1. This section discusses what JISC currently does and how it functions, in the light of the above analysis of institutions’ needs. It addresses questions of appropriateness, effectiveness and impact.
2. Paragraph 7 sets out JISC’s strategic objectives. Most responses to the consultation did not refer directly to its overall strategy but instead commented on the effectiveness or otherwise of its activities and services. Those comments tended to reflect the sector, location and mission of each institution or organisation, but there was a general view that JISC’s strategy is now too broad. Over time there appears to have been “mission drift”, with expertise and resources stretching over many areas. JISC’s impact on the FE and Skills sector has been reduced since the LSC’s withdrawal from full core membership of JISC in 2005, which has also led to different provision across the UK.
3. The wide remit also results in a sense of fragmentation, complexity and a lack of coherence. This is evidenced in JISC’s current operating plan, in which there are 55 “key activities” within the five strategic objectives (paragraph 7), and in the organisational structure (paragraph 65 67). There are challenges in managing such a wide range of activity, and being fully accountable for it to a diverse group of stakeholders.
4. The promotion of innovation has been central to JISC’s mission, and since 2000 it has funded approximately 1000 such projects[1]. Many organisations have commented on the positive impact of this developmental activity, which has accelerated and coordinated progress across the sectors, and helped to keep the UK at the forefront of ICT applications to education and research. Programmes have fostered collaboration and built capacity.
- The portfolio is too large, such that JISC does not have the resources to oversee them effectively and ensure the maximum return on investment
- Investments are too small
- Funding is short term and does not allow for sustainability beyond the project period
- Many projects are for small user communities and therefore are of limited benefit
- Projects rarely result in scalable and transferable learning that might yield long term benefits
- Few projects are translated into live services or take too long to develop
- The application process is opaque and burdensome
- There is a view that the same institutions tend to be successful in bidding for funds
6. As regards services, there is universal praise for JANET, both nationally and internationally. It is a major source of competitive advantage to the UK. Institutions value many other services and utilities (some specifically related to the network), including the following:
- Authentication, authorisation and access management
- JISCMail[2]
- JISC infoNet[3]
- Other advisory and consultancy services (through JISC Advance), particularly JISC Legal[4] and TechDis[5]
- Videoconferencing
- Good practice guides and reports
- COPAC online library catalogue[6]
- Digital curation
- MIMAS and EDINA national data centres
7. Many institutions commented that there is a lack of awareness of the range of JISC services, and that many of them appear to be under-used. This may reflect the diversity of needs in the HE and FE sectors, and varying degrees of enthusiasm for ICT-enabled education and research. It may also relate to another observation made by several responses: that JISC is not effectively communicating its work and relevance to all stakeholders, notwithstanding its many publications and recently remodelled website.
8. The work of JISC Collections is also highly regarded. Its role in negotiating collective procurement, and building repositories, is cited as a good example of achieving value for money on behalf of institutions. It plays a key role, with other stakeholders such as the British Library, in driving forward the digitisation strategy.
9. JISC’s promotion of the open agenda (open access, open resources, open source and open standards) is more controversial. This area alone is addressed by 24 programmes, 119 projects and five services.[7] A number of institutions are enthusiastic about this, but perceive an anti-publisher bias and note the importance of working in partnership with the successful UK publishing industry. Publishers find the JISC stance problematic.
10. The thirteen regional support centres (RSCs) are widely used and valued by FE colleges and some HE institutions. For many, they are “JISC in the regions” and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There have been numerous positive comments about their training and development activities, and their engagement with individual institutions, including face to face contact. Others noted that there appears to be great variation in the scope and type of support provided by the RSCs, and this affects the variable awareness and uptake of JISC services. It is not clear whether this regional structure, employing more than 130 staff (headcount) in total, is the most efficient use of resources, when so much support and advice can be provided at a distance.
11. This leads to wider considerations of value for money, which is one of JISC’s explicit investment criteria (see paragraph 8). As already noted, JANET and JISC Collections clearly advance both the use of technology and cost-effectiveness across the sectors, through collective procurement and delivery. In other areas the evidence is more mixed.
12. Two recent value for money reports[8] for JISC Advance and JISC Collections indicated a high rate of return from funding both areas. As these reports acknowledged, however, there are methodological challenges in making estimates of “value” – for example where comparable services are not available on the open market, in attributing savings (in time and effort) from using services, and in assessing the impact of services. Nonetheless, we could probably conclude that many services have proved to be very worthwhile.
