No 6433
Wednesday 13 July 2016
Vol cxlvi No 38
pp. 748–791
The Board of Scrutiny begs leave to report as follows:
1. The Board of Scrutiny could be described as the University’s ‘watchdog body’. It forms part of the official mechanism for ensuring that the University is run in a way that is transparent and is accountable to the governing body of the University, which is the Regent House. The Board comprises eight members directly elected by the Regent House who serve for a period of four years, and the Proctors and Pro-Proctors (who are nominated by the Colleges and formally elected by the Regent House). Of the members who are directly elected by the Regent House, four retire and are replaced every two years. Further information about the Board, including how to stand as a potential member, is available on http://www.scrutiny.cam.ac.uk/.
2. The Board has a statutory obligation ‘to scrutinize on behalf of the Regent House’:
(a)the Annual Report of the Council;
(b)the Abstract of the Accounts of the University; and
(c)any other Report of the Council proposing allocations from the Chest.
It also has the right to report to the University on any matter falling within the scope of this scrutiny, to examine the policies of the University and the arrangements made for the implementation of those policies, and has the power to inspect any documents that are relevant to any enquiry that it is empowered to make. The Board, with the best interests of the University in mind, aims to carry out its functions in a constructive manner. Since its inception, the Board’s practice has been to publish a single Report exploring the themes that emerge from these official documents, rather than a series of separate Reports on Reports. This Twenty-first Report follows this tradition.
3. In discharge of these obligations during the academical year 2015–16 the Board has met regularly during Michaelmas and Lent Full Term with four additional meetings in May and June to finalize this Report. It held formal meetings with the Vice-Chancellor, the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor (PVC), the PVCs for Institutional and International Relations, for Research, and for Enterprise and Regional Affairs, the Registrary, the Director of Finance, the Head of the University Research Office, and the Executive Director of Development and Alumni Relations. The Board is most grateful to all of these individuals for the time and assistance they have given.
4. The Board was provided with part-time administrative assistance this year by Mrs Rachel Rowe. Her help has been invaluable.
5. The Board has provided a summary of the recommendations that it made in its Twentieth Report together with the Council’s responses in Annex A.
6. The financial statements for the University (including Cambridge University Press (CUP) and Cambridge Assessment (CA)) for 2014–15 show a return to surplus (of £25m) in the operations of the University before tax and transfers from restricted endowments, compared with the previous year’s loss of £6m. This surplus is after exceptional income of £54m (£42m net of tax) from the Research and Development Expenditure Credit (RDEC) scheme for the period from April 2013 to 31 July 2015, the date at which universities ceased to be eligible for the RDEC scheme.1 Without this exceptional income, the University would have recorded a £29m loss. The assets of the University in total increased by £384m (12%), predominantly due to substantial gains in investments and new capital from donations for endowments and for buildings.
7. The Board recognizes that ‘non-academic’ activities (including CUP, CA, the Trusts and other subsidiary undertakings such as Cambridge Enterprise) are valuable assets that produce a significant part of the income of the University, but they also involve risks of financial loss in a rapidly changing global market. The Council needs to maintain a close watch on these activities and to understand fully the role they play in the University’s finances. In this context the Board welcomes the ‘Freeling Review’2 and looks forward to its publication. This important report into the ‘commercial’ activities of the University (principally CUP and CA) has not yet been published for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The Board hopes that the recommendations in the ‘Freeling Review’ will be implemented, in order to ensure that these activities continue to benefit the University. Excluding CUP and CA, the University made a loss of £16m (£53m in the previous year) on its turnover of just over £1bn on ‘Teaching and Research’. After tax, income, and transfers from investments and endowments, the net result was a surplus of £46.6m (£24.8m in the previous year), retained within general reserves.
8. Once again the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF) reported strong performance and maintained its distribution of funds to the relevant unit holders. The University’s consolidated accounts are required to show the income from the underlying investments of the CUEF. If, however, the accounting treatment were based on the distributions by the CUEF, which better reflect the total return investment approach adopted in the management of the endowment, then total endowment and investment income for the University Group would have risen to £94.5m from £90.2m. This would have resulted in an overall surplus for the year retained within general reserves of £92.4m compared with £73.8m in the previous year.
