resource allocation model - university of edinburgh plan v 3.1 (040914).pdf · governance &...

Governance & Strategic Planning Resource Allocation Model

0 Project Plan V 3.1 (040914) Printed: 04 September 2014

Resource Allocation Model

Development and Deployment Project

Project Plan & Definition Document

Version 3.0

4 September 2014



Contents

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2

2 Project Information .......................................................................................................... 2

3 Background and purpose of Project ................................................................................ 2

3.1 Principles for the development of the new RAM ............................................................. 2

3.2 Project approach ............................................................................................................. 3

3.3 Relationship of RAM Project to the Planning Cycle ........................................................ 3

4 Project objectives ............................................................................................................ 4

4.1 Specific deliverables ........................................................................................................ 4

5 Business need/ strategy to be addressed ....................................................................... 4

6 Project governance and team structure .......................................................................... 6

7 Stakeholders Analysis ..................................................................................................... 7

7.1 Board Analysis (in development)..................................................................................... 7

7.2 Key Stakeholder Groups Summary (in development) ..................................................... 7

7.3 Stakeholder Influence/Impact Matrix ............................................................................... 8

7.4 Stakeholder Influence/Power Diagram ............................................................................ 9

7.5 Stakeholder Contribution/Impact Diagram .................................................................... 10

8 Proposed scope of project ............................................................................................. 11

8.1 Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 11

8.2 Constraints .................................................................................................................... 11

9 Interdependencies with other projects and/or initiatives ............................................... 11

9.1 Transparent Accounting Group ..................................................................................... 11

9.2 BI/MI Project .................................................................................................................. 11

10 Project costs .................................................................................................................. 12

11 Timing and duration ....................................................................................................... 12

11.1 RAM Development Cycle ...................................................................................... 12

11.1.1 Analyse ........................................................................................................... 13

11.1.2 Design ............................................................................................................ 13

11.1.3 Develop .......................................................................................................... 13

11.1.4 Implement ....................................................................................................... 13

11.1.5 Evaluate.......................................................................................................... 14

11.2 High Level Project Schedule ................................................................................. 14

12 High level risks .............................................................................................................. 15

12.1 Risk Map ................................................................................................................ 15

12.2 Risk Summary Table ............................................................................................. 15

13 Approvals ....................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix 1: Lessons from other implementation of RAMs in Higher Education ..................... 20



1 Introduction

In 2011/2012, the merger of Medical Research Council Human Genetics Unit (MRC HGU) and the Roslin Institute through Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) into the College of Medicine and Vet Medicine (CMVM), initiated the requirement for the allocation of resources on a gross income and expenditure basis.

The initial project scope was limited to the two schools of CMVM (Easter Bush and IGMM). However a wider review of the potential benefits of updating/refining our many and varied resource allocation tools across the University has refocused the project. The objectives now include a requirement that the approach can be scaled up consistently, transparently and without need for major adjustment across the University. This also led to the explicit differentiation between the development of transparent gross accounting and the development of a new Resource Allocation Model.

2 Project Information

Project Name: Resource Allocation Model (RAM)

Start Date: 16 June 2014

Project Owner: Tracey Slaven – Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning

Project Sponsors: Tracey Slaven – Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning

Jonathan Seckl - Vice–Principal Planning, Resources and Research Policy

Phil McNaull – Director of Finance

Distribution List: and, David Montgomery – Deputy Director of Finance

Hugh Edmiston – Director of the Corporate Services Group

3 Background and purpose of Project

3.1 Principles for the development of the new RAM

The University made a decision early on to develop a model that was in congruence with the Strategic Goals of the University, rather than purely following the funding allocation models of Funding Councils. Funding Councils are funded using algorithms with political objective at their heart, and the University believes that will not ensure a long term, sustainable allocation structure.

Therefore the RAM needs to reflect the prioritisation of competing demands against limited resources and incentivise behaviours which support delivery of the strategic plan and reward success.

The set of key principles in the development of the RAM will:

• be informed and driven by the strategic priorities of the University and is delivered at a strategic level of materiality (i.e. to the nearest £million),

• be transparent, easy to understand, and reflect progress on a manageable range of KPIs which reflect strategic priorities,

• be a gross accounting model where research, teaching and “other income” are all attributed to the units where that income is earned and/or activity delivered,

• operate at the level of College and Support Group while providing a model/data which may then form the basis of allocations across Schools,

• reflect a consistent and equitable approach to income earned jointly,

• operate within Court approved guidelines for financial sustainability, and

• support a three year financial model of the University strategic plan that will reflect the plans of the Colleges, Support Groups and pan-university initiatives.