13. Some responses to the consultation questioned the return on the investment in a large number of small projects (see paragraph 44). In contrast, a 2009 report[9] by million+ identified the high impact of small JISC projects in smaller universities. In the consultation there were further comments that many services are not well known or used. It is also likely that organisational complexity (discussed below) is not conducive to overall efficiency and effectiveness, and that improvements could be made here.
14. Horizon scanning consists of understanding current and possible future trends in ICT and how they might impact the sectors. This is of vital importance to the maintenance of the UK’s competitive position. It might be considered an aspect of many areas of JISC’s work, such as innovative projects, upgrading the network, developing new services, and working with overseas partners. The question here is: if JISC does not do this, which other bodies could take on such a role?
15. JISC also demonstrates sector leadership in HE in what has been described as its “holistic approach”, covering the principal markets (paragraph 31) and everything from blue-skies thinking to deliverable services. The fact that all this is made available through a single organisation might either contribute to, or detract from, effectiveness – if the result is complexity and a lack of focus. It may not be necessary for JISC to maintain core capabilities in all areas, if it and institutions are able to work with other partners. It is important for JISC not to see itself primarily as a research organisation or to engage in a large number of speculative projects. What institutions tell us they most need are practical solutions, from whichever source is most appropriate.
16. Given the varying missions of institutions across both the HE and FE and Skills sectors, and the expectations of the different public sector funders, there are inevitably challenges in meeting the needs of all the stakeholders. The consultation responses showed a variety of views about how well JISC does this, whether formally through its governance processes and working groups, or more informally through other forms of continuing contact with institutions.
17. It is one thing to identify needs, such as those set out after paragraph 31; it is another to prioritise those needs, especially at a time of increasing constraint on resources. Who is to set priorities? The answer to this is related to who funds JISC. If the balance of funding shifts more toward institutions, then there will need to be clearer mechanisms to ensure that their priorities are reflected in the overall strategy. There will need to be broad agreement on what matters most, and this will certainly include developing the network.
18. As noted in paragraph 10, the Steering Committee is the formal means by which the funders maintain a close link with JISC and influence its activity. The various sub-committees and working groups are designed to ensure that institutions and representative bodies are involved in decision-making. The sub-committees were reorganised following the Gross Review in 2008[10], with a view to making them more strategic and less operational. Working groups are set up by sub-committees to investigate specific issues or oversee programmes.
19. There are a number of tensions here, relating to the way JISC is funded, and the complexity of its relationships. For example, many in the FE sector report that the JISC tends to concentrate mainly on the HE sector, which (through its funders) provides the majority of its funding. This is a consequence of funding arrangements for FE in England since 2005 (see paragraph 41). Some HE institutions would like JISC to concentrate only on HE. There is a common view that JISC tends to engage mainly with ICT and library professionals in institutions rather than senior managers. Recognising this, JISC has recently set up a ‘Strategic alert for senior managers and academics in universities and colleges’.[11]
20. For some, the relationship with HEFCE and the other funders is unclear, and this may lead to uncertainty as to whether they are all pulling in the same direction. Various other bodies, such LFHE, ALT, HESA and UCAS, point to effective and improving working relationships with JISC; others such as RCUK and SCONUL would like to work more closely than at present. Few mission groups responded to the consultation, preferring to leave it to member institutions to submit individually, and few institutions specifically mentioned the role of mission groups in relation to JISC. We note that mission groups play an important role in facilitating consultation meetings with JISC at the most senior level. However, it is difficult to know what further role they could play.
21. This discussion about how JISC assesses needs and priorities, and how it engages with institutions, leads us to consider the current governance arrangements. This is important because of the relationship between corporate governance and long-term organisational effectiveness and success, as explained for example by the UK Corporate Governance Code.[12] As many people have commented, JISC’s current arrangements are complex and could not be described as a model of good governance.
22. JISC itself has evolved into a complex and dispersed organisation (or set of organisations). There is broad representation of differing types of institution and the funders, as already noted, although some respondents assess that certain groups such as the FE sector and research-intensive institutions remain under-represented on sub-committees and working groups.
23. The current arrangements bring considerable cost. As one institution commented, attempting to allow all stakeholders to play a part results in a large overhead, bureaucracy and a lack of focus. A number of responses to the consultation commented that it is not evident how JISC is governed: for example, how the JISC Executive, the sub-committees and the four companies related to one another. The Board is seen as too big, the functions of the sub-committees as opaque, and the companies not subject to proper strategic control.