9. Income from Research Grants and Contracts was £397m in 2014–15. This is 30% (over £100m) less than Oxford’s reported income from similar sources; a decade ago, this figure was equivalent at the two institutions. This superficial comparison may not be cause for concern, and perhaps the more relevant comparisons would be with our other competitors, including those in the USA. However, the Board believes that an understanding of this change is necessary to provide an assurance that the University’s research remains competitive. Analysis of the major sources of research funding shows that while income from the EU and industry is similar in the two universities, UK Research Council and charity funding were respectively 18.7% and 29.3% higher in Oxford in 2014–15.
10. The Vice-Chancellor’s salary increased by 2%, but his overall remuneration was more than 5% less than in the previous year. Although a single salary is of little financial significance overall, several other universities have suffered reputational damage from large increases in VC remuneration at a time when academic and support salaries remained low. The Board applauds this restraint.
11. The Board would like to thank the Director of Finance and the Investment Office for continuing to provide further detail on the CUEF in the annual accounts and the Financial Management Information report.
12. The Board recommends that the University publish a comprehensive analysis of the University’s research income in comparison with our major competitors.
13. The 2016 Budget Report indicates a declining prospect for the Chest finances, mainly resulting from reduced forecast income. Throughout the planning period (2015–20) the Chest is forecast to remain in deficit (by £3m in 2016–17) and the University will rely on non-Chest income to support academic activities. This means that closer monitoring and strategic planning of research initiatives are necessary; the Board welcomes the announcement in the Budget Report3 of a programme of strategic research reviews, to identify new research opportunities, maximize impact, and enhance the University’s international research profile.
14. The Board recommends that the University review its practice of accounting for Chest and non-Chest income separately.
15. The Board is concerned to note a further allocation of £1.2m to the University Information Services in the absence of a full business plan.
16. The Board recommends that substantial new allocations only be made following the submission of a full business plan.
17. As a consequence of its success in teaching and research, the University is expanding, particularly at the West and North West Cambridge sites and the Biomedical Campus. The Board is concerned that this move of the focus of the University out of central Cambridge poses a number of significant challenges to the University’s ability to continue to act as a cohesive, effective, world-leading, self-governing community of scholars.
18. The broadening geographic spread of the University, in combination with the increasing number of staff who have no College role, risks staff becoming more isolated from each other and from the governance of the University. Academics are less likely to mix with those in different disciplines, say over a College lunch, or to browse the SCR copy of the Reporter (partly because printed versions are no longer distributed). The Board is concerned that there is complacency about the effective involvement of Regents in governance, and about the maintenance of fruitful interdisciplinary encounters as the University expands.
19. In its Twentieth Report the Board welcomed the inception of the Estates Strategy Committee, and recommended ‘that the Estates Strategy Committee publish a clear strategic plan for the University Estate at the earliest opportunity’. In the reply to the Board’s Report a plan was promised ‘later in the current academical year [2015–16]’, however, it has still not been published, but in the Budget Report the plan is described as due in Michaelmas Term 2016. The University has several large estates projects in prospect (Chemistry, Engineering, Physics, Biomedical support, in addition to North West Cambridge). The Board notes with some concern the suggestion in the Budget Report of generating long-term revenue from non-operational estate and recommends that the University focus its estate strategy on meeting the long-term academic needs of the University, before embarking on other, potentially distracting, ‘non-core’, estate projects.
20. The Board recommends that the estate strategy focus on meeting the long-term academic needs of the University.
21. The Board recommends that Council investigate the impact of the increasing geographical spread of the University on effective scholarship and access to centrally provided services, such as the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs and the Careers Service.
22. The issues are not simply ones of estate strategy, however. Rather than attempt a comprehensive list, the Board wishes to highlight a couple of other examples which indicate greater divergence. As the University covers a wider area, thought needs to be given to how staff move around the University – both in terms of effective engagement with local government in order to ensure adequate cycling facilities across the city, and in providing suitable public transport for staff for whom cycling is not an option. The Board further notes that a substantial number of remarks made at Discussions are now being read into the record by the Proctors for absentees; this suggests that at least some of the venue, format, and timing of Discussions are not meeting the needs of current Regents. The Board is concerned that this represents a broader disconnect of Regents from the governance of the University.
23. The Board recommends that Council review how Regents may be effectively engaged in the governance of the University (including Discussions and voting), particularly those working outside the city centre.
