JISC Information Strategies Project Case Study
Ann Hughes
JISC Information Strategies Co-ordinator

August 1997

A. Introduction

JISC is the Joint Information Systems Committee of the UK. It is an organisation jointly funded by the four UK higher education funding councils with the following mission:

"To stimulate and enable the cost effectiveexploitation of information systems and to provide a high qualitynational network infrastructure for the UK higher education andresearch councils communities."

Further information on JISC can be found at URL

http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/jisc.html

Early in 1994, JISC set up the Information Strategy Steering Group to investigate the potential of Information Strategies in higher education institutions. This arose, I believe, largely from a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the value for money being obtained from the large sums invested in IT. Consultants were commissioned to undertake the investigation and in December 1995 the JISC Guidelines for Developing an Information Strategy were published.

Whilst the Guidelines were generally well received, there was, and I believe still is, a fair degree of scepticism and a general lack of understanding of what is meant by an Information Strategy as presented in the Guidelines.

In January 1996 volunteer pilot sites were requested and from the 26 applications received, six were chosen. (See below) The same consultants were retained to assist the pilot sites and I was appointed to co-ordinate their work and disseminate the results. In June 1996 they commenced work on their strategies, the drafts of which are now being completed.

The development of the Information Strategy Documents is only the first stage of the project. The JISC Guidelines take the view that an Information Strategy is "a set of attitudes" or a way of working, and as such it is the changing practices of the organisation which are of greatest interest. Throughout the 1997/98 academic year the pilot sites will be working on a wide range of projects to achieve the aims and objectives of their Information Strategies.

B. Problem Statement

B.1 The Institution

The JISC Project actually involves six pilot sites. They were chosen mainly for their commitment and enthusiasm for the project, but in addition had to reflect the diversity of higher education institutions in the UK and also to represent all four UK funding councils. I list them below with very brief details of each, and give their URLs from which further information can be obtained:

Bath College of Higher Education (http://www.bathhe.ac.uk/) - a small (approx. 2,500 students) higher education college with the emphasis on teaching.

The Queen's University of Belfast (http://www.qub.ac.uk/) - a traditional teaching and research institution with around 12,000 students.

The University of Glamorgan (http://www.glam.ac.uk/) - a new (post 1992) university with the emphasis on teaching and with many associate colleges covering a wide area, approx. 15,000 students.

The University of Glasgow (http://www.gla.ac.uk/) - an ancient, devolved, research based university with approx. 18,000 students.

The University of Hull (http://www.hull.ac.uk/) - a traditional research and teaching university with around 13,000 students.

The University of North London (http://www.unl.ac.uk/) - a new (post 1992) university with the emphasis on access, based in the inner city; many of its approx. 13,000 students are local and non-traditional.

B.2 The Situation

The JISC Guidelines were published towards the end of a period of rapid expansion in UK higher education. Most institutions were struggling with reduced levels of funding and increased numbers of students. In addition many of those students had varying expectations of higher education, and varying previous educational experiences. No longer was higher education something you did between the ages of 18 and 21 if you were white, middle class, male and had taken a narrow range of advanced subjects at school. Higher education was becoming something anyone could take part in at any stage of their life. This expansion, and move from a relatively homogeneous student body to a very disparate one, resulted in a profusion of new courses in an ever increasing range of institutions. Resources inevitably failed to keep pace with the growth, and doubt began to be expressed regarding the maintenance of the quality of UK higher education.

Throughout this process hopes kept being expressed that "new technologies" would be the salvation of higher education and funds were diverted to numerous projects testing the application of various technologies to different facets of university and college organisation. In addition, the academic community itself was seeing a tremendous change in the way it operated, particularly with the development of the internet and the rapid growth of electronic communication between scholars, for whom geographical distance ceased to be a problem.

However, despite the resources which were being expended in this area, and the pockets of excellent innovative work being undertaken, the higher educational community was not experiencing the major benefits which it was thought could be achieved and hence JISC decided to investigate the potential of Information Strategies in higher education.
The JISC Guidelines for Developing an Information Strategy were deliberately non-prescriptive, which, with the benefit of hindsight, may have been a mistake. They place the emphasis heavily on information - what is needed and how it is used - with technology in a supporting role. The Guidelines describe an Information Strategy as a "set of attitudes" in which:

information is available for sharing - unless specifically excluded information is fit for purpose all staff know and exercise their responsibilities towards information there is a mechanism to identify and act on priorities.

Teaching and learning materials, research data, and management information are all included.