24. At the heart of all these issues lies the status of JISC itself. It is neither truly independent nor really part of HEFCE. The companies were set up in part to ensure that they are not subject to HEFCE’s direct control, but that leads to an indirect relationship between them and JISC. As part of HEFCE, JISC operates with the current government spending controls over activities such as ICT, recruitment, marketing, advertising and the use of consultants, regardless of its overall level of funding. There is also a considerable overhead to HEFCE in trying to make the current relationships and arrangements work.
25. It is clear that legal status, strategic focus, organisational structure and governance are all inter-related. There is a strong argument to less complexity, to help JISC improve efficiency and effectiveness and manage with less resource.
26. Comments about the internal structure are similar to those about governance. Whilst acknowledging the skill and professionalism of JISC staff, and their many achievements, there is a general consensus that JISC is burdened by problematic structural arrangements. One commentator described “Byzantine complexity”. Structures are seen as opaque and fragmented, and not adequately explained in publications and JISC’s own website. Roles – both those of staff, and of sub-committees and working groups – are often not properly understood.
27. JISC’s operations are highly dispersed geographically. The JISC Executive is located across three sites, with staff employed by three different organisations: HEFCE, based in Bristol; the University of Bristol; and Kings College London. Across the companies, JANET (UK) is based at Didcot in Oxfordshire, the data centres are located at the universities of Edinburgh and Manchester, whilst BUFVC is in London. The services provided by JISC Advance operate from eight sites, with regional support centres (RSCs) hosted by 13 institutions around the UK. JISC Collections operates from two sites: London and Oxfordshire.
28. All this reflects the way JISC has grown and developed over time, and a deliberate intention to embed its activities in the sector and around the country. The issue now is whether such complexity and dispersion makes sense. Does it not increase overheads, impede effective control, reduce agility and hinder responsiveness to changing needs?
29. In line with its organisational complexity, JISC’s financial arrangements are also highly complex. There are separate core and capital budgets, and for 2010-11 the figures are £89.2m (academic year) and £27.6m (financial year) respectively. The core budget has been static for the last three years, whilst the capital budget has varied considerably between years, depending on the availability of funds and funding council priorities. The sources of core[13] funding are as follows:
| Funder | Income (£m) | Percentage (of total) |
| HEFCE | 44.3 | 49.7% |
| SFC (HE) | 6.6 | 7.4% |
| HEFCW | 2.7 | 3.0% |
| DEL NI (HE) | 1.1 | 1.2% |
| Research Councils | 1.8 | 2.0% |
| HE Total | 56.5 | 63.3% |
| BIS (FE England) | 26.8 | 30.1% |
| SFC (FE) | 3.4 | 3.8% |
| DCELLS | 1.8 | 2.0% |
| DEL NI (FE) | 0.7 | 0.8% |
| FE Total | 32.7 | 36.7% |
| TOTAL | 89.2 | 100.0% |
| Activity | Expenditure (£m) | Percentage (of total) |
| JANET | 38.8 | 43.5% |
| JISC Collections | 4.2 | 4.7% |
| Other content services[14] | 7.3 | 8.2% |
| JISC Advance (excl. RSCs) | 4.5 | 5.1% |
| Regional Support Centres | 7.6 | 8.5% |
| Services total | 62.4 | 70.0% |
| Infrastructure/data management | 9.9 | 11.0% |
| Learning and teaching | 3.8 | 4.3% |
| Support for research | 2.8 | 3.1% |
| Administration BCE | 3.6 | 4.1% |
| Innovation total | 20.1 | 22.5% |
| Running costs | 6.7 | 7.5% |
| TOTAL | 89.2 | 100.0% |
31. JISC overall capital programme is funded by HEFCE and HEFCW only. This restricts how it is used and makes it difficult to implement a UK-wide strategy. However, since 2006-07 all the funders (except for the Research Councils) have contributed to the development of SuperJANET5. In 2010-11 total capital funding is allocated to the following programmes:
| Activity | £m |
| SuperJANET 5 and English Regional Network | 8.2 |
| Upgrades to services infrastructure | 1.3 |
| Digitisation content enhancement | 3.0 |
| Repositories | 4.3 |
| Identity management | 0.9 |
| Institutional innovation | 1.8 |
| Flexible service delivery | 1.8 |
| Learning teaching | 1.1 |
| Support for research | 2.6 |
| Project management | 2.6 |
| TOTAL | 27.6 |
32. The four companies have their own accounts, which include income allocated from JISC but also other sources of income. For example, in the year to 31 July 2010, JANET (UK) received £16.2m (or 25% of its total income) from charges to institutions (including schools and other bodies) for network and other services; 68% of JISC Collections’ income came from subscriptions; and BUFVC also received 25% of its income from subscriptions. JISC Advance only started trading in 2009-10, and it is mainly funded by JISC.
