1. No category

Project Document Cover Sheet
Project Information
Project Acronym
SRC
Project Title
Supporting Responsive Curricula
Start Date
1/9/08
Lead Institution
Manchester Metropolitan University
Project Director
Mark Stubbs
Project Manager &
contact details
Peter Bird
Business Information Technology
The Manchester Metropolitan University Business School
Aytoun Campus
Manchester UK M1 3GH
Tel: +44 (0)161 445 0371
Fax: +44 (0)161 247 6317
Email: [email protected]
End Date
31/5/12
Partner Institutions
Project Web URL
http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/src
Programme Name (and
number)
JISC e-Learning Programme: Curriculum design 05/08
Programme Manager
Sarah Knight
Document Name
Document Title
Project Plan
Reporting Period
Author(s) & project role
Peter Bird, Project Manager
Date
19/12/08
URL
if document is posted on project web site
Access
x Project and JISC internal
Filename
Project plan1.0.doc
† General dissemination
Document History
Version
Date
Comments
0.1
19/12/08
0.2
17/3/09
Changes in response to comments from JISC programme.
Inclusion of Evaluation Plan and revisions to work packages
and deliverables in light of new evaluation plan. Changes to
budget for N Whtton to reflect greater effort required for
evaluation.
0.3
6/5/09
Response to comments from JISC on 0.2 draft
1.0
23/6/09
Issued as baseline with minor changes and change of project
manager.
JISC Project Plan
Overview of Project
1. Background
Manchester Metropolitan University’s (MMU) vision1 is to become the UK’s leading university for
world-class professionals. The vision will, amongst other things, prioritise employability and all of the
associated activities that will enhance its relationship with employers and professional bodies.
MMU is part way through a review of its Programme Approval, Review and Modification processes
(PARM). The review aims to improve the quality assurance and quality enhancement procedures
while simplifying and streamlining the associated processes. This is a major undertaking that will
benefit from the piloting of some of the proposed changes.
MMU is developing a new academic database and associated business procedures to provide
electronic management of all student records, all unit and programme information and the associated
operational data in order to support improved workflows and greater efficiency.
MMU is undertaking a number of pilot studies in the use of electronic tools to support Personal
Development Planning and e-Portfolios of students work. It is expected, in the near future, to adopt a
tool to provide institution-wide support for these activities.
The BBC is moving a number of its operations from London to Manchester. MMU is using an estimate
of 17000 new positions being created in the Digital Creative Industries as a consequence of this
move.
2. Aims and Objectives
What follows is an SSM style Root definition that we have used within the project. It states the aims
and objectives of the project, the overall approach, scope, boundaries and project outcomes.
A project to:
increase the responsiveness of MMU’s curriculum design process for equipping learners with highlevel skills and competences valued by employers and professional bodies
By :
mapping current curriculum against high-level skills/competence frameworks identified as useful
structuring devices in consultation with employers and professional bodies
which requires the SRC project to:
build upon work started in the GMSA’s ioNW2 project to develop a suitable representation for
high-level skill and competence frameworks that is aware both of HR-XML developments and
the current practice of key agencies such as Sector Skill Councils and Professional Bodies.
establish effective dialogue mechanisms with key agencies in four target sectors (law, health,
creative digital and financial services) to capture their high-level skill/competence frameworks
using the candidate competence representation
1
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/about/vision/
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
create controlled vocabularies for high-level skills and competences that will facilitate
“tagging” of course-units
map the institution’s course-unit offerings in the four target areas against the relevant highlevel skill/competence framework and create a “tag table” which identifies the high-level
skills/competences for each course-unit code
supporting agile course validation and modification processes for responding to gaps in current
curricula revealed through dialogue with employers and professional bodies and the high-level skills
mapping exercise
which requires the SRC project to:
establish effective dialogue mechanisms with key agencies in the four target sectors (law,
health, creative digital and financial services) to capture their prioritised high-level
skill/competence development needs and preferred modes of curricula delivery
review validation and approval processes to identify or devise an appropriate delivery vehicle
and quality assurance process for rapid approval of course-units that could be assembled ondemand for targeted CPD programmes or to modified options in full-time programmes
devise an electronic workflow that supports the identified validation and approval workflow
and facilitates tagging, disaggregation and re-use of the course documentation produced
within it
use the electronic workflow to approve, advertise (for instance through GMSA Advance) and
make available for enrolment at least eight course-units identified as priority gaps following
employer dialogue and the high-level skills mapping exercise
review and refine the validation and approval processes and supporting electronic workflows
creating opportunities for learners to exercise informed choice within their programmes of study based
on enhanced awareness of employment opportunities, associated professional development
requirements and the potential for curriculum options to fulfil those professional development
requirements
which requires the SRC project to:
identify (or devise opportunities within) programmes in the four target areas (law, health,
creative digital and financial services) in which students can choose elective course-units
create information, advice and guidance materials to support elective choice in these target
programmes to help learners understand opportunities to demonstrate high-level skills and
competencies that will flow from their choices
inform learners making elective choices on the target programmes about job and placement
opportunities and the associated high-level skill requirements
supporting learners in showcasing their talents in terms of the high-level skills and competencies
desired by employers and professional bodies
which requires the SRC project to:
partner with MMU’s e-portofolio provider (PebblePAD) to create a mechanism for generating
pro-forma for marshalling evidence of experience and ability based on the candidate
electronic representation of high-level skills and competencies
Page 3 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
partner with MMU’s e-portfolio provider (PebblePAD) to create a facility for exporting evidence
gathered through the pro-forma in structures and formats appropriate to the needs of the key
agencies in the four target sectors
pilot with learners taking physiotherapy course-units, the use of the PebblePAD evidencemarshalling pro-forma for creating an application to the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists
and producing a CV that showcases ability in terms of the relevant sections of the Skills for
Health framework
pilot with learners taking the Legal Practice Course (LPC), the use of the PebblePAD
evidence-marshalling pro-forma for creating an artefact (e.g. Word, PDF or other format
agreed with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority) containing evidence of skills, abilities and
experience organised in terms of the LPC outcomes framework
pilot with learners taking creative digital course-units, the use of the PebblePAD evidencemarshalling pro-forma for creating personal artefacts (e.g. showcase website, HR XML CV)
organised in terms of the agreed creative digital competence framework
pilot with learners taking financial services course-units, the use of the PebblePAD evidencemarshalling pro-forma for creating personal artefacts (e.g. CVs and other artefacts, to be
defined) that demonstrate ability and experience in terms of the {professional bodies – don’t
have my notes on me} CPD framework
synthesising feedback from learners and the key agencies/professional bodies about the use
of structured artefacts for showcasing high-level skill and competencies
In order to:
improve the employability of MMU graduates
which would be measured by:
enhanced career progression for learners involved in the funded activity in comparison to their
peers from previous years
which requires the SRC project to:
collect and compare data about career progression for learners involved in the project
with benchmark historical career progression data for learners in the four target areas
enhanced awareness amongst learners of the ways in which their studies have equipped
them with high-level skills and competences required for local employment and career
development opportunities
which requires the SRC project to:
collect and compare data on an annual basis about learners’ perceptions of how their
studies in the four target areas have enhanced their knowledge of career
development opportunities and their ability to realise those opportunities
increase in the number of students on competence-based courses because they are seen as
more relevant
which requires the SRC project to:
collect and compare data on an annual basis about enrolments in courses in health,
law, creative digital and financial services
improve employer and professional body engagement with the curriculum design process
which would be measured by:
Page 4 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
increased levels of employer engagement for the four target areas in comparison to previous
years
which requires the SRC project to:
collect and compare data about the frequency and richness of employer engagement
in health, law, creative digital and financial services with benchmark historical data for
employer engagement activities from previous years
increased number of courses that are defined in terms of the competences they develop
which requires the SRC project to:
annually measure the number of courses that are defined in terms of the
competences they develop
increase synergy between courses offered and the needs of business
which would be measured by:
reduced gap between the high-level skill/competence requirements of the key agencies and
the curricula that deliver those skills and competences
which requires the SRC project to:
map on an annual basis curricula offerings in the four sectors against identified highlevel skill/competence frameworks and record the extent of coverage
improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the design/modification and approval of new
programmes and units within MMU
which would be measured by:
increased speed and reduced effort in the process
which requires the SRC project to:
evaluate the staff perception of the effort required to obtain approval for a new
programme/unit.
