To Gazette No. 4404 (6 June 1996)
2. An updated version of the technical recommendations, etc. is available on the Internet at http://info.ox.ac.uk/itstrat (printed copies can be obtained on request to the committee's secretary, Miss C.M. Godman, University Offices, Wellington Square; telephone: (2)70081; e-mail: Catherine.Godman@admin.ox.ac.uk). These detailed recommendations represent objectives the committee believes could be achieved within a period of roughly two years, on the assumption of level funding for the University (new central funding being required only for more IT support posts in faculties and departments). While it points out that the timescale will need to be adjusted because of the deterioration in the University's financial position that is likely to occur in the next few years, the IT Committee wishes to reaffirm that its recommendations nevertheless outline the direction in which it believes the University should continue to move.
3. Council and the General Board have endorsed the IT Committee's observation on the implications of the immediate financial difficulties and have noted that, as well as new central funding being required for more IT support posts in faculties and departments, additional funds will also be needed in due course for the extension of the network backbone, the retrospective conversion of the Bodleian 1920–85 catalogue, and the upgrading of the network to asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) technology (items (d) and (e) in the outline strategy which introduces the annexe, and Section VII (ii)). Subject to this, Council and the General Board are persuaded that the elements of the University's strategy should in principle be as they are set out at (a)–(e).
4. Other points which Council and the Board have noted include the fact that the establishment of a distributed system of support staff will not in itself produce significant savings on central staff, and that, in the arts subjects, the need for intermediate-level staff support for users, to which the IT Committee draws attention in Section III, is still matched in some subjects by an unfulfilled need for low-level support if full use is to be made of equipment already available. Council and the Board have noted also the expectation that, if the timetable for providing personal IT equipment to those members of academic staff who want it slips, extra costs will be incurred because of the need to re-equip those whose machines have become obsolete (Section V). They find the comparison with provision at other institutions (Section VII) interesting and have noted the IT Committee's conclusion that the University comes out relatively well except in the use of IT for teaching and learning, a point to which HEFCE quality assessors have frequently drawn attention. Council and the Board, while certainly wishing to encourage the acquisition of computer skills by both staff and students, like the IT Committee would not at present want to contemplate introducing a mandatory IT literacy requirement. Finally, Council and the Board have noted that the IT Committee makes clear in Section IX that the target dates for achieving the various objectives will be reviewed once the funding position is clear. The General Board accordingly expects that requests for funding various aspects of the proposals will come forward through the usual channels over the next two years, and that decisions about which can be funded and when will have to be made as these requests are presented.
5. Subject to these points, Council and the General Board have endorsed
the proposed strategy.
6. The IT Committee is asking also that Council and the General Board
agree to remove the obligation on other bodies to consult the committee in
respect of expenditure of more than £50K and less than £250K (clause
4 of the decree governing the IT Committee—Statutes, 1995,
p. 220—empowers Council and the Board to determine such amounts from time
to time). They think that such relaxation would be appropriate in present
circumstances and have agreed that it should no longer be necessary for other
bodies to consult the IT Committee in respect of expenditure of more than
£50K, but the committee's approval should still be required in respect of
expenditure of more than £250K.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
ANNEXE
PROPOSED IT STRATEGY: REPORT OF THE IT COMMITTEE
In summary, the elements of the strategy are:
(a) the University will continue to follow a distributed computing strategy based on the client-server model;
(b) as funds permit, the programme of equipping permanent members of the University's staff with personal computing equipment, and of increasing the number of networked computers for student use, will be continued;
(c) as funds permit, priority will be given to providing some level of local IT support staff to every unit;
(d) priority will be given to providing the funds to enable the network backbone to be extended to remote accommodation in co- operation with Oxford Cable Ltd (Comtel);
(e) high priority will be assigned to adhering to the schedule for the retrospective conversion of the Bodleian 1920þ85 catalogue.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