33. SuperJANET needs to be upgraded to SuperJANET 6 to meet anticipated needs. There are particular concerns about finding capital funding to do this. This has to be considered as part of the debate about what JISC does and how it is funded.
34. The companies are run professionally to ensure financial viability. Their finances are scrutinised by JISC Executive staff and the relevant JISC sub-committee, as well as being subject to the annual accountability review process that HEFCE normally operates for all related bodies. There are service level agreements between JISC and the companies, but there is limited operational control by JISC Executive, which might appear to be a drawback given the role of the companies in delivering aspects of the overall JISC strategy.
35. The high degree of reliance by JISC itself and JANET (UK) on direct public funding, comes with many conditions attached. Each funder’s grant letter specifies detailed requirements and expectations. This dependence will also become problematic as public expenditure comes under increasing pressure.
[2] “JISCMail facilitates knowledge sharing within UK education and research communities, using email and the web to enable the development of specialist online groups.” In ‘JISC Services 2010’
[3] JISC infoNet provides good practice guidance on strategic planning, implementation and management of digital technology in HE and FE.
[4] JISC Legal provides advice on legal issues in the adoption and use of digital technologies in HE and FE.
[6] COPAC provides free online access to the catalogues of more than 50 UK libraries and museums.
[9] ‘From inputs to impact: A study of the impact of JISC funding on universities’, October 2009
[10] ‘A review of the sub-committee structure of the JISC’, Ian Gross, JISC Head of Internal Audit, July 2008
[11] At: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=SUPPORTINGYOURINSTITUTION;6db45e77.1011p.
[13] “Core funding” is provided to deliver JISC’s core programmes and services and cover most of the running costs of the JISC Executive.
[14] This term has been used to describe all JISC’s other services: Federated Access Management, EDINA and MIMAS data centres, Digital Curation Centre, British Universities Film and Video Council (BUFVC), Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS – primarily ESRC-funded) and JISC’s Monitoring Unit that collects usage data from all JISC’s services)
Yes, support and advice can be offered at a distance, but I think there is a major advantage and a very high value attached to the face-to-face, local support provided by the RSCs. Although not always easy to fully quantify, my experience is that FE in particular benefits from having a local support service that understands local needs.
http://hefcereview.jiscpress.org/section-3-what-are-institutions’-needs-and-who-should-meet-them/#2
Paragraph 31 in the review is
paragraph 1 at http://hefcereview.jiscpress.org/section-3-what-are-institutions’-needs-and-who-should-meet-them/#2
There’s bias and there’s balance. To take a very simple example, we are currently finding it very hard to structure courses for open source office products because there’s a huge bias towards closed products. Enterprising publishers would. in fact, see this as an opportunity, not a threat.
I am very disappointed that this paragraph made it into the JISC review, as its misunderstanding about openness will be taken as evidence by other bodies that JISC is pulling out of the “open” arena.
UK HE and JISC, and uk gov, are perceived worldwide as _leaders_ in the promotion of open standards, open source and open data. These do not affect publishers at all, except that they promote better academic practice in research and writing. A paper in a journal which references linked data is a better paper. Would this JISC report not be better if it had been published in an open accessible format, and with linked data resources justifying the statements it makes? Perhaps publishers have an issue with open access journals, but to tar all other uses of “open” with the same brush is at best weak journalism, at worst interference from vested interests.
The bald sentence “Publishers find the JISC stance problematic” should never have made it past the very first proof-reading stage without reference to evidence.
I agree with all the comments listed so far. This is a ridiculous statement that lumps together a range of things under “open”. Where is the evidence to support this in any case? How many HEI institutions (which JISC represents) really do feel like this? And if they do perceive a bias in favour of education (which is the way I’d say it rather than anti-publisher) is that not a good thing? JISC has always tried to do the best for the education community in this area – and I believe most sensible publishers see this and work well with them.
This section is indicative of a weakness that runs through the review detracting from an otherwise very useful document. There is not substantive evidence to support these comments or illustrate how much of the sector supported these views which seem at odds with the previous paragraph, and the later comment that the ‘million+’ group supported small-scale projects and their impact. Yet, when we get to the recommendations it is the negative list here that is dictates the recommendations not the positive. Unless the weight of evidence either way is presented one cannot take this seriously.