24. The Board notes a number of ongoing concerns over the general research support infrastructure within the University, which risks hindering the ability to attract and lead large-scale, multi-site, and multidisciplinary grants, and maintain the high-quality research outputs on which the University depends for maintaining its reputation for world-class research. The Board welcomes the fact that a formal review of the Research Office is currently underway in order to support the University’s research activity in the medium term. The Board awaits the outcome of this review with interest.
25. The Board notes that unestablished research staff, primarily postdoctoral researchers, continue to grow in number and are increasingly indispensable to the University’s research operation. There are no solutions in sight to the job insecurity and relative lack of career development opportunities that these staff face. Since the present funding climate continues to favour large grants over small ones, early-career and, especially, unestablished research staff are likely to face greater struggles in establishing new and independent research agendas.
26. The Board recommends that the University review the support it offers to unestablished researchers seeking to bring in funding (not limited to Research Council Fellowships); and develop a consistent policy to support unestablished researchers at different grades seeking to become Principal and/or Co-investigators on grants.
27. In its response to the Board’s Twentieth Report, Council confirmed its commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Audit Group formed in response to the cost over-runs in Phase 1 of the North West Cambridge Development. The Audit Group’s second report contains a number of sensible recommendations to revise the governance of North West Cambridge. The University will continue to undertake large capital projects in the future, and the Board hopes that the lessons learned from the failings of the West and North West Cambridge Estates Syndicate will be remembered. The Regent House needs to have confidence not only that the governance structures have changed, but that these new governance structures are effective. As the Board noted in a Discussion this year, it has raised concerns about North West Cambridge on a number of occasions to be told that all was well; Council must be confident in future that such assurances are accurate.
28. The Board recommends that Council keep the new governance arrangements for North West Cambridge and similar large projects under active review, and also publish sufficient documentation for the Regent House to have confidence in this particular project.
29. The Board is particularly concerned with recommendation 14 of the Audit Group’s second report, ‘Once the Regent House has approved a large capital project or similar major commercial undertaking as a matter of policy, together with its associated business case, the expectation should then be that the Council will itself have overall responsibility for the future management and administration of the venture, without being expected to seek further permissions from the Regent House, except where the University’s Statutes and Ordinances expressly require it.’4 The Board believes that greater involvement of Regent House would have ensured that problems surrounding this project would have been identified earlier. The Board stresses the importance of keeping the Regent House informed of the progress of large-scale ventures, but that this should not adversely affect how such projects are managed.
30. The Board recommends that Council ensure that Regent House is kept fully informed of the progress of the North West Cambridge development and other large-scale projects in the future, including publishing sufficient documentation on progress and concerns.
31. The housing shortage and associated cost inflation in the Cambridge area continue to limit the University’s ability to recruit and retain the best staff. Although the North West Cambridge development promises to help, the effect of any single development is inevitably limited.
32. To ensure the University’s interests are adequately represented in the Greater Cambridge City Deal and any future political initiatives, there is a need for a clear vision of how the Cambridge area’s housing stock and transport infrastructure might develop in the best interests of the University.
33. The Board welcomes the University’s ongoing efforts to understand staff needs in these respects, both in the Housing Survey currently ongoing, and the annual Travel Survey. However, it appears inappropriate to continue to consider these two intertwined issues separately rather than together. Meanwhile, it remains unclear how staff needs are to be taken into account by the University’s own Estate Strategy (of which, as noted previously, Regents have yet to be informed). Current circumstances make this critical: during Cambridge’s current phase of rapid expansion, the University has a potentially strong influence in planning matters likely to have great effects on the surrounding area (e.g. the recent Western Orbital consultation).
34. The Board recommends that staff needs regarding housing and transport are integrated into the University’s Estate Strategy and submissions to the Greater Cambridge City Deal Board and other local planning processes.
35. The Board has also been considering practical ways in which the University assists its staff in purchasing residential property within the precincts. Historically this was done through recourse to Loan Fund II,5 whereby qualifying staff were provided with a second charge repayment mortgage by the University. Currently, University support for buying a home is provided by the Shared Equity Scheme, but it is restricted to newly appointed, permanent staff, Grade 7 or above, relocating to the University. It is unclear why the University has narrowed the eligibility criteria for assistance with home purchase. Moreover, it is unclear why Loan Fund II remains in Ordinances although it has been, in effect, superseded.