It needs to be understood that the distributed computing model is not synonymous with either decentralised or even federal arrangements. The distinguishing characteristic of distributed computing is that facilities and services are located wherever is most effective and economic. The best (and most cost-effective) balance between computing power at the desk top and in a central server requires continual re-evaluation: it depends on the relative costs of processing power and communications, the availability of funds in suitable places, and the kind of work people wish to do. In the long run, we continue to expect more and more computing power at the desk top; nevertheless, there will continue to be good reasons at times to locate facilities centrally. For example, it has recently been agreed to purchase a second general purpose Unix computer system to supplement the existing machine. This was necessary because of the continuing high demand for this central service; the load on Sable has given rise to performance problems which have in turn postponed the date when Sable can be expected to take over the VAX workload and permit the decommissioning of the VAX. In the course of assessing alternatives to acquiring a second Sable, the possibility was seriously considered of distributing the workload to departmental servers. Such a measure would have meant the loss of economies of scale and given rise to substantial support costs for departments, especially because some of those which depend upon the VAX lack the infrastructure to support their own systems.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
In 1993–4, when some new funds for IT support were allocated, Law was alone amongst the arts faculties in being the recipient of a grant. This year, notwithstanding the grim financial outlook, Archaeology, Theology, Oriental Studies, English, Modern History, Law, and Liter‘ Humaniores are all seeking funding for this purpose; this reflects the growth of importance of IT tools in all these disciplines. We recognise that in some quarters there is an expectation that funds might be made available by reducing the staff grant to OUCS. It needs to be recognised, however, that much of the work for which support staff are required is new work rather than replacing services formerly provided by OUCS. In the 1992 strategy report it was pointed out that the main disadvantage of the client-server approach was that its greater complexity brought greater support requirements. There are still large numbers of novice users who require particular support. More importantly, the absolute amount of IT-related work in the University is still on the increase.
Much work has been done this year to analyse the attribution of OUCS staff costs to particular services. Details of this analysis are appended [2]. The committee wishes to draw the General Board's attention in particular to the following features of this analysis. It makes clear the degree of investment in network-related services. OUCS itself considers its network support dangerously thin, given the degree to which the University is becoming critically dependent on its uninterrupted reliable operation. While some improvement will be provided in the longer term if the small number of staff working on services scheduled for obsolescence can be redeployed into network support, in the short term the process of migrating users from the VAX to Sable will be labour-intensive. The figures confirm that the vast majority of staff costs are allocated to core services, and there is evidence (for example, in the OUCS Annual Report for 1994þ5) that these are widely used.
In May 1993, in the IT Committee's report on the consultation exercise and recommendations for implementation of the earlier strategy, it was proposed that after three years there should be a review of the activities of OUCS with a view to establishing the permanent staffing level it needed. The IT Committee is making separately to the General Board its recommendations about how this might be carried out.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
The General Board asked for more information about the financial implications of realising the strategy, as it considered that not all of these had been identified. Although the committee's report had drawn the attention of the central bodies to the need for new money for support staff, the General Board suggested that the technical recommendations had implications for expenditure on equipment, and possibly on other requirements. The Board stressed that such additional provision could be made only at the expense of other needs whether within the IT sector or beyond it. The Board also indicated that it wished to see more rapid progress towards the achievement of the distributed computing strategy, which it identified with a change in the balance between resources assigned to OUCS and to other academic areas.
The comments received as a result of the consultation process tended to confirm the committee's impression that, were funding to remain broadly level, those members of academic staff who want personal IT equipment would be equipped within a reasonably short period (although not by the original target date of the end of 1996) without the allocation of additional equipment funds. If the timetable slips, however, extra costs will accrue, because of the need to re-equip those whose machines have become obsolete.
As expected, many of the replies drew attention to the need for more IT support staff; the relationship between that and the achievement of the distributed computing strategy has been discussed above. The role of OUCS in a distributed computing environment is also discussed above.