3.2 Project approach

Appendix 1 outlines the lessons learned in previous RAM projects for other institutions. The overwhelming lesson there is that the design, development and deployment of a Resource Allocation Model is as much a cultural change as it is a process change. Consequently, change management methods and tools must be used to support and develop meaningful long term relationships with stakeholders.

There are many change management methodologies in common use, and choosing the appropriate one will be based on the environment and the nature of the project. This will be determined between representatives in HR, the Project Manager and the Project Owner. Commonly used and well tested models include:

Model Benefits Challenges

Lewin’s Unfreeze – Change – Refreeze

Easy to use and to understand Overly simplistic and time consuming

Kotter's 8-Step Change

Easy, step by step model for preparing and accepting change including implementing

Lineal in approach with little room for flexibility in approach, time consuming

Prosci’s "ADKAR"

Relatively easy to understand and views change on two axes, Business and People

The plethora of ADKAR tools available can be overwhelming, as it is unusual to need more than a few tools to implement effectively

McKinsey 7-S Thorough, combining both rational and emotional drivers, interdependent

Overly complicated for relatively straightforward change scenarios, can spend more time administrating the change than driving the change

To encourage maximum acceptance and take up, it is proposed that the RAM is developed iteratively. A prototype, “proof-of-concept” developed initially, and then refined and modified each month for a period of at least 12 months based on input and feedback from key stakeholders. This approach garners two main benefits:

1. The model is a more refined product that meets the varying needs of different

stakeholders

2. By involving stakeholders throughout the process, and proving that involvement leads

to positive, desired change, trust is built across disparate groups.

The Change Management Plan should be developed in more detail with input from relevant personnel, particularly HR.

3.3 Relationship of RAM Project to the Planning Cycle

A crude prototype is expected to be able to be run in parallel during the planning cycle in 2014/2015 (production of 3 year plans for 2015-18). It will provide an opportunity to check the outputs of the RAM against existing resource allocation tools to identify causes and impacts of differences. The view is that it should be able to effectively replace existing resource allocation tools after further engagement, refinement and testing for the planning cycle in 2015/16.



4 Project objectives

The project objective is to design a straightforward, logical and fair methodology for allocating resources at College and Support Group level based on understood variables and educated assumptions. It should have the ability to model up to three (3) years ahead and be used across a range of scenarios, with the ability to be applied at school level at the discretion of the relevant College.

It is anticipated that RAM will be a model/framework and that final allocations will be tempered by the collective strategic consideration of the University reflecting emergent challenges and opportunities. Essentially, it should act as a robust guiding tool, and not an automated budgeting tool.

4.1 Specific deliverables

• A transparent Gross Income and Expenditure Resource Allocation Model for IGMM and Easter Bush reflecting the reporting requirements of BBRSC and MRC – to run in parallel in 2013-14 and 2014-15 and fully implemented in 2015-16.

• A transparent RAM for Colleges and Support Groups; which Colleges can then use to inform resource allocation between Schools. The development of the RAM will include the identification and testing of key metrics which will support delivery of the strategic plan. The RAM will also include the development of a transparent expression of the relationship between the Colleges and Support Groups that supports delivery of the strategic plan.

4.2 Critical Success Factors

Quality expectations are to be determined in January at the completion of the first phase. This will allow the Programme Board to determine the critical success factors (CSFs) for the project and the means to measure that success. This will also inform the Post Implementation Review evaluation.

5 Business need/ strategy to be addressed

A RAM provides a framework for determining the distribution of income and other resources between academic and administrative departments, as well as the rules used to charge for the costs of common, centrally provided services. The current University of Edinburgh resource allocation processes are not fully transparent, as adjustments for local issues have been applied over a number of years, utilise a number of separate models, and only address some 50% of the University’s income. Declining transparency is not an unusual issue and a formal review/replacement of a RAM every 6-8 years would be good practice.

The development of a RAM that is directly linked to the Strategic Goals, Enablers and Themes incentivises behaviours and decisions that support those goals and move the University forward in a common direction.