36. The Board recommends that the University develop a strategy for supporting all staff seeking to purchase living accommodation in the precincts.
37. The Board shares the Vice-Chancellor’s concern that the UAS and other administration is sometimes stretched too thinly to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness, and also to respond effectively to government initiatives which may come at any point in the year. For example, a valuable subvention to a capital project was almost lost as a result. The Board notes that the University is currently participating in the UniForum benchmarking exercise of support operations.
38. The Board recommends a review of the optimum size and operational structure of University administration, in the light of the UniForum benchmarking process.
39. The Board notes a profusion of reviews being set up in the University, and ventures to suggest that its discussions with the PVCs may perhaps have been one of the stimuli behind this. The new PVC team appears to be functioning with a new cohesion. This can only be of benefit to the University, particularly with the impending turnover of two of its most senior officers.
40. The Board notes Council choosing not to respond to remarks made at various Discussions in the current academical year. The Board is concerned that failure to respond will result in some Regents drawing the conclusion that Council is not interested in their views. While the Board understands that Council may feel that they are unable to respond to particular remarks given their responsibilities as charity trustees, it does not agree that declining to respond to entire topics is an appropriate response.
41. Cambridge has a democratic governance structure, but achieving high-quality governance requires a greater understanding of how the University actually works. The Board is aware from comments by its guests and other members of the University that there is a considerable knowledge gap in how the University is governed. While an online resource exists describing the governance of the University,6 it does not appear to be included in induction materials provided to new staff, and furthermore it does not link to more detailed resources that are already available.
42. The Board recommends that new staff, as part of the induction process, are provided with an improved guide outlining the governance, planning, activity, and spending of the University, with links to appropriate sites, documents, and Statutes and Ordinances to help them understand how the University is governed, what resources they have to effect change where necessary, and what their responsibilities are.
43. The University has a large estate that comprises 330 buildings (including lecture theatres and laboratories), which is valued at £2.4 billion (insurance replacement cost). This estate does not include the Colleges, which also have significant assets in terms of buildings and land (including playing fields). Although these estates are widely used by members of the University, it is unclear whether these assets are fully utilized, particularly outside of term time. There may be the potential to more fully utilize these assets by allowing the local community and businesses greater access to these resources, which could generate revenue and improve local economic development and community engagement.
44. The Board recommends that the University measure the use of its estate facilities to investigate whether they are being optimally utilized, develop appropriate mechanisms to allow its resources to be used by local communities and businesses, and make these mechanisms available for the Colleges to use.
45. The Board wishes to highlight considerable concern being expressed formally and in staff satisfaction surveys about human resources (HR) issues. These have included remuneration (to recruit and retain staff, particularly in the light of housing costs), transparency in promotion, enforced retirement by age, dignity at work and equality, and the replacement of established with unestablished posts.
46. The Board has expressed before (20th Report, recommendation 4) its view that the University must develop ‘total’ remuneration packages, outside of USS. It would appear that the HR Committee, having discussed ‘total’ remuneration packages, is now seeking the views of the Finance Committee ‘before giving the matter further consideration’.
47. In response to our concerns regarding unestablished posts replacing those that were established, the Council advised the University that HR was working on the criteria for the appropriateness of making an unestablished as opposed to an established appointment (20th Report, response to recommendation 14). The Board has now been advised that due to staff changes there has been little recent progress, but that it will be addressed ‘in due course’.
48. The Board welcomes the news that Research Associates’ starting salaries are to be augmented following acknowledgement that this University has fallen behind other members of the Russell Group. The Board is, however, concerned that this was allowed to happen, suggesting that HR matters are not continuously reviewed to ensure that the University remains ‘a leading employer’.7
49. The Board wishes to reiterate its view that the review of HR policy and practice in the University is urgent. There is significant concern that delivery dates and objectives have yet to be set for the HR review.
50. The Board recommends that an early date be set for the delivery of a holistic review of HR policy and practice and that appropriate resources are made available to facilitate a thorough and effective process that addresses all current and future issues.
1.The Board recommends that the University publish a comprehensive analysis of the University’s research income in comparison with our major competitors.
2.The Board recommends that the University review its practice of accounting for Chest and non-Chest income separately.