measure the administrative effort required to undertake the process before and after
the changes.
change in the focus of unit and programme definitions, across the university, towards a greater
emphasis on competences
which would be measured by:
the established use of a set of core competences from which programmes can select
which requires the SRC project to:
measure the number of units and programmes that are defined in terms of MMUs
core competences
Page 5 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
the number of units defined in terms of competences
which requires the SRC project to:
measure the number of units defined in terms of competences.
pride in the our competency-based courses
which requires the SRC project to:
assess the extent to which we use competences and indications about what a
graduate will be able to do after completing one of our courses, in our marketing,
before and after the project
3. Overall Approach
3.1 Strategy/Methodology
Overview of Approach
A core aspect of this project’s strategy is the use of competences as a way of supporting
communications between the central stakeholders – employers, professional bodies, academic staff
and students. The project will use four distinct subject areas to develop expertise in the use
competences as a way of defining employers needs. These subject areas range from strictly
specified, long established professions such as Law through to emerging disciplines such as the
digital creative industries. These four subject areas were chosen to reflect a cross section of the
project objectives and as such will support the project in different ways.
The Law and Physiotherapy strands will map competences defined by professional bodies to
programmes and units validated by those bodies in a form that can be used by students. This will
enable students to use a view of the competences from the academic database that supports the
showcasing of their experience in PebblePAD. These strands will pilot the use of competences to
support showcasing and evaluate the benefits for staff, students and employers.
The Digital Creative strand will concentrate more on gathering and documenting competences from a
wide range of employers and mapping these on MMU’s existing provision, identifying gaps and
generating updated or new unit specifications for approval via new, agile PARM processes.
The Financial Services strand will concentrate on mapping the competences required by 3 different
Professional bodies onto existing course provision and feeding the requirements into the development
of a new programmes/units via new, agile PARM processes.
The Process modelling strand will concentrate on baselining current processes for PARM and
designing new, agile processes, including the workflows and data management requirements. These
will then be reviewed with the four subject areas and trialled in these areas wherever new or modified
units are required.
The competence modelling strand will develop a consensus about a suitable framework for holding
competences and instantiate it for the four subject areas.
The software development strand will design and pilot software to store, view and copy data about
competences which relate to programmes and units. The competences will be linked to Unit and
Programme specifications in the MMU academic database, detailed in an XML-based competence
framework, and accessed via PebblePAD, which will output CVs in a machine readable format.
Issues to be Addressed
Interoperability issues will be addressed by involving recognised experts in the field (both internally,
as consultants to the project, e.g. Simon Grant, and via consultation with organisations such as
Page 6 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
CETIS) to provide advice and guidance. Additionally all technical design decisions will be reviewed in
terms of their use of standards and generalisability.
Collaboration across the University is essential if effective change is to be developed and embedded.
A wide range of Academic and Administrative departments will be involved in project activities, from
baselining, through review, planning, piloting, evaluation and embedding. Collaboration outside the
University will include work within the Camel, e.g. review of fast-track validation activities which will
take place at the first Camel meeting of this project’s consortium.
Evaluation has been designed into this project with both an internal and external evaluator being
involved, thus ensuring a better considered approach and allowing us to evaluate politically sensitive
areas of the University by use of our external evaluator.
Scope and Boundaries
• The project will trial new approaches to curriculum design but will not direct what departments
include in their trials nor how they go about designing them.
• The project will inform the University’s academic database project and will try to ensure
interoperability between any software produced by the project and external vendor’s products
but the project will not mandate specific developments.
• The project will trial new approaches to programme and unit approval and make
recommendations to the appropriate university committees regarding changes in practice.
• The project will evaluate innovations in curriculum design but will only disseminate these an
anonymous form.
•
Critical Success Factors
• Cooperation with central departments such as the Centre for Academic Standards and
Quality Enhancement and Planning and Management Information
• Ability to convince employers and professional bodies to engage with the project
• University is prepared to accommodate innovations developed within SRC
4. Project Outputs
Work Package
Tangible Deliverables
1
2
2
3
3
5
5
6
8
11
18
19
20
21
25
27
31
32
33
Project Web Site - http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/src
Baseline Model in Archimate
Agreed responsiveness measures for Process Review
Scenarios for Process Review
Reviewed Process Model
Agile PARM Evaluation report
Recommendations for PARM
Competence Model for University
Competence Framework Evaluation report
Job Competences for Digital Creative
Competence structure for Physiotherapy placements
Physiotherapy Placement Log Evaluation Report
Professional Body Competences for Financial Services
Job Competences for FS employers
Competence structure for Financial Services placements
Job competences for Law employers
Evaluation Plan
Baseline Report
Records of consolidation events 1,2&3 published on Web
site
Page 7 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
34 (14, 17, 19,
24, 26, 29)
35
36
36
36
36
Formative evaluation reports/presentations for 2010/2011
Summative Evaluation Report to JISC
Project Plan
Interim progress reports
Final Project Report
Steering group Minutes
Intangible
Change of attitude to process review activities
Better understanding of how competences can support
employers ad students
Greater appreciation of employer and professional body
requirements
5. Project Outcomes
See root definition in section 2
This project supports all of the JISC Curriculum Design Programme outcomes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
It will disseminate evidence of the employer informed curriculum design processes
It will provide evidence of the benefits to learners of the more responsive curricula
It will enable more responsive curricula to be put in place
It will recommend ways in which course approval and modifications can made more agile
It will develop a body of experience about the integration of an academic database supporting
data about the competences associated with units being taught, and allow both staff and
students to search this data.
As a consequence of the more agile course approval and modifications processes the project
expects to show how technology can support the development of curricula that better meets
the needs of staff, students and employers in a more agile and efficient way.
Embedding of procedural changes will occur as a consequence of the wide range of senior staff on
the steering group. In particular, the project is sponsored by the Deputy Vice Chancellor, who has
attended several meetings and workshops and is kept up to date by visits from the PI and PM every
two months. The new teaching and learning strategy, ratified last week, makes explicit reference to
the need for responsiveness. This has arisen as a consequence of the promotion of the project and its
objectives among senior staff. At a lower level within the University hierarchy, the project is
interacting with staff from many academic and administrative departments and is coordinating its work
with a group called the Programme Management Working Group , who are coordinating all internal
change and development projects to ensure alignment of their objectives and synergy in their
activities.
Page 8 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
6. Stakeholder Analysis
Internal Stakeholders
Deputy Vice Chancellor – Student
Experience
Pro Vice Chancellor MLE
Pro Vice Chancellor Learning &
Teaching
MMU Employability Champion
Director MLE Project
Director Learning & Research
Information Services
APD Project Manager
Head Careers
Head Management Information
Registrar
Head Learning & Teaching
Head Marketing & Communications
MMU Students
Heads of learning & teaching, ICT, MIS,
e-learning, careers etc in other
Universities
JISC/CETIS
Page 9 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Importance
Engagement
Responsible for the student
experience at MMU
Electronic portfolios and
integration with Student records
are an important part of the MLE
Learning and Teaching support
for Professional Practice is critical
MMU, given its target market
This project can improve relations
with employers and support
students applying for jobs
This is an important part of the
MLE and demands the reconsideration of how MMU stores
and manages its course and unit
information
This project challenges the
University’s ability to integrate
administrative and academic
support services.