Str

ateg

ic

Goa

ls

Excellence in Education Excellence in Research Excellence in Innovation

Ena

bler

s

People Infrastructure Finance

Str

ateg

ic T

hem

es

Outstanding Student

Experience Global Impact Lifelong Community

Social Responsibility Partnerships Equality and Widening

Participation



The current KPIs used as measures of the success of achieving those goals, enablers and themes that the RAM must specifically incentivise are:

Str

ate

gic

Go

als

Excellence in

Education

1.0 Proportion of leavers achieving a successful outcome (degree, transfer or other award) 1.1 Increase student satisfaction with academic and pastoral support 1.2 Increase student satisfaction with the opportunities and support for developing their graduate attributes and employability

Excellence in

Research

2.0 Russell Group market share of research income (spend) 2.1 Increase our average number of PhD students per member of academic staff to at least 2.5 2.2 Increase our score (relative to the highest scoring institution) for the citations-based measure in the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings to at least 94/100

Excellence in

Innovation

3.0 Knowledge exchange metrics: number of disclosures, patents, licenses and new company formations 3.1 Achieve at least 200 public policy impacts per annum 3.2 Increase our economic impact, measured by Gross Value Added (GVA), by at least 8%

Ena

ble

rs

People

4.0 Proportion of staff who have had an annual review within the previous year, incorporating the identification of objectives and development needs 4.1 Achieve the institutional Athena SWAN Silver award 4.2 Increase our number of international applications for academic posts

Infrastructure

5.0 Total income per square metre of gross internal area 5.1 Increase the proportion of our building condition at grades A and B on a year-on-year basis, aiming for at least 90% by 2020 5.2 Increase student satisfaction with learning resources (library, information technology (IT), study space and equipment) to at least 85%

Finance

6.0 Operating surplus as % of turnover (aim for 3%) 6.1 Increase our total income per staff FTE year-on-year, aiming for an increase of at least 10% in real terms 6.2 Increase our Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)

Str

ate

gic

Th

em

es

Outstanding

Student Experience

7.0 Proportion of graduates (undergraduate and postgraduate) in graduate-level employment or further study 7.1 Increase the level of overall satisfaction expressed in responses to the National Student Survey (NSS), Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) and Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) to at least 88% 7.2 Increase the number of our students who have achieved the Edinburgh Award to at least 500 7.3 Create at least 800 new opportunities for our students to gain an international experience as part of their Edinburgh Degree

Global

Impact

8.0 Proportion of international students from beyond our five most well-represented countries 8.1 Increase our headcount of non-EU international students by at least 2,000 8.2 Increase our research grant income from EU and other overseas sources so that we enter the Russell Group upper quartile 8.3 Increase our number of masters’ students on programmes established through our Global Academies by at least 500

Partnerships

11.0 Number of our research publications which are internationally co-authored 11.1 Increase our number of PhD students on programmes jointly awarded with international partners by at least 50%

Equality and

Widening Participation

12.0 Undergraduate entrants from under-represented groups 12.1 Converge on our participation benchmarks for under-represented groups 12.2 Increase the proportion of female academic staff appointed and promoted to lecturer, senior lecturer, reader and professor levels, and reduce the gender pay gap for University staff



6 Project governance and team structure

Direct reporting and accountability relationship

Peer informational, supporting relationship

Direct input and support relationship

Project Board Professor J Seckl

Project Sponsor Jonathan Seckl - Vice–Principal Planning, Resources and Research Policy

Phil McNaull - Director of Finance

Tracey Slaven - Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning

Project Leader Tracey Slaven - Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning

Project Manager Kellie Jewell-Galletly – Project Manager RAM

RAM Team TBC

Project Board Project Sponsors

Project Leader

Project Manager

TAG BI/MI RAM virtual Team

CMG



7 Stakeholders Analysis

7.1 Board Analysis (in development)

Stakeholder Contr

ibutio

n

Imp

act

Influ

ence

Pow

er

AIH LIH HIH MIH

Tracey Slaven - GaSP 5 5 5 5

Prof Jonathan Seckl - VP Planning 5 5 5 5

Prof Sir John Savill - MVM 2 5 5 5

Ivor McArdle - MVM 3 5 3 3

Hugh Edmiston - MVM 4 5 3 4

Prof Dorothy Miell - HSS 1 1 1 1

Frank Gribben - HSS 3 5 3 4

Prof Lesley Yellowlees - CSE 3 5 5 5

Dr Bruce Nelson - CSE 4 5 4.5 4

Ms Sarah Smith - SASG 4.5 5 5 5

Margaret Ayers - HR 3 3 3 3

Gary Jebb - Estates 4 4 4 5

Phil McNaull - Fin 3.5 4.5 5 5

David Montgomery - Fin 3.5 5 4 3

Lorna McLoughlin - Fin 4 5 3 2.5

Stuart Graham - TAG 4.5 5 3 2

Prof Jeff Hayward - ISG 3.5 5 4 5

7.2 Key Stakeholder Groups Summary (in development)

Stakeholder Contr

ibutio

n

Imp

act

Influ

ence

Pow

er

AIH LIH HIH MIH

Principal & Central 0 5 5 5

Programme Board 3.4 4.3 3.6 3.6

Project Sponsors 4.2 4.9 4.4 4.4

Heads of College 2 3.7 3.7 3.7

College Registrars 3.7 5 3.5 4

Heads of School 0 0 0 0

College Accountants 4.3 5 3 3

College Academics 0 0 0 0

College Support Staff 0 0 0 0

SG- VPs/APs 0 0 0 0

SASG 3 3 3 3

GaSP 5 5 5 4

CSG 0 0 0 0

ISG 0 0 0 0

AIH = Against it happening 5 = High

LIH = Let it happen 3 = Some

HIH = Help it happen 1 = Negligible

MIH = Make it happen 0 = Unknown



7.3 Stakeholder Influence/Impact Matrix

A

More impacted upon, more influential

These stakeholders have a high degree of influence on the project, and are also impacted more directly by the project. They are likely to be sensitive to the project in itself, as well as the outcomes of the project. These are Key Stakeholders.

Good, positive and considered working relationships are essential in this group. Information must be forthcoming and frequent, aligned to the specific needs of the individual and group they represent.

B

More impacted upon, less influential

These stakeholders have a lower level of influence over the project; however have a greater degree of impact on their jobs during and/or after the project. They may, in time, become influential if not considered during development.

Consultation is key with these stakeholders. Their knowledge of the impact of the project will help inform appropriate processes for the delivery of effective outcomes.

C Less impacted upon, more influential

These are stakeholders with high influence and therefore potential to affect project outcomes, but whose interests aren't necessarily affected by the project. They could potentially impact on project delivery to no cost to themselves. Risk.

Careful monitoring and management of these relationships is important to keep them informed, but not impacting on the delivery of the project.

D Less impacted upon, less influential

These stakeholders have some interest in the project, but are either not influential or impacted upon, or it is unknown what their position is.

For those that are known to have little interest or influence, a light monitoring is appropriate for changes to their circumstances. For those that are unknown, it is important to gather information to make their position known.

UnknownLittle / No

ImpactSome Impact

Significant

Impact

Significant

InfluenceGJ

PM, TS, Jse, Jsa,

LY, SS

Somewhat

InfluentialMA, PP

BN, DM, JH,IM,

HE, FG, LM, SG,

WGV, SM, AD

Little / No

InfluenceAQ, HS

Unknown DM, LH

Impact on Stakeholder

Infl

ue

nce

of

Stak

eh

old

er



7.4 Stakeholder Influence/Power Diagram



7.5 Stakeholder Contribution/Impact Diagram



8 Proposed scope of project

In Scope

Development of principles for Resource Allocation to College/Support Group level and potential to apply at School level

Benchmarking UoE RAM against other High Performing and similar sized and profiled institutions

Translating principles into formula and process for applying to real data

Testing of RAM in isolation and in parallel with existing systems

Identification of alternative incentivisation levers

Out of Scope

Setting of budgets

Resolving data issues

8.1 Assumptions

1. Data quality is acceptably accurate for the purposes of effective resource allocation

2. There is a shared sense of urgency to meet the agreed timeframes

3. Sufficient resources (funds and personnel) will be provided to meet the agreed

timeframes

4. There is a shared desire for a simple, flexible methodology to be developed

5. There is a shared acceptance that the RAM must be related to UoE Strategic drivers,

rather than other external or internal agenda

8.2 Constraints

1. Multiple, complex and varied data sources, managed by a variety of content owners

2. Both TAG and BI/MI have been tasked with making these sources more transparent

and cohesive and may have overlapping/incongruent views on data definitions

3. RAM potentially restricted/constrained by progress (or lack thereof) in both TAG and

BI/MI projects

4. Different schools and colleges have different cultures, business models and strategic

fit scenarios (some are more teaching focussed, some more research focussed)

9 Interdependencies with other projects and/or initiatives

9.1 Transparent Accounting Group

RAM is a client of the TAG project, needing much of the information that TAG will output in order to apply the RAM for test purposes. There is a risk that TAG scope and RAM scope may overlap at times. TAG may have made a range of assumptions as to what the RAM will be in the development of the data structure of CP.

9.2 BI/MI Project

The BI/MI project has been tasked with feeding the variety of data sources into one reporting portal so that UoE can have a “single source of the truth”. This is a logical, centralised source to look to for the information required to enter into the RAM.

9.3 Strategic Planning Process

RAM must feed into the Strategic Planning process. Changes to the Strategic Plan will trigger a review of the RAM.