In following the Guidelines (which are available at URL http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/jisc/pub/infstrat/), the pilot sites have worked through the following six stages:

Set Up	This involves gaining commitment to the concept, identifying your starting point, establishing a committee structure, identifying resources and informing colleagues.
Setting the Context	Identifying the institution's priorities, intentions, approach to teaching, learning and research, the challenges it faces and its future development plans. In addition Information Policies or Guidelines were drafted where necessary, an approval route identified and colleagues kept informed.
Defining the Information Needs	This has been the major part of the project and involved identifying a methodology for highlighting the information needs of the institution, identifying priority areas to investigate in more detail, collecting and analysing data, and identifying problem areas. Functional analysis and Life-Cycle analysis were both suggested in the Guidelines as possible methodologies. In practice most of the pilot sites used a variation of process analysis to define their information needs, although life-cycle analysis of a student was also used successfully. In addition, one pilot site made good use of projects which were already in hand within the institution to achieve this stage. Whichever methodology was used, the most successful form of gathering the data has been the use of workshops: these have involved a wide range of staff and students and therefore spread an understanding of the Information Strategy throughout the institutions; they also provide feedback as to the priorities of colleagues and students; and provide opportunities to - discuss common difficulties, consider information needs, and consider attitudes towards information.
Defining Responsiblities	The Guidelines identify the following roles: Information Strategy Committee - this Roles and may be a continuation of the committee established to develop the Strategy; Information Manager - this person would have responsibility for managing the Information Strategy, maintaining and monitoring its effectiveness and proposing changes to it; Information Custodian - this may not necessarily be the owner of the information but should be someone with a vested interest in maintaining its quality and with the authority to audit its use, suggest changes to it, and delegate responsibility of duty and care; Information Users - an unlimited list; Information Service - to provide access, advice and content.
Implementation	This does NOT mean undertaking all the projects previously identified. Rather it is concerned with the cultural changes required, and involves keeping colleagues up-dated as to progress; continuing to develop an understanding of the need for, and the essence of, an Information Strategy; planning prioritised projects; undertaking any "quick win" projects; and, drafting an Information Strategy Document.
Monitoring and Review	This is an integral part of the Strategy itself and will be on-going. It comprises three components: monitoring the effectiveness of the Strategy; monitoring and assessing the external and internal contexts for the Strategy; reviewing and updating the Strategy in the light of the above.

The Guidelines make it very clear that what is being sought are changes in practices, not just a document; and that in order for this to happen, great attention must be paid to the process of developing the Information Strategy. This process must include communications with and involvement of as wide a range of staff and students as possible, all the way through.

The pilot sites have all found the development of their Information Strategies demanding and time consuming, but also enjoyable and valuable. It has brought about a far greater understanding of each others' problems and concerns. In some cases problems have been solved in the course of the process, either by learning of how a colleague had overcome the same or a similar problem, or by discussing the difficulty and finding a solution with others involved.

B.3 Strategic Significance

The strategic significance of Information Strategy development varies across the pilot sites. Some had particular difficulties which they had to overcome, others were looking to improve their performance. The Guidelines acknowledge the importance of strategic alignment and much of the effort in the Setting the Context stage has been devoted to analysing the institutions' strategic plans to enable those developing the Information Strategies to fully understand the priorities, challenges, strengths and weaknesses within the institution. Indeed this is an area to which some of the pilot sites found they had to return later in the project.

However, it is not as straightforward as it might seem. Some institutions do not have a strategic plan at all; others have one which is at the end of its life or in the process of being reviewed; and even where there is a current strategic plan the words in the document may not equate with the actual priorities and challenges being faced. In other words, for many reasons, there may be a mis-match between documentary evidence of institutional strategy and the actual strategy being played out.

It is essential therefore that the Information Strategy is developed in close consultation with those very senior members of the institution who are aware of its real strategic thrust. In this way, the Information Strategy can be developed to support the institutional strategic plan (whether written or actual) and thereby also ensure the top level commitment which is required.

In some cases it has been found that the imperative is operational necessity rather than strategic alignment and I think one has to make allowances for crisis situations taking over the prioritisation process.

In others, there has been some mis-match between the initial objectives of the Information Strategy (as identified by the development group in the context of the strategic plan) and the priorities indicated by the needs analysis (undertaken with staff and students). This in itself is valuable information for the institution - it will find it difficult to move forward if its staff/students have priorities which are at variance with those of the institution. As an example of this, some of the pilot sites which had initially prioritised teaching and learning for their Information Strategy, even when considering the information needs of a part of an academic process, found that the major perceived problems were with information at the academic/administrative interface. It is only once these issues have been resolved that further progress can be made. However, the aim of enhancing the learning experience could still be achieved by relieving the tutor of administrative chores thereby enabling more time to be spent with the students.

C. Objective: Desired outcomes

The outcome of the JISC Project will be further guidance to UK higher education institutions on the development of Information Strategies. This will include the publication of some form of update to the Guidelines - probably case studies of the six pilot sites. In addition it is hoped that the experiences of the pilot sites will provide evidence of the benefits to be derived from the development of Information Strategies.

I am particularly interested in the variation of approaches and outcomes of the six pilot sites. They all started with the same Guidelines but have been given a fairly free hand to develop their own strategies in their own way, and this I have welcomed. As I have said, the pilot sites do represent a wide cross-section of institutions within the UK and I believe it will be useful to explore the correlation between the size, structure, management and philosophy of an institution with its development of an Information Strategy - the ease, or otherwise with which it undertakes this task, its methodology, the areas it prioritises and the outcomes. In this way we should be able to provide greater guidance to institutions as to what approaches might be most suitable for them.

Ann Hughes
JISC Information Strategies Co-ordinator
August 1997

---

	Developed & Maintained by: webmgr@cni.org	© 2008 Coalition for Networked Information ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Any comments, or feedback?		Last Update:   Tuesday, 08 October, 2002 - 01:14 PM - EDT