I think you have to ask ‘controversial with who?’. The comment feels a bit dated and partisan.
It’s also wrong to bundle together everything with the word ‘open’ – that alone suggests the paragraph is itself problematic
I agree this paragraph is problematic, it is clearly ill-informed. What about those publishers who see openess as an opportunity for mutal benefit?
More at http://oss.ly/foresight
Oh come on!!! This makes me really angry, I’m going to skip over the fact that publishers (private sector) should not be dictating how HE/FE spends its money (public sector).
Instead I’ll focus on the fact this shows an unbelievable level of understanding of “openness” on the part of the report committee. I’ll let others focus on the access, content and standards issues and stay foccused on my own area of expertise.
What on earth has “open source” in the sector as a whole got to do with the “UK publishing industry”. Open source software is a software develpoment methodology (protected by a software licence). Since when have the “UK publishing industry” been software producers?
When we look to the software producers we find that even the most aggreessive of closed source companies are embracing open source as part of their business:
http://www.codeplex.com/
http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/018363
The JISC are thought leaders in the openness agenda. I trust that when planning their future activities they will strike this paragraph from their minds and continue to explore all aspects of openness in a balanced and unbiased way.
There are some advantages in small projects. However, I believe it is fair to say that the sector does not currently work in a way that will realise those benifits.
The problem with large funded projects is that they require multiple people to understand what the long term need of users are as well as the long term technology opportunities. Proposers and funders need a very deep understanding of the problem and potential solutions.
Short projects can a) enable “fast fail” b) enable “release early, release often”, c) enable “open innovation”
There needs to be a balance between large and small projects.
Current and previous government have both clearly expressed their commitment to Open Source solutions wrt software (http://bit.ly/hc3kUq & http://bit.ly/i1K6iy).
re: “Open Resources” – “The UK Government Licensing Framework (UKGLF) provides a policy and legal overview for licensing the re-use of public sector information both in central government and the wider public sector. It sets out best practice, standardises the licensing principles for government information and recommends the use of the UK Open Government Licence (OGL) for public sector information” (http://bit.ly/ejquaQ) – if anything JISC should be encouraged to align with this “controversial” approach that publishers apparently find “problematic”.
Agree with Rebecca re: “where is the evidence?” – openly available via FOI?
I think any move to back away from the ‘open agenda’ would be a real failure for JISC – this is a hugely important stance and is publishers (and vendors) didn’t find it ‘problematic’ then there would be something wrong.
Paragraph 48, JISC support for the ‘open agenda’: ” Publishers find the JISC stance [on the open agenda] problematic.” That’s a very general and, I’d say unhelpful, statement. Where is the evidence? I daresay (certain) publishers may find the promotion of open access to publicly-funded research outputs awkward (good, I say!) but I doubt have such a view on open source, open standards, open resources, open data. Does this reflect rather shoddy research on the part of the review committee? I would certainly put red rings around this and similar generalisations in the report if one of my students had submitted this!
Its only “controversial” if you think the purpose of HE is to provide a public subsidy to multinational publishing companies as a form of corporate charity, rather than to provide cost-effective education.
If its really the case that the “bottom line is the bottom line” then HEFCE should get JISC to spend MORE on this area, not less, as its an area which CAN deliver clear cost savings.
I’m sure the publishers and other suppliers do find it problematic that the sector as a whole wants to reduce its costs by tackling issues such lock-in and price gouging collectively. Lord Browne recommended exactly this type of approach as a way to reduce the costs of HE, and as UK taxpayers we should be proud that JISC has done such a good job that publishers are whining about their profits and lobbying against such services.
It should also be noted that the open agenda is broadly supported by industry, especially software suppliers to the sector, who welcome the role which JISC fills through its services in reducing the costs of acquisition and integration of new systems through supporting open standards and open source.
Universities need someone to champion open standards, it helps HE to move between systems and integrate services to provide a service users expect. I do not think supporting such things is a ‘bias’.
Most who work in with journals in HE are coming to the conclusion that publishers add little the to scholarly communication process, and are opening (in Corporate annual reviews) stating the academic sector to be a cash cow. Again, opening up access to content is not a ‘bias’ no more than promoting healthy eating or recycling is.
strongly agree
For me, it’s often the small projects which can produce just as much as those with a large amount of funding. £200,000 seems to go further as 10 projects of £20,000 than one large project.
I agree