10 Project costs

Source of Cost Category / Phase Cost Breakdown

RAM/TAG Combined Costs

Staff (KJG, WGV, FW) Salaries 310,860

RAM Combined Costs

Phase One (14/15) Equipment 500

Phase Two (14/15) Travel & Accommodation 11,667

Phase Three (15/16) Project Completion Function 1,000

Contingency (14/15/16) 3,750

TOTAL RAM 16,917

TAG Combined Costs

Phase One (14/15) CP Support & Training 10,400

CP Licenses 15,840

Milestone Celebration (Q1 forecast) 750

CP Maintenance 7,444

Accommodation & Subsistence 1,812

Phase Two (14/15) CP Support & Training 10,400

Milestone Celebrations (Q3 & Budget) 750

Accommodation & Subsistence 1,812

TOTAL TAG 49,208

TOTAL TAG/RAM PROJECT FORECAST 535,385

11 Timing and duration

11.1 RAM Development Cycle

The Resource Allocation Model must be considered a “living” model. That is, it should be continually reviewed and refined to reflect the changing needs of the university. Every five to eight years, this should be a major project, however, it should be reviewed annually as a matter of course during the pre-planning phase.

In the development and maintenance of the RAM, it is anticipated that a blend of three change management models will be used in order to deliver this transformation project:

• a modified approach to design

LADDIE (Listen, Analyse, Design,

Develop, Implement, Evaluate)

• a simplified ADKAR model of change

(Awareness, Desire, Knowledge,

Ability, Reinforcement)

• elements of Six Sigma/Lean

approaches to change (Continuous Improvement, Quality-at-the-Source,

Stakeholder Partnership, Employee Empowerment).

All stages in the process are supported by LISTENing to stakeholders.



11.1.1 Analyse

Analyse desired outcomes

Clarify the problem

Analyse current situation

11.1.2 Design

Define

What is the purpose of the RAM?

What will it achieve?

Who is involved?

Who “owns” it?

i.e. What is the specific performance goal?

Research and Engagement

Review existing RAMs, both comparable and aspirational

o Problems / challenges

o Successes

o Exceptions (things that can’t apply & why)

Internal engagement with Stakeholders

Conceptualise and Feasibility

Bring ideas together and synthesise into concept

o Brainstorming and mind mapping

o Cause and effect diagram (if…, then…)

o Dependencies diagram

Constantly wash against feasibility and usability checks.

11.1.3 Develop

Turn concept into prototype

o Overarching principles

o KPIs/measures

o General framework

o Formula

11.1.4 Implement

Run prototype against a range of control groups, and UoE as a whole

Conduct controlled User Tests

Check for:

o Anomalies

o Discrepancies

o Significant variances from existing plans

o Reasons for variances

o Ease of use, flexibility, simplicity/transparency

Document test results and modify as necessary

Implement findings into production (staged implementation, parallel

implementation… as agreed)



11.1.5 Evaluate

Evaluate the performance of the RAM against quality metrics, scope, business

benefits expected

Make recommendations for further refinements, or review stages.

11.2 High Level Project Schedule

WBS Tasks

Task

Lead Start End Dur

atio

n (D

ays)

% C

ompl

ete

Wor

king

Day

s

Day

s C

ompl

ete

Day

s R

emai

ning

1 Initiating KJG 16/06/2014 19/08/2014 65 99% 47 64 1

1.1 1.1 Scoping Meetings 17/06/2014 04/07/2014 18 100% 14 18 0

1.2 1.2 Draft Project Plan & Definition 20/06/2014 07/07/2014 18 100% 12 18 0

4.1 4.1 Introduction meetings w ith key stakeholders 16/06/2014 19/08/2014 65 98% 47 63 2

8.1 8.1 Draw up project schedule 16/06/2014 07/07/2014 22 100% 16 22 0

7.1 7.1 Draw up Risk Register & Treatment Plans 17/06/2014 06/07/2014 20 100% 14 20 0

4.2 4.2 Stakeholder Analy sis 30/06/2014 23/08/2014 55 98% 40 53 2

4.3 4.3 Draw up Engagement Plan 30/06/2014 13/08/2014 45 100% 33 45 0

2 Planning KJG 17/07/2014 19/09/2014 65 77% 47 50 15

1.6 1.6 Rev iew Project Plan & Definition 17/07/2014 26/07/2014 10 100% 7 10 0

4.6 4.6 Rev iew Engagement Plan 14/08/2014 28/08/2014 15 100% 11 15 0

7.6 7.6 Rev iew RR & Treatment 17/07/2014 30/07/2014 14 100% 10 14 0

8.6 8.6 Agree milestones and broad deliv erable dates 17/07/2014 26/07/2014 10 100% 7 10 0

1.8 1.8Dev elop & agree Change Management Plan 14/08/2014 22/09/2014 40 50% 28 20 20

2.6 2.6 Establish budget/cost management process 17/07/2014 18/07/2014 2 100% 2 2 0

