HEIDS

Higher Education Information Directors in Scotland

Minutes of HEIDS Meeting 
Held on Wednesday 14 February 2001

Queen Margaret University College
Edinburgh

Present:-

Chair		Tom Mortimer		Queen Margaret University College		TM
Secretary	Paul Dean		Napier University				PD

Malcolm Bain		University of St Andrews			MB
Jim Buchan		Northern College				JB
Stuart Brough		University of Strathclyde 			SB
		Pamela Chambers	UHI						PC
Robert Craig		Digital Scotland/SLIC				RC
Stewart Gardner	University of Abertay				SG
Brian Gilmore		University of Edinburgh			BG
Bill Harvey		SHEFC/Digital Scotland			BH
David Hawley		University of Aberdeen			DH
Gerry Macaulay	University of Paisley				GM
Linda McCormick	University of Glasgow			LM
Richard Murphy	University of Dundee				RM
Tony Osborne		University of Stirling				TO
Jean Ritchie		SHEFC C&IT					JR

1.	Apologies
Peter Kemp		University of Stirling				PK 
Andrew McCreath	Robert Gordon University			AM
John McKay		Glasgow School of Art			JM
Graham Prior		University of Aberdeen			GP
David Rundell 	Heriot-Watt University			DR
Tony Shaw		University of Paisley 				TS
Ian White		Glasgow Caledonian University		IW

2.	Minutes of Previous Meeting
The minutes were accepted as accurate. 

3.	Matters arising
Due to other commitments TM had neither been able to invite Bell College to join HEIDS or attend a meeting of JNUG as the SNIJUG representative.    
Action:-  TM

BG had circulated the result of the COSHEP discussion on re-procurement.

Only 2 members had responded to BG’s request for interest in taking up Microsoft’s offer of setting up an event to discuss closer working.  If we want the event members need to express an interest hence BG will send a reminder to the HEIDS list
Action:- BG/Members

4. 	MAN Re-procurement

	a) The Interconnect
JB summarised progress with the re-procurement of the interconnect:-	
•	The RFI has been completed and was circulated to 5 suppliers during February.  It was also circulated to SMCG members.
•	Clarifications meeting with suppliers start next week.
•	RFI responses are due back on 14 March 2001. 
•	Despite some earlier slippage the project is now on time.

The following points were discussed:-
•	BH asked when the costs of this procurements would be known so decisions could be made on funding available for the re- procurement of the individual MANS.  This information will not be available until the ITT stage.
•	The cost of keeping the ATM based service functioning has been discussed.

b) Individual MANs
The situation in each MAN was reported as follows:- 
•	FATMAN is about to issue an RFI following comments from its FE partners.
Circulate RFI to HEIDS
ACTION MB 
•	ClydeNET are preparing to go direct to ITT.
•	EaStMAN are discussing options with suppliers.
•	AbMAN thought to be preparing to go direct to ITT.
•	UHI’s plans are uncertain at this stage due to possible change of status.

The following points were discussed:-
•	It is currently difficult for institutions to plan for the expected expenditure.  The question was raised as to how institutions are planning for this.
•	There are likely to be more viable suppliers at the individual MAN level than for the interconnect.
•	Overall available ‘central funding’ may increase due to Digital Scotland and the FE situations.   This situation should be clearer by the end of March but if decisions slip it could be complicate by the tendering process.
•	A further complication may be the speed of connection funded for FE.  Currently this is 2 mbps in Scotland.  It was noted that Wales are moving to 8 mbps in their re-procurement.  The 34 mbps connection at UHI  FE colleges may be a complication.  Urgent guidance from SFC would be appreciated here.
•	Discussion took place over which speeds were available at economical prices, i.e. 2 and 155 mbps by cable with a 34 mbps option via microwave. 
•	Discussion took place over whether the aim of providing a consistent speed of provision was practical considering distance and different service availability in town and country.
•	It was felt that the re-procurement timetable would become very difficult if more than HE and FE become involved.  Supporting schools was felt to a particular complication due to the involvement of LEAs.
•	MANs cannot progress until it is known how much SHEFC funding is available after the re-procurement of the interconnect.
•	The relative roles of SMCG and the individual MAN management groups was discussed. 

5.	Digital Scotland
RC summarised progress with the Digital Scotland project:-
•	BH and DC have both been seconded to work for the Scottish Executive on this project. 
•	The Scottish Executive regard this as their most important objective as it complements both their life long learning and social inclusion agendas.
•	A major announcement is expected from the Executive during March, i.e. well before any general election.
•	Discussions on infrastructure provision have taken place with a number of bodies including telecommunication suppliers and UKERNA.
•	HE and FE are likely to form the core. 
•	It is not clear whether a single physical network is required or a set of collaborating but sector based networks may be more suitable.
•	The value of ‘content’ versus ‘infrastructure’ seems to be under estimated.
•	It is not yet clear who would manage a procurement.
•	As well as the timing problems for the HE MAN re-procurement exercise there are complication for roll out of the Library network. 
•	The NHS is not currently involved in the project.