This project provides some
additional requirements for
integration of the academic
database
This project provides structure for
building better relations with
employers
This project challenges the
University’s ability to integrate
administrative and academic
support services.
The registrar needs to manage
the information and services that
allow the University to run
effectively. This project will inform
how this may change in the future
This project will inform the
development of learning and
teaching to support professional
development
This project will provide a unique
method of supporting and
developing students that can be
used in MMU’s marketing
Students are involved during the
benchmarking exercise, during
pilots and trials and will be
engaged at the end of the project
to compare outcomes against the
benchmark
Can learn from MMU’s
experience
Interest / stake
High
Chair Steering
Group
Steering
Group
Can learn about integration
issues and their management
across a University infrastructure
Medium
High
High
Steering
Group
High
Steering
Group
High
Steering
Group
Medium
Steering
Group
Medium
Steering
Group
Medium
Steering
Group
Medium
Steering
Group
Medium
Via
Deputy
Registrar
on
Steering
Group
Medium
Steering
Group
Low
Ad-hoc
High
Via Subject
strands
working on
changes to
units.
Low
Via JISC
meetings/educ
ational
conferences/w
orkshops etc
Project
reporting via
Programme
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
Internal Stakeholders
Interest / stake
Importance
Employers in NW Region
Can benefit from this project
Low
Professional Bodies
Can learn about possible ways
forward in managing their CPD
and integrating with University eportfolios
Medium
e-Portfolio/PDP projects
Can learn about ways to integrate
Unit descriptors and
competences to support student
showcasing
Medium
Other curriculum design and delivery
projects
Share findings, engage in
discussion. share interest in tools,
approaches and resources
developed.
Share good practice, experience,
benefits of new approaches
Support for dissemination
Medium
Academy Subject Centres
JISC Regional support centres
Low
Low
Engagement
leader and
SRC website
and JISC
websites
Via project
team
engagement
with employers
Via project
team
engagement
with
Professional
Bodies
Via
PebblePad,
JISC
Programmes
and related
projects,
conferences
Via JISC
meetings
Project team
involvement
Contacted
them at JISC
conference
7. Risk Analysis
Risk
Staffing
Lose project manager
Lose team leader
Conflict within the project
Staff unable to commit as
promised
Difficulty in engaging professional
staff from outside the University
due to perceived approach of
engagement being culturally
alienating (e.g. Lawyers and
Accountants in baselining activity)
Insufficient resource to integrate eportfolio with transcripts
Difficulty in engaging professional
staff from outside the University
due to time constraints
Organisational
Page 10 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Prob Severity Score
(1-5)
(1-5)
(P x S)
Action to Prevent/Manage Risk
2
4
8
Ensure project management
documentation is up to date at all
times. Increase role of steering group
Find alternative dept contact
Resolve through steering group
Line manager sign-offs for staff relief
2
1
2
3
3
4
6
3
8
3
3
9
Re-think/renegotiate engagement to
match cultural expectations.
2
2
4
3
3
9
Involvement of senior staff in planning,
DVC as sponsor
Find ways to make the engagement as
efficient as possible and offer real
benefits
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
Restructuring
2
4
8
Slow turnaround for decisions
within MMU
Fail to embed change across
MMU
Poor co-operation from
professional bodies and employer
representatives
Poor co-operation from central
departments
Technical
Fail to find XML for competences
3
2
6
3
3
9
2
4
8
4
4
16
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
4
1
4
4
Plan for simple interface requiring
minimal changes to academic
database. Monitor Agresso
responsiveness closely. Letter of
support.
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Letter of support
Letter of support
Letters of support, clear scoping,
consortium agreements.
1
4
4
Letters of support, regular dialogue
with key contacts
2
4
8
Finance Dept to advise and review
budget. Wide dissemination of budget
for internal review
Indecision over institutional eportfolio platform
Fail to integrate XML with
PebblePad
Fail to integrate Academic
database with Competence
framework
External suppliers
Poor support from PebblePad
Poor support from Agresso
IPR Issues
Legal & Financial
Professional bodies seek
restrictions on competence
frameworks
Inadequate budget for required
work
Work through issues in project
management / steering group
Anticipate & plan, obtain high level
support from steering group
Top level steering group; explicit
attention given in plan
Letters of support, use of staff
experienced in working with
professional bodies
Senior staff involved in steering group
Preliminary work => unlikely
Project could negotiate hosted solution
for purposes of pilots. PebblePad
portfolios can be transferred to other
platforms.
Use PebblePad forms to prompt
Risks will be monitored weekly by the project manager. Any risk that arises becomes a will have its
status changed on the register and appropriate actions to mediate it will be investigated by the project
manager and relevant members of the project team. If the required solutions have significant knockon effects for the project they will be discussed with the principal investigator and if necessary
escalated to the chair of the steering group. Ongoing risks will be logged and monitored until they are
resolved.
8. Standards
Name of standard or
specification
HR-XML
XCRI-CAP
Page 11 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Version
2_5, possibly 3
1.1
Notes
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
9. Technical Development
All technical development work will be undertaken by software vendors (Agresso and PebblePad) or
by external providers. Some of this work may be charged for but we hope that some of it will be
undertaken free of charge because MMU is being used as test site to help the vendors develop
extensions to their software which other Universities will wish to use.
All work will be specified using a formal requirement initially. Progress will be reported on a regular
basis, to be specified in the requirement. Acceptance criteria such as functionality, usability, API/Web
Services will be specified.
Initial interview with CETIS have been undertaken. CETIS made some suggestions about other
projects to examine. There was a agreement about the validity of the approach being undertaken.
10. Intellectual Property Rights
All the project deliverables, reports and other relevant outputs will be published via the project website
and made freely available to the academic community. Where appropriate, materials will be offered to
relevant repositories (including JORUM and CloudWorks) to support wider dissemination and
sustainable access
MMU has a license to use the Agresso software and is in the process of obtaining licenses to use
PebblePad. All developments by Agresso and Pebble Pad will be the intellectual Property of those
companies. After discussions with both of these companies we have realised that any changes to the
software will be undertaken within the scope of the software license and we do not therefore need a
consortium agreement. Although there is the possibility of either software company ceasing to trade or
withdrawing support the effect on the University as a whole means that this is not an issue that SRC
needs to engage with.
The XML competency framework will be developed to provide an interface between Agresso and
PebblePad and will be developed using a Creative Commons license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/).
The consultants are working for MMU and as such all work they undertake belongs to MMU.
Project Resources
11. Project Partners
Software Vendor: PebblePAD
Will provide PebblePAD for use in the project and
undertake modifications of this software to
support the showcasing of student competences
by students and output of machine readable CVs
Shane Sutherland
Pebble Learning Ltd
e-Innovation Centre
University of Wolverhampton
Shifnal Road
Telford
TF2 9NT
Phone 01952 288300
Web: http://www.pebblepad.co.uk
Email: [email protected]
Software Vendor: Agresso
Will liaise with project to modify unit and
programme records I the academic database to
Page 12 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Colin Colegate
Riverside House
Normandy Road
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
store competence information
Swansea
SA1 2JA
Phone 01792 524524
Web: http://www.agresso.com/uk
Email: [email protected]
Consultant: Alan Paull
Process Modelling
Consultant: Helen Beetham
Evaluation
Alan Paull
APS Ltd, 58 Norton Wood
Forest Green
STROUD, GL6 0HG
Phone 01453 835009
Email: [email protected]
Helen Beetham
13 Huxham's Cross
Dartington
Devon TQ9 6NT
Phone 07866 360329
Email [email protected]
skype helenb33
Consultant: Simon Grant
HR-XML and competences
Simon Grant
Phone: 07710031657
Email: [email protected]
12. Project Management
The Deputy Vice Chancellor for Student Experience, Kevin Bonnett is the project sponsor and he will
chair the steering group, which contains two Pro-Vice Chancellors and the heads of several important
and relevant departments. The chair agrees to an external representative being invited to join the
steering group and is currently seeking a suitable candidate. The terms of reference, including
membership, are included in appendix C.