6.6 6.6 Establish RAM team 15/09/2014 19/09/2014 5 0% 5 0 5

2.6.1 2.6.1 Budget Established 13/08/2014 22/08/2014 10 100% 8 10 0

1.7 1.7 Approv e Project Plan & Definition 22/07/2014 28/07/2014 7 100% 5 7 0

3.6 3.6 Agree project success measures 31/01/2015 20/02/2015 21 0% 15 0 21

8.7 8.7 Rev iew project Schedule 30/07/2014 21/09/2014 54 90% 38 48 6

4.7 4.7 Approv e Engagement Plan 25/08/2014 29/08/2014 5 100% 5 5 0

7.7 7.7 Approv e RR & Treatment 25/08/2014 25/08/2014 1 95% 1 0 1

4.8 4.8 Internal Engagement Meeting 28/07/2014 21/08/2014 25 100% 19 25 0

7.8 7.8 Apply treatments to initial risk items 31/07/2014 27/08/2014 28 100% 20 28 0

1.7.1 1.7.1 Project Plan & Plan Approv ed 25/08/2014 25/08/2014 1 100% 1 1 0

6.7 6.7 Initial RAM team meeting 26/09/2014 26/09/2014 1 0% 1 0 1

8.8 8.8 Approv e Project Schedule 22/09/2014 26/09/2014 5 0% 5 0 5

3 Executing & Controlling KJG 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

1.11 1.11 Ex ecute Scope tasks as Defined in the plan 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

1.16 1.16 Verify and manage changes to project 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

2.11 2.11 Ex ecute Cost tasks as Defined in plan 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

2.16 2.16 Monitor budget 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

3.11 3.11 Benchmark UofE RAM 30/08/2014 30/09/2015 397 0% 283 0 397

3.13 3.13 Ex ecute Quality tasks as Defined in the Plan 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

3.16 3.16 Measure project performance 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

4.16 4.16 Project Updates 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

5.11 5.11 Ex ecute Procurement tasks as identified in the plan 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

6.11 6.11 Ex ecute HR tasks as Defined in the plan 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

6.16 6.16 Monitor team performance against project tasks 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

7.11 7.11 Ex ecute Risk tasks as Defined in the plan 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

7.16 7.16 Monitor all risks and treat appropritately 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

8.11 8.11 Ex ecute Schedule tasks as Defined in the plan 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

8.16 8.16 Monitor project against schedule 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

3.11.1 3.11.1 Desktop Benchmark Audit of RAM 30/08/2014 31/01/2015 155 0% 110 0 155

01 -

Sep

- 1

4

08 -

Sep

- 1

4

15 -

Sep

- 1

4

22 -

Sep

- 1

4

16 -

Jun

- 1

4

23 -

Jun

- 1

4

30 -

Jun

- 1

4

07 -

Jul

- 1

4

14 -

Jul

- 1

4

21 -

Jul

- 1

4

28 -

Jul

- 1

4

04 -

Aug

- 1

4

11 -

Aug

- 1

4

18 -

Aug

- 1

4

25 -

Aug

- 1

4

29 -

Sep

- 1

4

06 -

Oct

- 1

4

13 -

Oct

- 1

4

20 -

Oct

- 1

4

27 -

Oct

- 1

4

4.14 4.14 Communicate Change Management Plan 30/08/2014 15/05/2016 625 0% 445 0 625

9.6 9.6 RAM Design Meetings (high lev el engagement) 01/09/2014 14/11/2014 75 0% 55 0 75

9.7 9.7 Detailed prototy pe schedule 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 1 0% 1 0 1

9.11 9.11 Develop prototype 02/09/2014 30/11/2014 90 0% 64 0 90

4.11 4.11 Variables Workshop/s 15/09/2014 28/09/2014 14 0% 10 0 14

4.9 4.9 College Planning/Process Map Workshop/s 29/09/2014 28/10/2014 30 0% 22 0 30

4.12 4.12 Allocation (Direct v s Indirect) Workshop/s 06/10/2014 26/10/2014 21 0% 15 0 21

4.13 4.13 Incentiv ising Workshop/s 13/10/2014 02/11/2014 21 0% 15 0 21

3.11.2

3.11.2 Visit other sites for Detailed Benchmark Audit of

RAM 27/10/2014 23/02/2015 120 0% 86 0 120

9.12 9.12 Test prototype 01/12/2014 18/12/2014 18 0% 14 0 18

9.16 9.16 Test rev iew and recommendations 19/12/2014 01/05/2016 500 0% 356 0 500

3.11.3 3.11.3 Benchmark Report 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 1 0% 1 0 1

