Mission Group perspectives 

There were sufficient responses from each of the four university mission groups to permit comparison of the results from each group’s perspective. There were twelve responses from the Russell Group (60%), ten from Million+ (37%), thirteen from the 1994 Group (68%) and eleven from institutions in the University Alliance (48%). In addition there were twenty responses from non-aligned institutions.

The top ranked concerns from the combined results for each of the groups are broadly the same and are comparable with the overall top 12. The effect of the current financial climate and the pressures on ensuring that institutions deliver well planned quality IT services are being felt across the whole sector with Ongoing funding and sustainable resourcing of IT,  Delivering services under severe financial constraint, Providing a quality, resilient service and IT Strategy and planning all receiving similar high rankings from all mission groups.

However, beyond these four concerns there is greater variation between the groups from the different perspectives.  Some of these differences might be expected but the reasons behind others are not obvious.

It is not surprising that institutions with a significant research profile or those with HPCs rank Data centres as an issue requiring the most resource (human and/or fiscal).   The Russell Group’s ranking is 3^rd, and the 1994 Group’s 7^th. Additionally Data centres is ranked 4^th by the University Alliance Group as a major consumer of resource. Whilst the cost of data centres may be recognised, the 1994 Group are the only group to identify Research Support as an issue requiring significant resource, ranking it as their 4^th highest concern.     

All mission groups are spending time on Benchmarking, costing and value for money.  The Russell Group however, is the only group not to rank it as a future concern. This is possibly could be because the Russell Group of IT Directors (RUGIT) is already active in this area.  

The use of technology in teaching ranks highly as strategically important, time-consuming and resource-intensive for all mission groups.  Interestingly, however it is not given as a future concern by any of the groups.  This may indicate that increased use of technology and/or greater proficiency is being observed in teaching staff.   Certainly, the UCISA survey on the social use of the JANET network revealed that many institutions now have policies in place to assist academics and enhance their experience of using technology to teach.

Another variance is that the while all missions groups have indicated that Integration of and interfacing between systems is a significant concern, the University Alliance is the only group to have ranked it in the top ten from all four perspectives.  The reasons for this are not immediately apparent.

Although The carbon agenda/ Green IT is unranked as an issue that is taking up time or resources, the Russell Group and 1994 Group both see the see it as strategically important; and the 1994 Group and University Alliance indicate that it is as an emerging issue.  This is perhaps indicative of the impact of HEFCE’s approach to link funding with carbon reduction strategies.

Lastly, Mobile computing, anytime, anywhere computing, home working is ranked highly as a strategic and emerging issue by both the University Alliance and Russell Group.  It is not clear what the reasons for this might be.