3.The Board recommends that substantial new allocations only be made following the submission of a full business plan.
4.The Board recommends that the estate strategy focus on meeting the long-term academic needs of the University.
5.The Board recommends that Council investigate the impact of the increasing geographical spread of the University on effective scholarship and access to centrally provided services, such as the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs and the Careers Service.
6.The Board recommends that Council review how Regents may be effectively engaged in the governance of the University (including Discussions and voting), particularly those working outside the city centre.
7.The Board recommends that the University review the support it offers to unestablished researchers seeking to bring in funding (not limited to Research Council Fellowships); and develop a consistent policy to support unestablished researchers at different grades seeking to become Principal and/or Co-investigators on grants.
8.The Board recommends that Council keep the new governance arrangements for North West Cambridge and similar large projects under active review, and also publish sufficient documentation for the Regent House to have confidence in this particular project.
9.The Board recommends that Council ensure that Regent House is kept fully informed of the progress of the North West Cambridge development and other large-scale projects in the future, including publishing sufficient documentation on progress and concerns.
10.The Board recommends that staff needs regarding housing and transport are integrated into the University’s Estate Strategy and submissions to the Greater Cambridge City Deal Board and other local planning processes.
11.The Board recommends that the University develop a strategy for supporting all staff seeking to purchase living accommodation in the precincts.
12.The Board recommends a review of the optimum size and operational structure of University administration, in the light of the UniForum benchmarking process.
13.The Board recommends that new staff, as part of the induction process, are provided with an improved guide outlining the governance, planning, activity, and spending of the University, with links to appropriate sites, documents, and Statutes and Ordinances to help them understand how the University is governed, what resources they have to effect change where necessary, and what their responsibilities are.
14.The Board recommends that the University measure the use of its estate facilities to investigate whether they are being optimally utilized, develop appropriate mechanisms to allow its resources to be used by local communities and businesses, and make these mechanisms available for the Colleges to use.
15.The Board recommends that an early date be set for the delivery of a holistic review of HR policy and practice and that appropriate resources are made available to facilitate a thorough and effective process that addresses all current and future issues.
|
21 June 2016 |
Matthew Vernon (Chair) |
D J. Goode |
Elspeth Morfoot |
|
Gordon Chesterman |
Stephen Kell |
Cristiano Ristuccia |
|
|
Lydia Drumright |
Michael Kitson |
David Secher |
|
|
M. J. Franklin |
Carmel Mceniery |
Dick Taplin |
The Board recommends that assumptions about graduate numbers continue to be kept under active review.
Response: The Postgraduate Admissions Committee will continue to monitor graduate numbers and will work with the Schools and Colleges to meet the planned growth of 2% per annum in the number of graduate students admitted. That target will be reviewed by the end of 2016 in consultation with the Schools and Colleges. The Postgraduate Admissions Committee will also agree a graduate recruitment strategy to assist in meeting the planned growth in graduate numbers. School graduate student number plans will be challenged during the Planning Round to ensure that the basis of the projections and the consequent risks are fully understood.
The Board recommends that the assumptions surrounding the financial position of North West Cambridge remain under constant review.
Response: Since the circulation of the Board’s Report to the Council in June 2015, the Council has published the first report of an Audit Group, established by the Audit Committee, inter alia, to conduct an investigation into the causes of projected cost over-runs in Phase 1 of the development, which were reported to the Finance Committee and the Council in July 2015 (Reporter, 6400, 2015–16, p. 53). Work to implement the recommendations of that report has already commenced, including a comprehensive re-baselining of costs, budgets, and revenues, which is expected to be completed early in 2016. The Audit Group is planning to provide a second report to the Council on lessons to be learned in respect of the governance and management of large-scale projects and other commercial activities by early Lent Term 2016.
The Board recommends that the University continue to engage proactively with the Universities Superannuation Scheme to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable without undue risk to the University.
Response: The University is represented on the Employer Pension Forum of Universities UK (UUK) and its USS Sub-Group, both of which actively engage with USS to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable without undue risk to the University. The Forum is also actively engaged with USS on exploring the issues of exclusivity (as the Board’s Report notes, currently the rules governing USS prevent the University from paying pension contributions to any pension scheme other than those approved by USS). The Finance Committee takes an active interest in USS’s financial position, advised by its Pensions Working Group.