Page 13 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
The project manager will report on progress and finance to the steering group twice a year, and by
exception, any significant deviations from the project plan or significant issues that arise.
The project team will report by exception to the project manager and the core active members at any
point in time will meet as required. The exact timing and composition of these meetings will vary
according to need – consultation, sharing, discussion, brainstorming etc. Several members of our
project team work away from Manchester and we will therefore use telephone conferencing, video
conferencing, online discussions etc as best fits our need at the time. Other reporting will be done via
the project blog.
All exceptions and issues arising will be logged on the project web site. A regularly updated risk log
will be maintained on the web site.
We are in discussion with JISC InfoNet regarding support for facilitation of some workshops we are
running for the baselining activity. We have not identified any other training needs so far although this
may change quite rapidly. We are currently experimenting with Archimate following the Process
Review Workshop, and we are considering using the MSP stakeholder engagement approach.
Page 14 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
Project team
Peter Bird
Project Manager (50%)
[email protected]
David Bird
Digital Creative (20%)
[email protected]
Claire Hamshire
Physiotherapy (20%)
[email protected]
Nicola Whitton
Evaluation (12%)
[email protected]
Rod Cullen
PebblePad Advisor
(10%)
[email protected]
Rob Baker
Quality Enhancement
(10%)
[email protected]
Rachel Forsyth
CeLT – Quality
Enhancement/
Curriculum Design
(20%)
[email protected]
Edwina Higgins
Law (20%)
[email protected]
Jane Mathews
Law
Mandy Isles
Law
[email protected]
[email protected]
Denise Ashworth
Accounting & Finance
(20%)
[email protected]
Graeme Elgin
Accounting & Finance
[email protected]
Clare Guthrie
Accounting & Finance
[email protected]
Note that percentage effort figures are given as a proportion of an FTE utilisation. In the case of
contributions from Law and Accounting & Finance, the effort is shared amongst three staff.
13. Programme Support
No specific needs apparent at the moment.
14. Budget
A snapshot of the budget spreadsheet is provided in appendix A.
A copy of the excel spreadsheet is provided in order to allow detailed inspection.
The budget is substantially the same as the one submitted in the initial bid but now separates the
project and programme activities and makes clear the costs JISC contributes to.
Detailed Project Planning
15. Workpackages
See appendix B
Page 15 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
16. Evaluation Plan
See Appendix D – the plan is reproduced as a separate document as it is an SRC deliverable.
17. Quality Plan
Output
Timing
Project Web Site http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/src
Baseline Model in Archimate
Agreed responsiveness
measures for Process Review
Scenarios for Process
Review
Agile PARM Evaluation report
Agile PARM Model for
University
Competence Model for
University
Competence Framework
Evaluation report
Job Competences for Digital
Creative
DCI - Evaluation Report on
responsiveness of new Units
Evaluation Report &
recommendations on
competence-based delivery
of DCI units
Competence structure for
Page 16 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Quality
criteria
Usability
Content
coverage
Accuracy
Completeness
Realistic
Agreed
structure
Efficiency,
Overhead,
Completeness,
QE/QA
requirements
Scope is
sufficient for all
MMU courses,
Usability
(complexity)
Agreed
structure
Conformity
with
competence
model,
completeness
Agreed
structure
Agreed
structure
Conformity
QA
method(s)
Feedback
from project
team and
other
projects
Peer review
Validation
by
stakeholders
Peer review
Evidence
of
compliance
Quality
responsibilities
PB
RB/RF
RF
RF
Peer review
NW
Peer review
RF/RB
Peer review
(internal and
external)
??
Peer review
NW
Employer
and peer
review
DB
Peer review
NW
Peer review
NW
Peer review
CH
Quality
tools
(if
applicable)
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
Physiotherapy placements
Physiotherapy Placement
Log Evaluation Report
Professional Body
Competences for Financial
Services
Job Competences for FS
employers
Evaluation Report &
recommendations on
competence-based delivery
of FS units
Competence structure for
Financial Services
placements
Job competences for Law
employers
Evaluation Report &
recommendations on
competence-based delivery
of Law units
Report on consolidation
events 1,2&3
Formative feedback from
students about pilots using
competence-based
approaches
Usage figures of
competence-based aspects
of pilots
Student perception of value
of competence-based
approaches
Staff evaluation of
PebblePAD in delivery of
competence-based units
Staff evaluation of PARM
processes
Staff evaluation of employer
relations in light of
competence-based
approaches
Project Plan
Page 17 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
with
competence
model
Agreed
structure
Conformity
with
competence
model,
completeness
Conformity
with
competence
model,
completeness
Agreed
structure
Peer review
CH
Professional
Body and
peer review
DA
Employer
and peer
review
DA
Peer review
NW
Conformity
with
competence
model
Conformity
with
competence
model,
completeness
Agreed
structure
Peer review
DA
Employer
and peer
review
JM
Peer review
NW
Completeness,
Highlighting
important
issues
Accuracy
Peer review
PB
Validation
by students
NW
To be defined
Peer
decision
Project team
Accuracy
Validation
by students
NW
Accuracy
Validation
by staff
NW
Accuracy
Validation
by staff
Validation
by staff
NW
Approval by
JISC
Accuracy
Conformity
NW
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
Interim progress reports
Final Project Report
Responsibility Key
PB = Peter Bird
RF = Rachel Forsyth
DB = David Bird
with JISC
guidelines
Conformity
with JISC
guidelines
Conformity
with JISC
guidelines
JISC
Approval by
JISC
JISC
Approval by
JISC
JISC
RB = Rob Baker
DA = Denise Ashworth
NW = Nicola Whitton
CH = Claire Hamshire
JM = Jane Matthews
18. Dissemination Plan
Timing
September
09, 10, 11
Dissemination Activity
Internal Conference
2009
JISC/UK HEI community
workshop
Audience
Project team,
MMU staff, JISC
representatives
Curriculum
designers
Sept 2009
Paper submitted to CSP
Congress, Liverpool
Lecturers in
Physiothearpy
Regular
JISC Learning and
Teaching Experts Group
Meetings
UK Conference such as
ALT-C
HE community
Subject specific
developments in UK Centre
for legal Ed’n, Health
Sciences & Practice,
Business Management
Accouting & Finance., Art
Design & Media
Vists and calls to/from JISC
Regional Centre
UCISA (or similar group)
conference
Subject specific
lecturing staff
IT Managers
Integration of
MIS and
Learning support
JISC conference and JISC
online conference
Technical
innovators in e-
Use of
Competence
2009/2010
HEA
Subject
Centres
Regular
2010
2010
Page 18 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
E-learning
managers
Purpose
Sharing,
previewing,
planning
Competence
Framework
Sharing
approach and
obtaining
feedback
Reporting on
plans for
PebblePad trial
Sharing
experience and
good practice
Use of eportfolios
facilitated by
competences
Sharing
experience and
good practice
Key Message
Competences
focus student
showcasing
e-admin and
learning systems
need to be
designed
together
Use of
responsiveness
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
administration
2011
Employability/Professionally
focussed
conferences/publications in
four subject areas
Curriculum
designers,
course leaders,
professional
bodies
2009-2012
Project Reports
JISC/UK HEI
community
framework and
HR-XML to
support
responsiveness
Use of
competences to
support recording
of skills acquired
during
placements
General Project
awareness
measures to
focus design
From placement
to CPD, a
smooth transition