9.13

9.13 Ex pand prototy pe based on further w orkshops and

feedback 16/02/2015 31/12/2015 319 0% 229 0 319

9.14 9.14 Test propty pe iterations monthly 16/03/2015 31/01/2016 322 0% 230 0 322

3.12 3.12 Planning Process mapping 03/08/2015 16/09/2015 45 0% 33 0 45

9.17 9.17 RAM finalised for handover 01/02/2016 28/02/2016 28 0% 20 0 28

5 Closing KJG 01/03/2016 13/06/2016 105 0% 75 0 105

1.21 1.21 Final Project Report 01/03/2016 29/04/2016 60 0% 44 0 60

3.21 3.21 Final Measure of performance against metrics 01/03/2016 14/03/2016 14 0% 10 0 14

4.21 4.21 End of Project Engagement 01/03/2016 14/03/2016 14 0% 10 0 14

1.22 1.22 Handov er project to internal personnel 01/03/2016 01/03/2016 1 0% 1 0 1

1.23 1.23 File, archiv e etc all documentation 14/06/2016 15/06/2016 2 0% 2 0 2

2.21 2.21 Close off Budget/Accounts 25/05/2016 26/05/2016 2 0% 2 0 2

5.21 5.21 Finalise outstanding inv oices etc 25/05/2016 25/05/2016 1 0% 1 0 1

6.21 6.21 Project team break up 25/05/2016 25/05/2016 1 0% 1 0 1

7.21 7.21 Close off risk register 25/05/2016 25/05/2016 1 0% 1 0 1

8.21 8.21 Close of schedule 25/05/2016 25/05/2016 1 0% 1 0 1

9.21 9.21 Product Definition and handov er 25/05/2016 25/05/2016 1 0% 1 0 1

1.24 1.24 PIR 01/05/2016 13/06/2016 44 0% 31 0 44

10 PROJECT FINALISED 15/06/2016 15/06/2016 1 0% 1 0 1



12 High level risks

12.1 Risk Map

5

4 11 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 21

3 18 19, 20 3, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17 2, 4, 9, 16, 22

2 1

1

1 2 3 4 5

Consequence

12.2 Risk Summary Table

Note: This is a table of open risks only. The Risk Register is available for review on request.

Risk No. Risk Consequences Impact Likeliho

od

Risk Rating

Mitigating Activities Impact Likeliho

od

Risk Rating

Responsible

Status

2

Lack of support of key stakeholders (senior management, finance/ops & academics) & resistance to change

Implementation sabotage and RAM never being utilised

5 3 15

Ensure inclusive development & implementation program. Robust communications strategy. Encourage input and the development of RAM champions

2 2 4 PM Open

3

Potential high complexity of the model to allow maximum flexibility/ fairness/ accuracy

Making the model highly complicated makes it in effect less transparent and less trusted within the university and stakeholder groups

4 3 12 Agree that Transparency is the primary goal, and reduce opacity wherever practicable.

2 2 4 PM Open

Lik

elih

oo

d




od

Risk Rating


od

Risk Rating

Responsible

Status

4 Lack of data related to strategic goals

Makes it impossible to link RAM to strategy if there is a lack of quality data to deliver a useable output

5 3 15

Work with GaSP, BIMI and TAG to ensure that data is collected and retrievable for use in the RAM

2 2 4 PM Open

5 Insufficient time and/or resources to effectively complete the project

Limits the usability and effectiveness of the RAM and damages GaSP reputation internally and Central University reputation with Colleges and SGs

5 3 15

Revise expectations and timeframes, present risks associated with them and agree alternatives or risk appetite.

3 1 3 PM Open

6 Confusion between the TAG & RAM projects

Potential then for skewed engagement/resources impacting on deliverables

5 2 10

Clarify roles, functions and limitations of both initiatives, collaborate and communicate with stakeholders and beyond in a consistent, straight-forward and useful manner

2 1 2 PM Open

8 Changes in senior personnel (e.g. VP)

Often brings changes in priority and shutdown of projects no longer valued

4 3 12

Be clear about the value that RAM brings to the University and the benefits to different stakeholders of pursuing it

2 2 4 PM Open

10 Tension between the need to incentivise growth and to subsidise non-growth areas

Conflict around the approach to RAM and lack of acceptance

5 4 20

Engage with relevant stakeholders and allow both sides of the argument to present their cases. Agree risks to the University and to Colleges of the varying viewpoints and then agree the appropriate balance mechanisms.

3 2 6 PM Open




od

Risk Rating


od

Risk Rating

Responsible

Status

11 Overall resistance to change from multiple parties

Lack of acceptance and “buy-in”

4 4 16

Engage widely and often down to School level, seek multiple opinion and develop communication plan for all stakeholder groups.

