The Auricle

by Derek Morrison, 8 February 2011

To add the growing pool of impending radical changes in the UK HE landscape we can now add the JISC Review which was published by HEFCE today (8 February 2011). While the full report will undoubtedly be of interest to policy mavens/anthropologists/archaeologists the time poor may welcome the following synopsis of its seven recommendations before embarking on a more detailed analysis of the report.

1. JISC activity should be focused on achieving a large impact in relation to the sectors’ needs and strategic priorities:
   a. All activities need to be clearly linked to the sectors’ priorities, in the areas of learning and teaching, research, business and community engagement, management and administration, and underpinning needs. The priority of some of these areas may change with evolving policy agendas.
   b. JISC should offer sector leadership through ‘routes to best practice’, wherever such practice resides. This will include working with institutions on ICT strategies and engaging more with senior managers, academics and teachers to achieve sustainable ‘cultural transformation’. The overall aim should be to embed best practice. This function might be described as the ‘JISC Demonstrator Lab’.
   c. Research and development activity should focus on horizon-scanning and thought leadership – through a ‘JISC Futures Lab’. This would include a small number of research activities, where this is appropriate.
   d. Services and projects should be rationalised, with a view to significantly reducing their number – based on clear criteria such as: size, impact, value for money from sharing services, and the possibility of commercial or other alternatives . Providing the services the sectors identify as needs should become a greater emphasis within JISC work.
2. There should be detailed investigation of the following options for funding core JISC operations, each of which may result in a reduction in funding from the current position:
   a. Funding mainly by grants from the funding bodies, as at present.
   b. Funding mainly by subscriptions and user charges from institutions and other organisations.
   c. Funding through a combination of grants and subscriptions/user charges.
   The Review Group assesses (c) to be the likely direction of travel, notwithstanding the sensitivities involved. Such a model would avoid the full funding burden falling on institutions at a time of financial uncertainty and pressure, while ensuring that the funding bodies are still able to influence JISC activity to pursue national priorities and deliver sector-wide benefits. Initially, subscription might need to be compulsory (as in the case of HESA), to ensure continuity of provision, but this could change over time. There needs to be an investigation of the appropriate balance of subscriptions and charges that would reflect the various needs of HE, and FE and skills, and also provide a way for the schools sector to opt into JISC services .
3. JISC should become a separate legal entity, and the implications of this for the four companies should be reviewed. The means of implementing this will require detailed investigation, and the timescale and outcomes may need to be considered against possible future changes to the position and scope of HEFCE and other higher education bodies.
4. Governance arrangements should be clarified as follows:
   a. The Board should take clear overall strategic control, and therefore be smaller and part of a governance structure in which all the key functions report to it.
   b. The Board should articulate the overall priorities, which will be determined through effective consultation and engagement with the sectors.
   c. The Board should allocate major areas of expenditure.
   d. The relationship with the companies will change in line with any change in their status (see Recommendation 3). All companies that remain should report directly to the Board.
   e. The sub-committees should be replaced with advisory groups comprising sector representatives, which should have no role in allocating resources. They should help the Board to identify needs and priorities, as indicated at (b) above.
5. The internal structure of JISC should be clarified and simplified, to improve efficiency and control, as follows:
   a. There should remain a small senior management team, but with a simpler organisational structure beneath it.
   b. The organisational structure should reflect the key strategic elements (see Recommendation 1): the routes to best practice (the Demonstrator Lab), horizon scanning (the Futures Lab), and rationalised services. In each element of this structure, the contribution to learning and teaching, research, business and community engagement, management and administration, and common systems should be articulated as part of new strategic and operating plans.
   c. In consolidating the provision of services, particular attention should be paid to the possibility of reducing geographical dispersion and improving efficiency. In particular, there should be a review of the role and number of regional support centres.
6. A plan should be drawn up of the proposed internal structure and operation of JISC, which estimates the savings to be achieved, including those relating to JANET (UK), JISC Collections and JISC Advance.
7. There should be discussions between JISC, the funders, sector representatives and bodies such as BIS, LSIS and Research Councils UK, to determine an overall funding strategy for ICT in the HE and FE and skills sectors. This should specifically address how to fund the development of SuperJANET 6 and research computing. These discussions should consider what it is appropriate for JISC to do within the overall strategy, alongside investments by institutions and the Research Councils.