19. Exit and Sustainability Plans
Project Outputs
Competence framework
PARM Models
Action for Take-up & Embedding
Project to drive adoption within MMU
Project to drive adoption within MMU
Model for placement
management of acquired
skills
Internal dissemination
Project Outputs
Extensions to HRXML
Extensions to XCRI
to incorporate
competence
Why Sustainable
Of wider interest in
community. This is an
obvious extension
Wide interest in use
of XCRI within UK HE
Page 19 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Action for Exit
Dissemination during project
Invite interested parties to
inspect our revised processes
Publish paper or present at
conference to encourage wider
adoption
Scenarios for Taking
Forward
Work with HR-XML
community in developing
new standards
Work with XCRI team
Issues to Address
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
Appendix A. Project Budget
Directly incurred staff Proj: Peter Bird Rate
Proj: CdTeamLeader: David Bird
Proj: LpcTeamLeader: Edwina Higgins
Proj: FinTeamLeader: Denise Ashworth
Proj: PhysTeamLeader: Claire Hamshire
Proj: QaTeamLeader: Philip Lloyd
Proj: QaTeamL&T: Rachel Forsyth
Proj: EvalTeamInternal: Nicola Whitton
Proj: EpTeam: Rod Cullen
Aug08‐Jul09 Days Total Rate
Aug09‐Jul10 Days Total Rate Aug10‐Jul11 Days Total Rate Aug11‐Jul12 Days Total Prog: Peter Bird Prog: CdTeamLeader: David Bird
Prog: LpcTeamLeader: Edwina Higgins
Prog: FinTeamLeader: Denise Ashworth
Prog: PhysTeamLeader: Claire Hamshire
Prog: QaTeamLeader: Philip Lloyd
Prog: QaTeamL&T: Rachel Forsyth
Prog: EvalTeamInternal: Nicola Whitton
Prog: EpTeam: Rod Cullen
Total Directly Incurred Staff (A)
Non-Staff
Travel and expenses
Page 20 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Grand Total Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
Employer/PSRB workshops for 4 sectors
Total Project Costs (C+D+E) Percentage Contributions over life of project Page 21 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
JISC (37%) Partners (63%) Total (100%
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 1.0
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 23/6/09
Page 22 of 44
Document title: SRC Project Plan
Last updated: 22/06/2009
Project Acronym: SRC
Version:0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Appendix B. Workpackages
2008
Work Packages
1
PM - Initiate Project
2
PR - Review PARM Processes
3
PR - Develop Revised PARM Processes
4
PR - Plan Curriculum Repository and QA workflow design
5
PR - Pilot new PARM processes within 4 subject areas
6
PR - Embed competence models
7
IT - Plan Software Integration
8
IT - Develop Competences Framework
9
Q3
Q4
2009
Q1
Q2
Q3
2010
Q4
Q1
Q2
M1
M2
M3
M4
IT - Integrate PebblePAD
10
DCI - Collect Job Competence Requirements
11
DCI - Develop Role Competences and map to MMU Units
12
DCI - Gap analysis & design of new units
13
DCI - Plan delivery and incorporation of PebblePAD
14
DCI - Pilot new units with PebblePAD
15
PHY - Needs analysis and staff development
16
PHY - Prepare for use of PebblePAD to showcase competences
17
PHY - Pilot
18
PHY - Develop use of PebblePAD to support placements
19
PHY - Pilot use of PebblePAD to support placements
20
FS - Mapping Professional requirements to units
21
FS - Collect Employer preferences
22
FS - Review, rewrite and validate units
23
FS - Prepare for use of PebblePAD to showcase competences
Page 23 of 44
Document title: JISC Work Package
Last updated: April 2007
Q3
M5
M6
M7
2011
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2012
Q4
Q1
Q2
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
24
FS - Pilot
25
FS - Develop use of PebblePAD to support placements
26
FS - Pilot use of PebblePAD to support placements
27
LAW - Employer needs analysis and staff development
28
LAW - Prepare for use of PebblePAD to showcase competences
29
LAW - Pilot
30
LAW - Embedding - extension of approach
31
EVAL - Planning
32
EVAL - Baselining
33
EVAL - Consolidation event
34
EVAL –Formative Evaluation
35
EVAL - Summative Evaluation
37
Project Management
Project start date: 1/9/08
Project completion date: 31/5/12
Duration: 45 months
Page 24 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
Project Acronym: SRC
Version:0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
Earliest
start date
WORKPACKAGE 1: PM – Initiate Project
1/9/08
Latest
completion
date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
12/12/08
Objective: To ensure all stakeholders understand
the purpose of the project and have a shared
understanding of the plan.
1. MMU Kick-off meetings
4/11/08
4/11/08
2. JISC Kick-Off and Visit
14/10/08
28/10/08
3. Planning Meetings
6/11/08
26/11/08
4. Develop Project Plan
26/11/08
12/12/08
5. Set-up Steering group and arrange first meeting
17/11/08
12/12/08
6. Se up Project website and blog
14/10/08
17/11/08
WORKPACKAGE 2: PR - Review PARM Processes
1/10/08
Agreed Benefits
PB
PB
PB
Project Plan
M1
PB
PB
PB
http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/src
27/2/09
Objective: To review and achieve consensus about
current processes, baseline them and identify
agreed “responsiveness” measures.
7. Process review planning
1/11/08
15/12/08
8. Convert Covarm model to Archimate –
10/12/08
13/1/09
9. Workshop to review COVARM model of MMU
PARM processes and identify initial
“responsiveness measures” – requires Archimate
model of process as input.
16/1/09
27/2/09
Page 25 of 44
Document title: JISC Work Package
Last updated: April 2007
RF,PB,AP
AP
Baseline Model in Archimate
Agreed responsiveness measures for
Process Review
M2
PB,AP,RF
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
Workpackage and Activities
Earliest
start date
Latest
completion
date
WORKPACKAGE 3: PR - Develop Revised PARM
processes
15/11/08
19/6/09
10. Develop candidate scenarios to stimulate thinking
15/11/08
30/1/08
Scenarios for Process Review
RF,PB,AP
11. Workshop to stimulate thinking about new PARM
processes amongst relevant stakeholders
12. Review and Refine Scenarios
2/2/09
27/2/09
Evaluation Criteria for PARM,
RF,RB
2/3/09
27/3/09
Scenarios for Process Review
RF,RB
13. Develop formal process model (workflows)
30/3/09
15/5//09
Process Model
AP
14. Workshop to review process model with all
relevant stakeholders (Programme
teams,CASQE, FADC,CeLT)
15/5/09
19/6/09
Reviewed Process Model
RF,AP
1/7/09
31/12/09
1/1/09
31/1/09
Objective: To consult stakeholders about their
requirements and design a new process
WORKPACKAGE 4: PR – Plan & Prototype
Curriculum Repository and PARM workflow design
Objective: To plan storage of unit/programme
details with competences and prototype PARM
workflows to support review of new units
15. Plan software infrastructure
16. Prototype curriculum repository
NF,SG,MS
Repository
NF,SG
17. Set-up prototype PARM workflows
Documented workflows
NF,AP
18. Test & review curriculum repository and PARM
workflows
Internal review report
NF,RB
Page 26 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
WORKPACKAGE 5: PR - Pilot new PARM processes
within 4 subject areas
Earliest
start date
Latest
completion
date
1/10/09
29/9/11
1/10/09
30/9/10
1/10/09
29/9/11
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
Objective: To pilot revised PARM and improve as
necessary
19. Seek approval for new units and programmes
using new PARM processes
20. Evaluate new PARM processes
21. Propose changes
DB,CH,JM,DA
Agile PARM Evaluation report
M4
NW
Recommendations for PARM
RF,RB
Competence Model for University
Competence Model for University
PB,CH,JM,DA,
DB
RF,RB
Plan of interfaces
MS,NF, SG,PB
22. Disseminate and train
WORKPACKAGE 6: PR – Embed Competence models
1/10/10
30/9/11
Objective: Embed Institutional protocol for
curriculum skill mapping
23. Document combined experience of 4 subject
areas
24. Review and seek approval for adoption
25. Disseminate and train
WORKPACKAGE 7: IT – Plan Software Integration
5/1/09
13/2/09
5/1/09
13/2/09
Objective: To plan the integration of PebblePAD,
Academic Database, Competence Framework, and
HR-XML.