The Board recommends that, while the University must remain mindful of its position as one of the principal underwriters of the Universities Superannuation Scheme, it should nevertheless continue to explore total remuneration packages as a means of attracting the most talented staff.
Response: Prompted by the significant changes to USS pension benefits and in recognition of the fact that a total reward package offering greater flexibility and choice to staff in their benefits would be likely to be attractive and reduce risk for the University, the Pensions Working Group has developed the framework for a potential review of pensions and wider benefits. Proposals to develop such a total reward strategy will form part of the consultations on a wider People Strategy, subject to the approval of the central bodies.
The Board recommends that the Estates Strategy Committee publish a clear strategic plan for the University estate at the earliest opportunity.
Response: The Estates Strategy Committee is planning to publish a new strategy for the University estate for consideration by the senior bodies later in the current academical year; this will provide the framework within which plans for individual sites across the University will be developed but will also consider the inter-connectedness of those sites, transport, design, and other over-arching principles for development. Information about site masterplans is available at http://www.em.admin.cam.ac.uk/developing-estate/site-masterplans. As plans for other sites become more fully formed, these will be published online.
The Board recommends that an online Senate-House noticeboard be established and regularly maintained.
Response: An online noticeboard has been established in response to this recommendation, to provide access to copies of drawings and plans that are also available to view in the Schools Arcade, for the information of members of the University.
The Board recommends that the University develop a clearer strategy that will both maintain world-class research and attract the maximum research income to support it.
Response: The University’s research strategy encompasses individual strategies for each of the six Schools and an overarching strategy for the University. Each School presents its research strategy as part of its annual Planning Round submission and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) works with the Heads of the Schools to develop and implement the strategy to work across the Schools, both in the UK and internationally. The University’s twelve strategic research initiatives (SRIs) that were established to create a shared cross-School vision in key thematic areas have proved successful in promoting inter- and multidisciplinary research collaborations and in providing a springboard to attract research funding, for example, the University’s successful application to join the Consortium of Founding Partners of the Alan Turing Institute.
The General Board have approved a series of actions in the light of the outcome of REF2014, including Hindsight Reviews of Cambridge submissions that fell outside the top quartile of their Unit of Assessment, the development of a forward-looking strategic research review of research activities across the University that is due to be completed by September 2017, and the instigation of a broadly-based review of the management and governance of the University’s academic activities. The University has also reconstituted a REF Policy Committee and REF Project Board that are meeting regularly and will oversee the ongoing preparations for the next REF which is expected to take place in 2020 or 2021.
The Board recommends that the University provide greater clarification and support regarding financial, ethical, and regulatory responsibilities to those involved in research.
Response: The University provides financial, ethical, and regulatory advice for those involved in research through a combination of central services, for example, the websites of the Research Operations Office and International Strategy Office, and the dedicated Research Integrity website, and through local services that are provided at School and Departmental level. Strategic leadership of these activities is provided by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) with operational responsibility falling primarily to the Head of the University Research Office, working closely with colleagues in the Academic Division, the Legal Services Office, and the Finance Division as required to provide appropriate support in discrete areas.
There are a number of dedicated communications channels for regulatory and compliance matters, including the weekly Research Operations Bulletin, to disseminate information to staff via Departments. An appropriate balance has to be struck between the provision of University-led support, guidance, and training, such as centrally supported training in research integrity, and support and training provided at Departmental level which can be tailored to meet the specific needs of the research community. The University continues, where appropriate, to develop appropriate training and guidance information when new issues emerge, for example in areas such as export control.
The Board recommends that the University continue to take a proactive approach to lobbying on Higher Education funding and European Union representation for decisions that will protect the ability of this University and others in the UK to continue to conduct world-class research.
Response: The University takes the opportunity to respond to consultations on matters such as HEI funding and research policy when it is appropriate to do so and also works with bodies such as LERU and the Russell Group to lobby collectively where this is the most appropriate approach. The Vice-Chancellor along with other senior members of the University also seek to influence policy through their own personal contacts in government and other bodies, including the funding agencies, major charities, and learned societies. The University and the Schools also engage proactively with funding agencies such as the Research Councils on a regular basis on both policy and operational matters.