2 2 4 PM Open

12 Data GIGO Limits accuracy of model 4 3 12

Identify data sets of concern and communicate these and the implications of these to data owners for fix or acceptance

2 2 4 PM Open

13 No agreement on principles of RAM development

Project stalls 5 4 20

Set a “D-Date” where a decision must be made of year one focus (broad prototype level) so that momentum isn’t lost

3 1 3 PM Open

14 Lack of human resources

Applies significant pressure on the lone human resource on the project risking missing of milestones and quality levels

5 4 20

Get commitment of key stakeholders to provide support staff during key periods of the project internally or externally as required, available and appropriate

2 1 2 PM Open

15

Organisational barriers (e.g. a new system does not link to old processes and systems)

Makes it difficult to implement and reduces its usability causing it to be ignored

4 3 12 Ensure that the model is developed on the basis of current data sources or initiatives

2 2 4 PM Open

16

Inappropriate and/or insufficient benchmarking against aspirational institutions

encourages a downward trend in performance rather than an aspirational upward trend

5 3 15

Incorporate benchmarking insofar as it contributes to best practice methodologies (both desktop and site visits req'd)

2 1 2 PM Open

20 THE doesn't show scores on teaching and research separately,

it becomes difficult to assess the effectiveness of these strategic goals in terms of THE ranking

3 3 9 Potentially validate against a different ranking system of similar reputation that does

2 2 4 PM Open




od

Risk Rating


od

Risk Rating

Responsible

Status

21 Lack of Excel/ formula technical skill

Rendering RAM inoperable 5 4 20 Obtain services of technical expert when turning principles into formula

2 2 4 PM Open

22 Change in external political environment (referendum & UK elections)

may dramatically change the funding models, sources and amounts and dramatically change the priority projects in the University

5 3 15 Review RAM project schedule in line with these priorities

2 2 4 PM Open



13 Approvals

Project Approval

RAM Sponsors Sign Off

Sign off on this document, inclusive of appendices, by the RAM Sponsors means that:

The project scope is accurate and complete and all the project components have been clearly defined

The project schedule is appropriate and all the resources have been identified and will be made available

The risks have been identified in the plan, and they are understood & accepted

The RAM Sponsors have the appropriate financial delegation to commit to the costs of this project.

The roles and responsibilities, as detailed in this Project Plan, are understood, aligned and appropriate to the project

Approval has been granted for the Project Team to proceed as detailed in the Project Plan.

Project Sponsors

I have read, understood and approved this Project Plan

Signature………………………………………

Name: Jonathan Seckl

Position: Vice–Principal Planning, Resources and Research Policy

Date:

Project Sponsors


Signature………………………………………

Name: Tracey Slaven

Position: Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning

Date:

Project Sponsors


Signature………………………………………

Name: Phil McNaull

Position: Director of Finance

Date:

Project Manager Sign Off

Sign off on this document, inclusive of appendices, by the Project Manager means that:

The Project Plan is sufficient to enable adequate management of the project

The plan contains adequate controls

The scope and deliverables are sufficiently described

The estimates and resource plan are realistic.


Signature: KA Jewell-Galletly

Name: Kellie Jewell-Galletly

Position: Project Manager – RAM (GaSP)

Date:



Appendix 1: Lessons from other implementation of RAMs in Higher Education

• The importance of buy-in success hinges upon obtaining the support of senior management, operational departments and academic staff

communications program to include workshops, road shows, training days, developing RAM champions

• The importance of clear, concrete strategic objectives and a shared understanding of these objectives and how the RAM will facilitate their achievement

• The importance of allowing significant time for development and implementation (we should target 2 years to implement, and then 2 or more years for embedding)

• The importance of useable, consistent and embedded systems across the university

• The importance of emphasising income rather than cost allocation; this was evident in a comparison/contrast of Imperial College (with a focus on income, motivating academics to increase income for their departments) and Cambridge (transparency of cost drivers led to drawn out disputes over space charges and teaching weightings)

• Problems with a centralised RAM – less departmental responsiveness to strategic initiatives, conflicts with notions of collegiality (researcher/academic autonomy) vs problems with a RAM that is too decentralised – strategic drift and long-term goal setting is problematic

• Potential problems with a performance-based RAM – avoidance of high-risk projects, reduction of pure research and blue sky thinking vs advantages to a performance-based RAM – encourages healthy competition that can result in increased applied research and creation of marketable products.

It is clear, that ultimately, the RAM must provide balance between macro and micro, strategy and operational, income and cost views of resource allocation at the university.

resource allocation model - university of edinburgh plan v 3.1 (040914).pdf · governance &...

Documents