Planning
Page 27 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
Earliest
start date
Latest
completion
date
WORKPACKAGE 8: IT - Develop Competences
Framework
5/1/09
27/8/10
5/1/09
27/3/09
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
Objective: To develop a generic representation for
competences and implement a version of this in
XML that is integrated with the Student records
system and can be maintained and searched
26. Identify requirements
27. Develop electronic representation
6/4/09
26/6/09
XML representation
PB,CH,JM,DA,
DB,RF,SG
SG
28. Specify Student records Interface to competence
framework
29. Modify Student Records System
5/1/09
29/1/09
QLS – CF interface Requirements
NF,SG
1//2/09
28//5/09
Updated QLS
Agresso
30. Specify and implement maintenance and search
interface
31. Review representation and usage
6/4/09
25/9/09
??
5/4/10
28/5/10
32. Refine system
28/5/10
27/8/10
Tools for management of repository of
competence tagged units
Competence Framework Evaluation
report
Competence Framework Management
Tools
WORKPACKAGE 9: IT – Integrate PebblePAD
5/1/09
27/8/10
Objective: To agree PebblePAD interface
requirements and negotiate implementation
33. Identify and specify requirements for integration
with QLS, and output of HR-XML and support for
competences within PebblePAD environment
34. Negotiate implementation with PebblePAD
5/1/09
27/3/09
MS, NF, SG
6/4/09
1/5/09
PB, MS
35. Further work to test and review changes
4/5/09
27/8/10
??
Page 28 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Draft Competence framework
NW
??
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
Earliest
start date
Latest
completion
date
WORKPACKAGE 10: DCI - Collect Job
Competence Requirements
1/09/08
24/4/09
36. Develop ProDev day
1/9/08
12/11/08
37. Establish employer contacts
1/09/08
38. Develop competences collation tool
3/11/08
39. Interview employers
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
Objective: To identify DCI job roles and associated
competences
DB
28/11/08
Development day for students and
employers
List of employers to be interviewed
12/12/08
Competence collation tool
DB
5/1/08
24/4/08
Company briefing, Jobs list and
competences required
DB
30/3/09
26/6/09
40. Identify staff from departments who teach in this
area
41. Develop role definitions for DCI
30/3/09
15/5/09
List of participating course leaders
DB
30/3/09
15/5/09
Job Competences for Digital Creative
DB
42. Map role training requirements to MMU units
4/5/09
26/6/09
Competence audit
DB + staff from
relevant
departments
WORKPACKAGE11: DCI - Develop Role
Competences and map to MMU Units
DB
DB
Objective: To develop role definitions in terms of
competences and map to MMU Units
Page 29 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
WORKPACKAGE 12: DCI - Gap analysis &
design of new units
Earliest
start date
29/6/09
Latest
completion
date
26/3/10
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
M5
DB + staff from
relevant
departments
Objective: To Identify gaps in MMU provision and
design new units to meet those needs
43. Gap analysis & design of new units
WORKPACKAGE 13: Plan delivery and use of
PebblePAD
New units to support the DCI
29/3/10
25/6/10
Objective: To develop plan for delivery of new
units
44. Unit planning – delivery mode/ content/
assessment/ interaction/ communication
WORKPACKAGE 14: DCI - Pilot new units with
PebblePAD
1/9/10
Delivery plans
DB
Formative Evaluation Report see work
package 34
DB + staff from
relevant
departments ,
NW
30/3/12
Objective: To deliver new units for DCI
45. Teach new units using PebblePAD to support
reflection on practice and showcasing of
competences acquired
WORKPACKAGE 15: PHY - Needs analysis and
staff development
Page 30 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
6/10/08
19/12/08
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
Earliest
start date
Latest
completion
date
46. Needs analysis
6/10/08
14/11/08
47. Staff development workshops
27/10/08
19/12/08
WORKPACKAGE 16: PHY - Prepare for use of
PebblePAD to showcase competences
6/10/08
25/7/09
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
Objective: To identify training requirements and
deliver suitable training in use of competences
and PebblePAD
CH
Trained staff
CH
Objective: To develop unit mapping, pro-formas,
evaluation plan and provide staff support
48. Curriculum development
6/10/08
25/7/09
49. Development of programme pro-formas
6/10/08
25/7/09
CH
PebblePAD pro-formas
CH
50. Development of administrative processes
6/10/08
25/7/09
CH
51. Formative evaluation and monitoring
5/1/09
25/7/09
CH
52. Usability testing
5/1/09
28/3/09
CH
53. Ongoing staff support
6/10/08
2/10/09
CH
54. Implementation plan
6/10/08
2/10/09
WORKPACKAGE 17: PHY – Pilot
21/9/09
Implementation plan
M6
15/4/11
Objective: To pilot the use of PebblePAD to
support undergraduate Physiotherapy students
and evaluate
55. Run Pilot
Page 31 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
21/9/09
15/4/11
Formative Evaluation Report see work
CH & Course
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
WORKPACKAGE 18: PHY - Develop use of
PebblePAD to support placements
Earliest
start date
5/4/10
Latest
completion
date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
package 34
Milestone
Responsibility
team, NW
1/10/10
Objective: To identify requirements and develop
PebblePAD resources to support students and
employers in recording and checking for
development of new competences during
placement activities
56. Identify requirements for placement activity
recording
57. Develop competence structures and PebblePAD
pro-formas to record student activity on
placements
WORKPACKAGE 19: PHY - Pilot use of
PebblePAD to support placements
Competence structure for placements
PebblePAD pro-formas
26/9/10
CH & course
team
CH & course
team
15/4/11
Objective: To use and evaluate PebblePAD in
support of placement activity recording
58. Run Pilot
WORKPACKAGE 20: FS - Mapping Professional
requirements to units and seeking exemptions
Objective: To map professional requirements for
three professional bodies and agree required
Page 32 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Physiotherapy Placement Log
Formative Evaluation Report see work
package 34
Refined PebblePAD pro-formas
1/12/08
26/6/09
CH & Course
team/NW
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Milestone
Responsibility
Earliest
start date
Latest
completion
date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
59. Identify required competences for Securities and
Investment Institute (SII), Chartered Insurance
Institute (CII) and Association of Accounting
Technicians (AAT) and map to units in Financial
Services.
60. Negotiation of exemptions and required changes
with professional bodies
1/12/08
27/3/09
Professional Body Competences for
Financial Services
CG,GE
30/3/09
26/6/09
Plan for changes/new units
CG,GE,DA
WORKPACKAGE 21: FS - Collect employer
Preferences
22/2/09
15/5/09
61. Identify suitable employers
22/2/09
20/3/09
62. Design data collection
22/2/09
20/3/09
Workpackage and Activities
changes to programmes.
