report will be presented to the Library Committee in due course.

22. The discussions around site libraries prompted queries around development in other sites: Western General Hospital – currently inadequate study space, attracting negative comments; Moray House – lack of study space and noise pollution from Holyrood Campus building work. Both points were noted by the Convenor. Options will be investigated with further information circulated to the Committee when available.

Library related questions in the 2015 NSS survey (closed paper) 23. The University of Edinburgh achieved a score of 91% - a 1% increase from 2014 for the NSS Library question. The variations between Schools are hard to account for, but free text comments may highlight the reasons.

24. The Academic Support Librarians are currently working through the free-text comments, and are referring to the SCONUL statistics to try and interpret the variance. The lower scoring Schools are being examined to understand what is impacting on the scores.

25. It was highlighted that communication with students needs to be more effective. Consultation with colleagues and students will take place to discuss this further. Research Data Management and Open Access compliance 26. The paper provided an update on the actions the Library is taking to support the University to meet its obligations to funders for Research Data Management and Open Access. Research Data Management 27. A brochure containing support information for Researchers has been prepared by the RDM team and will be distributed to academic and support staff across the University.

28. Awareness of the requirements will be monitored through a survey which will be distributed to Principal Investigators reaching the end of their grants, to assess if they have met funder requirements.

29. The RDM team intend to recruit an additional staff member to support data management planning and to aid the creation of a single service team. Open Access 30. Compliance level for quarter three (June, July and August) was 40%, a 10% increase on quarter one.

4

31. HEFCE have delayed the full implementation date of their REF policy to May 2017. However, the Committee were informed that the University will continue to work to the original May 2016 deadline.

Course Collections 32. The new Course Collections funds (one per College) were launched in the Materials Budget in August. MVM and CS&E had both allocated £40k and HSS had allocated £400k. By 30 September, MVM had spent 5% of their fund (£1,970), CS&E 14% (£5,401) and HSS 3% (£11,300). This expenditure should be seen as a great achievement for CS&E who had spent almost nothing on teaching resources in the 14/15 financial year due to severe pressure on the budget. 33. There has been a big increase in the quantity of material being requested for teaching this year so far, across the board, in part as a result of the increased funding; but also as a result of the efforts of the ResourceList@Edinburgh service, which is now integrated with the book purchasing process. 340, mostly new, lists were created by the Resource Lists service for semester 1, generating 950 book recommendations. So far, 60 lists have been received for creation for semester 2. A workshop for library staff is being held in November to discuss the ongoing resourcing of the service, a greater link up with the student experience programme, and future further streamlining of the services. Business Schedule 2015/16 34. The Library Committee were informed of areas of business for discussion in 2015/16. The paper can be viewed at the link below. Full minute: 35. Full papers and minutes are available online at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/about/organisation/library-and-collections/strategy-planning/library-committee. Equality & Diversity 36. No specific diversity issues were raised by the Committee. Further information 37. Further information is available from: Convener: Mr Gavin McLachlan Stand-in Convener: Mr Jeremy Upton, Director of Library and University Collections Secretary: Mrs Louise Tierney, Library and University Collections 8 December 2015 Freedom of Information 38. This paper can be included in open business. The Library related questions in the 2015 NSS survey is closed due to School results being detailed in the full paper. At the request of the Student Survey Team, results for Schools are internal to the University only.

KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY COMMITTEE

22 January 2016

University Collections Advisory Committee Report

Committee Name 1. University Collections Advisory Committee (UCAC). Date of Meeting 2. Meeting held on 28 October 2015. Action Required

3. KSC is invited to note the items discussed. Key points

4. Committee received an update on the Library Annexe collections store at South Gyle, including information on the potential purchase of the entire building, pending approval from Exception Committee. A proposal is in development for the refit necessary to make the building fit for purpose as a conditioned store and will be reviewed by Estates Committee in December 2015. 5. Museum Accreditation: Three of the University’s five previously Accredited Museums submitted a return by deadline – Reid Concert Hall, Talbot Rice Gallery, Cockburn Geological Museum. St Cecilia’s Hall retains provisional status as it was closed at the time of submission; this is standard practice. There were two new applicants – Centre for Research Collections/Art Collection and the Anatomical Collection. The Natural History Collection did not submit a return and will consequently lose its status as an accredited museum. A meeting is scheduled to discuss the future of collection. 6. Anatomical Collection: The Monro Project has been renamed Amazing Bodies @ the Cutting Edge. An application to the Wellcome Trust has been submitted for £4m towards this £23m facility designed 50% Public Engagement and 50% Anatomical teaching. 7. The Committee endorsed changes to committee structure and membership as proposed by Gavin McLachlan, who emphasised the need to enlarge the Committee to ensure all collections are represented. Gavin McLachlan will step down as chair, and an academic chair to be appointed. KSC to be asked to approve the changes and appointment of academic chair to KSC. 8. The Committee commended the significant progress being made in delivering the St Cecilia’s Hall Project activity programme, particularly around community engagement initiatives and partnerships such as that with Edinburgh College and Scottish Chambers Orchestra. Structural work is on programme, with the 1960s extension now almost completely demolished to make way for the creation of a new double-height visitor entrance.

H3

9. The Committee commended a paper on University Collections Loans Out. It was noted that external loans out have increased by 300% in the last two academic years. 10. The Committee considered the following items: 10.1 UCAC Committee Annual Report 2014/2015 10.2 UCAC Business Schedule 2015/2016 10.3 Library & University Collections Impact Report 2014/2015 10.4 Committee of Curators of University Collections Annual Report 2014/2015 Full minute 11. All papers considered at the meeting, and in due course, the Minute can be accessed on the UCAC pages at the following URL: https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/UCC/University+Collections+Advisory+Committee Equality & Diversity 12. There are no specific equality and diversity issues associated with this report. Further information 13. Author Presenter

Jacky MacBeath Gavin McLachlan Head of Museums CIO

Information Services Information Services 1 December 2016 Freedom of Information 14. This is an open paper.