The provision of adequate facilities for students, and especially the issue of the priority to be assigned to general-access facilities for students in the Humanities, attracted a good deal of comment. Generally speaking, although faculties want both types of facilities, they assign higher priority to their own on-site facilities than to general facilities (such as a general-access computer teaching room for the Humanities in general). A number of departments commented on the proposed classification of OUCS services, but these have not warranted changes in the classification proposed originally.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
In general terms, we have either achieved the various objectives we set ourselves or (within the constraints of financial exigency) have made significant progress towards them. Our current thinking builds on, and is compatible with, the thinking behind the earlier report. The move towards the desired technical shape of things is well under way; the desired devolution has happened; the pilot projects have been conducted, and their lessons incorporated into the present strategy.
The summary of detailed proposals and recommendations from the 1992 report, with comments about their present status, is appended [3].
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
The following are proposed as possible criteria for comparing Oxford's resources with those of other institutions in the UK:
(i) quantity and quality of central services and the cost of these as a percentage of the overall budget;
(ii) network capability and extent;
(iii) extent of provision of (networked) workstations for staff and for tudents;
(iv) IT literacy of staff and students, and training opportunities;
(v) extent and appropriateness of distributed facilities;
(vi) comprehensiveness, quantity, and quality of IT services and support;
(vii) extent and quality of integration of IT into teaching and learning;
(viii) extent and quality of use of IT in other aspects of the life of the University.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
| Year | Oxford | UK Average | Range |
| 1993 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 1.0–4.5 |
| 1994 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 1.1–4.2 |
| 1995 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 1.2–3.6 |
Centres responsible for providing national services are excluded.
The budgeted costs of OUCS (1995–6) compared with those of its Cambridge equivalent are as follows:
| Cambridge | Oxford | |
| £K | £K | |
| Staff | 2,418 | 2,132 |
| Software, equipt., etc. |
1,479 | 1,077 |
| Total | 3,897 | 3,209 |
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
A more commercial relationship between OUCS and departments and faculties would have certain advantages. Planning could be determined by demand, although a way would need to be found of funding exploratory work and projects related to upgrading the infrastructure. The mode of operation of the Telecommunications Unit might serve as a possible model, although it differs in that it offers a uniform service to all its clients. If departments and faculties paid for particular services, they would be in a position to compare rates offered by OUCS and those offered by commercial suppliers and to make informed decisions. OUCS would, of course, have an incentive to be competitive. However, the implementation of such a system would have to be preceded by a fundamental change in funding arrangements: funding that is now top-sliced and allocated to OUCS would have to be distributed to faculties and departments to enable them to pay for services; this could be expected to result, in particular, in increased recurrent funding in the Arts, the majority of which hitherto have not had funds for equipment and technical support. Such a change would increase greatly the number of financial transactions around the University. It is debatable whether it would actually greatly increase freedom of manoeuvre.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
The target dates for achieving the various objectives will be reviewed once the funding position is clear. It may, for example, be necessary to defer the target date for having all staff equipped with PCs. The worsening financial situation increases the urgency of decommissioning the VAX because this will enable major savings (of the order of £85K a year) to be made on maintenance.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
(i) that Council and the General Board endorse the proposed strategy;
(ii) that they agree to remove the obligation to consult the IT Committee in respect of expenditure of up to £250K [5].
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
[2] Not reproduced here, but available on the Internet or
on request: see
para. 2 of this Supplement, above.
Return to text
[3] Not reproduced here, but available on the Internet or
on request: see para. 2 of this Supplement, above.
Return to text
[4] The University's bid to participate in these trials
was unsuccessful, partly because we had few existing projects requiring the
extra speed, and partly because our proximity to the Rutherford-Appleton
Laboratory put us at a disadvantage, since the pilot required participating
institutions to be geographically spread. There was later opportunity to buy
ourselves into the project; but the IT Committee's recommendation was that the
costs involved (about £700K for less than a three-year period) were too
great.
Return to text
[5] This recommendation repeats the substance of technical
recommendation 148:
see now para. 6 of this Supplement,
above.
Return to text
Return to List of Contents of the supplement