Objective: To identify and classify employers
preferences for professional body exemptions and
competences in our students
63. Collect data from employers
WORKPACKAGE 22: FS Review, rewrite and
validate units
CG,GE
DA
CG,GE
Job Competences for FS employers
5/10/09
CG,GE,DA
25/6/10
Objective: To develop new units to meet
professional body and employers requirements
64. Review and rewrite units
65. Validate new units
Page 33 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
New validated units
M7
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
Earliest
start date
Latest
completion
date
WORKPACKAGE 23: FS - Prepare for use of
PebblePAD to showcase competences
4/1/10
17/9/10
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
Objective: To develop unit mapping, pro-formas,
evaluation plan and provide staff support
66. Implementation plan
20/9/10
15/4/11
67. Run Pilot
20/9/10
15/4/11
WORKPACKAGE 25: FS - Develop use of
PebblePAD to support placements
3/1/11
24/6/11
WORKPACKAGE 24: FS – Pilot
Implementation plan
CG,GE,DA
Formative Evaluation Report see work
package 34
DA, Course
team & NW
Objective: To pilot the use of PebblePAD to
support undergraduate Physiotherapy students
and evaluate
Objective: To identify requirements and develop
PebblePAD resources to support students and
employers in recording and checking for
development of new competences during
placement activities
68. Identify requirements for placement activity
recording
69. Develop competence structures and PebblePAD
pro-formas to record student activity on
placements
Page 34 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
CG,GE,DA
Competence structure for Financial
Services placements
PebblePAD pro-formas
CG,GE,DA
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
Earliest
start date
Latest
completion
date
WORKPACKAGE 26: FS - Pilot use of PebblePAD
to support placements
1/8/11
28/4/12
70. Run Pilot
1/8/11
28/4/12
WORKPACKAGE 27: LAW – Employer needs
analysis and staff development
5/1/09
31/7/09
71. Collect employer requirements
5/1/09
72. Staff development
5/1/09
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
Objective: To use and evaluate PebblePAD in
support of placement activity recording
Financial Services Placement Log
Summative Evaluation Report see
work package 35
Refined PebblePAD pro-formas
CH & Course
team,NW
31/7/09
Job competences for Law employers
JM
31/7/09
Trained staff
JM
Objective: To identify training requirements and
deliver suitable training in use of competences
and PebblePAD
Short report on Evidence gathering with
Housing and Welfare Benefits placement
– looking at Reflection on work
experience and hwo we will use that with
PP in future
WORKPACKAGE 28: LAW - Prepare for use of
PebblePAD to showcase competences
Objective: To develop unit mapping, pro-formas,
evaluation plan and provide staff support
Page 35 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
6/10/08
31/7/09
Comment [MMU1]: Reformulated
version of competences to provide
scaffolding for pervasive units
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Workpackage and Activities
73. Curriculum development
5/1/09
Latest
completion
date
31/7/09
74. Development of programme pro-formas &
exemplars
75. Development of administrative processes
5/1/09
31/7/09
5/1/09
31/7/09
76. Develop student training
5/1/09
31/7/09
77. Ongoing staff support
6/10/08
2/10/09
78. Implementation plan
6/10/08
31/7/09
31/3/09
15/4/11
WORKPACKAGE 29: LAW – Pilot
Earliest
start date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports
in bold)
PebblePAD pro-formas
Exemplar webfolio
Milestone
Responsibility
JM
JM
Training materials
JM
JM
Implementation plan
M8
JM
Objective: To pilot the use of PebblePAD to
support undergraduate Law students and evaluate
79. Mini Pilot – Housing & Welfare benefits
6/4/09
1/5/09
Formative feedback
MI, NW
80. Main Pilot – Professional Conduct & Business
Law and Practice
21/9/09
15/4/11
Formative Evaluation Report see work
package 34
JM & Course
team, NW
5/7/10
24/3/12
WORKPACKAGE 30: LAW – Embedding extension of approach
Objective: To make case for extending this
approach to student showcasing to other areas of
the faculty
81. Develop Case Study
82. Disseminate
83. Support other teams
Page 36 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
WORKPACKAGE 31: EVAL - Planning
Objective: To plan evaluation activities and
establish evaluation criteria
84. Evaluation planning
10/11/08
27/2/08
WORKPACKAGE 32: EVAL - Baselining
23/2/09
1/5/09
85. 4 Subject area workshops with programme teams,
students and employers, interviews with staff,
Process Review, use of competences.
23/2/09
1/5/09
WORKPACKAGE 33: EVAL - Consolidation event
1/9/09
30/9/11
86. Year 1 event
1/9/09
30/9/09
87. Year 2 event
1/9/10
30/9/10
88. Year 3 event
1/9/11
30/9/11
WORKPACKAGE 34: EVAL – Formative Evaluation
5/10/09
21/4/12
Evaluation plan
M9
NW
Objective: To baseline current situation
HB,NW,PB
Baseline report
Objective: To run a annual 1-day event to provide
a clear project milestone for dissemination, to
support sharing of progress and to establish
common understanding of future work. Essentially
an internal event but with an invited speaker and
JISC representation
Objective: To evaluate staff, student and employer
Page 37 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Online records of event activities and
presentations
Online records of event activities and
presentations
Online records of event activities and
presentations
M10
PB
M11
PB
M12
PB
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
experience
89. Student evaluation
5/10/09
21/4/12
WORKPACKAGE 35: EVAL – Summative
Evaluation
5/10/09
21/4/12
90. Staff evaluation
5/10/09
21/4/12
WORKPACKAGE 36: Project Management
1/9/08
28/4/12
91. Monitor and control work packages
1/9/08
28/4/12
92. Liaise with JISC
1/9/08
28/4/12
93. Co-ordinate steering group
1/9/08
28/4/12
Report/presentation to project team, see
Appendix D for details
NW
Report to JISC, see Appendix D for
details of outputs
NW
Project plan
Interim progress reports
Final project report
PB
Objective: To evaluate staff, student and employer
experience
Objective: To manage the scope, time and cost of
the SRC project in order to deliver agreed
deliverables
PB
Steering Group minutes
Members of Project Team
PB = Peter Bird
RF = Rachel Forsyth
DB = David Bird
CH = Claire Hamshire
JM = Jane Matthews
Page 38 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
MI = Mandy Isles
DA = Denise Ashworth
GE = Graeme Eldon
CG = Claire Guthrie
NW = Nicola Whitton
AP = Alan Paull
SG = Simon Grant
HB = Helen Beetham
NF = Nigel Farmer
MS = Mark Stubbs
PB
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Page 39 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym: SRC
Version:0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Appendix C. Draft Steering group Terms of Reference
Main Objective
To provide strategic guidance to the SRC (Supporting Responsive Curricula) project in order that it
remains responsive to the needs of JISC and MMU and works to deliver the outputs of the project
plan.
Terms of Reference
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Steer and guide the project
Review progress and outputs
Reflect on progress and request changes to the plan as required
Review outcomes and their impact on the community
Advise the project team
Represent the interests of the project partners
Agree important decisions and changes to plan
Discuss risks, problems, and issues, explore solutions, and identify any that should be
escalated to the JISC programme manager
Membership
The Steering Group will by chaired by Kevin Bonnett (or his nominee)
• Mark Stubbs (Principal Investigator, Head of Learning and Research Technologies)
• Peter Bird (Project Manager)
• Huw Morris (PVC MLE)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ann Holmes (PVC Learning and Teaching)
Phil Range (Head of LRIS)
Alexander Thorley (Director Student Services)
Penny Renwick (Employability Champion)
Nigel Farmer (Head Planning and Management Information)
Philip Lloyd (Head of Centre for Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement (CASQE))
Robert Ready (Head of CeLT)
Alan Dove (Director of PMI)
•
Jan Moore (Head of Careers)
Co-opted members
•
With the agreement of all members, the Chair may invite outside individuals to meetings in
order to provide a source of expert opinion on a chosen topic.