The following points were discussed:-
•	The best solution may be for the MANs to extend their current contracts for 6 to 12 months to allow the situation to become clearer.  There may be contractual complications for some MANs.  Also it may be longer before the situation is clearer.
•	The schools requirement is very different to the HE one as it involves setting up large content rich Intranets but with only small gateways to the Internet.  The involvement of LEAs is also an issue.
•	While the ambitions of Digital Scotland are certainly highly desirable there was some scepticism as to whether the Scottish Executive could adequately fund the network.
•	A similar project is about to start for England. 
•	If the HE re-procurement is based on dark fibre it could be upgraded to support other sector by only changing the equipment.
•	It was felt that as long as their is a decision in March (preferably before SMCG on 22nd) we can reassess our re-procurement.  Otherwise the impact of the general election may delay the project considerably in which case HE/FE will have to re-procure independently.

6.	Other MAN Issues
a) SMCG 
Many of the issues discussed by SMCG have already been covered under MAN re-procurement but specific SMCG points:-
•	SMCG has agreed that the interconnect will stays part of JANET.
•	SMCG has agreed that SMVCN should continue.
•	All MAN convenors have confirmed the authority of their institutions representatives on the individual MAN management groups in writing with their respective Principals.  In all cases authority has been confirmed but not the commitment of funds. 
•	SMCG will reconsider its membership as it accepted that the group has now become too large. 
•	FE are lobbying for more representation during the re-procurement exercise. 
•	It was confirmed that HEIDS wants its Chairman to remain a member of SMCG. 

Issues related to the new RPAN contract were discussed:- 
•	It is felt the contract is one sided in favour of UKERNA.
•	The UK MANs group has consulted an English lawyer who has advised that institutions should not sign the current contract.
•	UKERNA have agreed that a Scottish lawyer will be engaged to give a view on the new contracts.
•	Timing is becoming a problem as the contract should have been signed in quarter 1 but it is now likely to be at least September before it can be signed. 
•	Perhaps the funding councils need to look gain at how these Funding Council/JISC/UKERNA/Institution relationships should work as they are becoming too complex for what are basically collaborating rather than business relationships.
•	There is still concern over the costs of institutions providing 24 by 7 service support particularly as they are not convinced of the requirement. Committing contractually rather than on a best endeavours basis is difficult due to institution staff contracts. (There are some real situations in England that do require a contract.)
•	There was a concern that UKERNA are ‘telling us how to do it’ rather than providing what we, as the customer,  ‘require’.
•	The contract is less of a problem where MANs are set up as companies. 

Other UKERNA related issues were discussed:-
•	UKERNA do require all institutions to sign the SLA as they must re-sign their SLA with the JISC on an annual basis.

b) MAN Reports
No reports other than as already covered under re-procurement.

7. 	Business of Related Groups
a) SHEFC
An interim document evaluating recent C&IT projects is being prepared for the Funding Council.  When the projects are finished JR will produce an objective report.

b) Universities Scotland
TO referred members to the note circulated by PK prior to the meeting.
It was confirmed that MANs are the only projects for which Principals will support top slicing.

c) JISC
BH reported:-
•	The overall JISC budget has been increased due to FE being incorporated.
•	The 5 year strategy is nearly complete. 
•	Follet is carrying out a ‘governance review’ of the JISC and will confidentially report back to the funding councils in March.
•	With the addition of FE it is now felt that the JISC membership has become too large hence a plan is being prepared for a new reduced membership.
 
d) SCONET
No activity at present.

e) RSC
It was reported that:-
•	A joint launch of the two Scottish RSCs is planned to take place at Stirling in May.
•	The current priority for the RSCs is to complete network connections. 
•	There have been complications with the DNS as colleges move from commercial ISPs to JANET. 
•	The 2 Scottish RSC Managers have developed a good collaborative working relationship. 
•	The JISC RSC Co-ordinator is organising meetings for RSC Managers on a 2 weekly basis.  Although the meetings are worthwhile they are  proving too much of an overhead particularly for the Scottish RSC Managers. In addition the travel was not budgeted for.  It was proposed that the meeting should be available via video conferencing.

8. 	Reports of Meetings Attended
	
Nothing to report except as already covered.

TM requested that a summary of the imminent UCISA Management Conference should be presented at the next meeting.
ACTION Member attending UCISA

9. 	Any Other Competent Business
	a) Virtual Learning Environment

MB Raised the subject of Virtual Learning Environments as the University of St Andrews are reviewing their approach, comments were:-
•	QMUC are standardising on Web CT although the approach is fragmented
•	The University of Stirling has also adopted Web CT.
•	Some institutions are using multiple products. 
•	UCISA are planning to run MLA/VLE event. ALT are also planning an event.
•	JR and Susie Peacock of QMUC will survey all Scottish HE to establish what progress institutions have and are planning to make..

	b) Charging for Class Use of PCs
RM reported the University of Dundee is now charging (£1 per PC per hour) for class use of centrally managed PC clusters.  RM asked whether other members had any similar plans.  No other institutions had or were planning similar actions. 

	c) Computer Thefts
It was noted that there have been some more recent thefts which appear to be ‘copycat’ incidents due to changes in approach.

10.	Dates & Locations of Next Meeting

	2 May 2001 		University of Strathclyde (Ross Priory, Loch Lomond)

Late August 		Location to be agreed