The Board recommends that the University engage actively with those Faculties and Departments where the proportion of University teaching officers taking College Fellowships is markedly lower than in comparable subjects in order to understand and address the reasons why this is the case.
Response: The General Board will, through their Education Committee and in consultation with the relevant intercollegiate bodies, identify the relevant University institutions and engage with them in accordance with the Board of Scrutiny’s recommendation. The General Board will consider the Education Committee’s findings by the end of the current academical year.
The Board recommends that the University develop a competitive strategy for international recruitment, especially at undergraduate level.
Response: A recruitment strategy is being developed through the Postgraduate Admissions Committee in collaboration with the Gates Cambridge Trust and the Cambridge Trust for postgraduate students, and through a working group of the Undergraduate Admissions Committee for undergraduate students; half of the latter’s membership is drawn from the Colleges.
The Board recommends that the University Information Services engage critically with consultants to ensure their advice is world-leading and not merely ‘industry-standard’, and ensure that consultancy is only used where it is appropriate and represents good value for money.
Response: The UIS engages with consultancy organizations when there is a demonstrable need to acquire skills and advice that are not otherwise available to it. It agrees with the Board that such advice has to be of the highest quality and fit for the purposes to which it is applied. The Information Services Committee is responsible for ensuring that the UIS is appropriately resourced to carry out its agreed strategy and that it demonstrates value for money in the use of those resources to the wider University community.
The Board recommends that the University Information Services monitor the staffing levels necessary to maintain its current service levels, and ensure it retains sufficient staff with the necessary expertise to meet its current service commitments and the future IT needs of the University.
Response: The UIS is restructuring to undertake a number of additional activities called for in the IT Review, while, in the medium term, remaining within 2014 costs levels. Further engagement with the University, support for information management, development of IT career development, and information services architecture are areas where capability is being added which, over time, will allow higher effectiveness. By improving the tools and processes used, and re-using common components within a defined architecture, the UIS will become more efficient. The UIS is exploring ways of ensuring that talent is developed in more junior posts to ensure that a pipeline of in-house skills is built.
The Board recommends that the University review its use of unestablished posts, and only appoint on an unestablished basis where there exists an objective justification for doing so.
Response: A review of unestablished appointments has been undertaken. The HR Division will be carrying out work to clarify the criteria which should be used to determine when it is appropriate to make an appointment on an unestablished basis and will bring forward recommendations to the relevant appointing bodies in due course.
The Board recommends that the University Information Services consult widely with students and staff as to their IT needs, including staff who are not IT specialists, such as University teaching officers, and a diverse sample of the student body.
Response: The UIS has already started to consult with non-IT specialists in the development of the Information Service Catalogue. The User Needs Committee is working closely with UIS to improve engagement with users: currently planned work includes development of user satisfaction metrics, regular and ad hoc surveys, and the establishment of representative groups (‘user panels’) and committees. The understanding gained through these channels will help guide and advise the UIS on future service needs. Project Boards are also expected to include non-IT specialists to help ensure project success. Through its two outward-facing divisions the UIS will engage with students, the teaching and learning community, researchers, and administrative staff in order to understand better the needs for new services and for service development.
|
CA |
Cambridge Assessment |
|
|
Chest Income |
An unrestricted income stream of funding council grants, Home and Overseas fees, endowment income, a share of research grant overheads, transfers from CUP and Cambridge Assessment, and certain other operating income |
|
|
CUEF |
Cambridge University Endowment Fund |
|
|
CUP or the Press |
Cambridge University Press |
|
|
HR |
Human Resources |
|
|
RDEC |
Research and Development Expenditure Credit |
|
|
PVC |
Pro-Vice-Chancellor |
|
|
SCR |
Senior Combination Room |
|
|
UAS |
Unified Administrative Service (of the University) |
|
|
UIS |
University Information Services |
|
|
USS |
Universities Superannuation Scheme |
|
|
VC |
Vice-Chancellor |
1http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2015-16/weekly/6408/section4.shtml#heading2-5
2http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2015-16/weekly/6408/section2.shtml
3http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2015-16/weekly/6426/section6.shtml#heading2-13, paragraph 13
4http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/reporter/2015-16/weekly/6421/NWCDAG-SecondReport-2016.pdf
5http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2015/chapter13-section3.html#heading2-17
6http://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/how-the-university-and-colleges-work/governance