Frequency of meetings
•
The steering group will meet twice a year with the dates of each meeting agreed at the first
meeting of the year.
Page 40 of 44
Document title: JISC Work Package
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym: SRC
Version:0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
Appendix D: SRC Evaluation Plan
The aim of the evaluation is to determine the degree to which the project aim has been achieved
throughout the duration of the project, and to provide formative feedback throughout to help ensure
success. The evaluation will have a particular focus on trying to gain an understanding of the softer
people-centred and cultural aspects of the project.
The project aim is to:
increase the responsiveness of MMU’s curriculum design process for equipping learners with
high-level skills and competences valued by employers and professional bodies.
The project aims to achieve the following objectives, to:
•
•
•
•
•
improve the employability of MMU graduates;
improve employer and professional body engagement with the curriculum design process;
increase synergy between courses offered and the needs of business;
improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the design/modification and approval of new
programmes and units within MMU;
change in focus of unit and programme definitions, across the university, towards a greater
emphasis on competences.
There are three core activities that form the evaluation plan and are described in this document:
baselining, consolidation activities and evaluation activities.
Each part of the evaluation will focus on three key groups of stakeholders: employers (including
professional bodies), staff (including course teams, central support staff, and university management)
and students. For each of these three groups, the following themes will be explored in order to
address the question of the degree to which the aim and objectives of the project are successful:
•
•
•
•
Systems – processes, policies and procedures.
Technologies – specifications, implementations and usability.
Curricula – frameworks and course design.
Cultures – working practices, attitudes, beliefs and shared understandings.
Baselining
The baseline report aims to provide a snapshot of where the project starts from and will address the
following questions:
1. What can be understood by ‘responsive curriculum’ in different contexts?
2. What are the issues and challenges that are faced in terms of developing a ‘responsive
curriculum’ with the relevant processes, systems and institutional cultures as they stand?
3. How could changes in ‘responsive curriculum’ be evidenced?
It will consider questions in the four themes:
•
•
Systems – What are the relevant processes, policies and procedures? What strategies exist
to support (or hinder) these processes (e.g. Learning & Teaching Strategy, use of CASQE
procedures)? How does the documented system reflect what actually happens? What are the
relevant processes, practices and problems perceived by stakeholders? How do systems
currently influence practice (positively or negatively)? How do systems influence information
flow?
Technologies – Where are we now? What facilities do we need in place (e.g. how could
technologies facilitate staff searching for competencies and students showcasing
Page 41 of 44
Document title: JISC Work Package
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
•
•
competences?). Where might these join existing technologies, and in what ways? How do
technologies currently influence practice (positively or negatively) and information flow?
Curricula – How are competency-based frameworks currently being used in the relevant
departments at MMU? What policies exist? What are the issues? How do curricula currently
influence practice (positively or negatively)?
Cultures – What do people expect ‘responsive curricula to be’? What issues and challenges
might arise from the attitudes and beliefs of the stakeholders in the relevant departments?
How do cultural aspects currently influence practice (positively or negatively)?
There will be four activities carried out in order to complete the project baseline.
•
•
•
•
Document and review existing course approval procedures.
Subject area workshops, which will be held in each of the four subject areas (with
representatives from the employers, staff and student groups) and will explore notions of
‘responsiveness’.
Interviews with key stakeholders:
o 6–8 30-minute telephone interviews with senior staff / middle management (e.g.
University Registrar, Director of LRIS, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellors,
Head of CeLT, Director of Student Services, Head of ICTS, Head of CASQE).
o 6–8 30-minute face-to-face interviews with faculty and central staff (e.g. people who
have undertaken a recent review or minor modifications, FADC Chair, Quality Officer,
Head of Department, central support staff).
Responsiveness Workshop examining current conceptions of responsiveness in curriculum
development and considering a range of proposed scenarios.
Consolidation activities
Three one-day annual events will take place (at the start of each of the academic years 2009/10,
2010/11, 2011/12). The purpose of these events is to share progress, disseminate findings and
ensure clear and coherent vision among stakeholders. They will take the form of a conference, with
the potential to invite external contributions as well as key players within the project and the university.
These events also offer the opportunity for the evaluation team to collect additional data from those
present (e.g. through observations, informal interviews, session participation) as well as providing a
forum for dissemination of findings from the formative evaluations that have taken place so far, and a
place to gain feedback from the participants on the evaluation itself.
These annual events will also be used as an opportunity to engage with other sections of the
institution that are not directly involved with the project and to gather additional data on the
transferability of the project implantation across the university and in other disciplines.
Evaluation
The evaluation plan will focus on the ‘SRC in a nutshell diagram’ (below) and will examine the
overarching objectives of the project in relation to the three vertices (employers, course teams/staff
and students) and the four themes identified (systems, technologies, curricula and cultures).
The main evaluation will be iterative and formative, with the opportunity for the evaluation to feedback
into the project as it progresses, through the consolidation activities and interim reports that will be
produced each year. A final summative evaluation will take place towards the end of the forth year.
Page 42 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
A summary of evaluation activities throughout the project can be seen in the chart below:
2008
Q3
Q4
2009
Q1
Q2
Q3
2010
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2011
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2012
Q4
Q1
Planning
Baselining
Consolidation events
Formative evaluation
Summative evaluation
The following evaluation activities will take place in each evaluation phase (2 formative, 1 summative):
•
Qualitative data. Examining the four areas of systems, technologies, curricula and cultures in
relation to the notion of ‘responsiveness’.
o Student experience. 4 focus groups (3–5 students in each), one for each discipline,
and a student questionnaire.
o Staff experience. 6–8 30-minute face-to-face interviews (or focus groups if possible),
with at least one staff member from each discipline.
o Employer experience. 6–8 30-minute telephone interviews, with at least one
employer from each discipline.
•
Quantitative data (where available).
o Data on student career progression and historical career progression for each
discipline.
o Data on course enrolments.
o Current and historical data on the frequency and richness of employer engagement.
o Number of courses defined in terms of competences.
•
Document analysis.
o Mapping of offerings against identified high-level competence frameworks.
o Analysis of documented processes as they evolve – PARM/Curriculum design
processes?.
o Analysis of marketing materials produced.
The way in which these activities will be used to address the success of the project objectives is
shown in the table below. From the initial baselining activities we expect to obtain a set of
Page 43 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Q2
Project Acronym: SRC
Version: 0.1
Contact: Peter Bird
Date: 1/12/08
‘responsiveness’ measures that relate to each of the these factors and will be used to identify the
questions to ask and the measures of success in the formative and summative evaluations.
Factor to Evaluate
Improvement in the employability of MMU graduates.
Improvement in employer and professional body engagement with the
curriculum design process.
Increased synergy between courses offered and the needs of
business.
Improvement in the efficiency and responsiveness of the
design/modification and approval of new programmes and units within
MMU.
Change in the focus of unit and programme definitions, across the
university, towards a greater emphasis on competences.
Page 44 of 44
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Method(s)
Student focus groups and
interviews.
Employer interviews.
Career progression and
course enrolment data.
Employer interviews.
Employer engagement and
course competence data.
Employer interviews.
Competence framework
mapping.
Staff interviews.
Process analysis.
Student focus groups and
interviews.
Staff interviews.
Course competence data.
Marketing material analysis.