Description
In social psychology, self-assessment is the process of looking at oneself in order to assess aspects that are important to one's identity. It is one of the motives that drive self-evaluation, along with self-verification and self-enhancement.
Organisational Review
Self Assessment Report
August 2008
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW SELF- ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW
Introduction The basis of this Organisational Review is a self-assessment by the STFC management, subject to review and validation by an external panel. The findings are to be jointly agreed between the STFC management and the Panel prior to sign-off by DIUS, with any significant areas of disagreement highlighted. This overview presents background on the formation of the STFC, outlines progress that has been made during its first 15 months, and a summary self-assessment. Background The Science and Technology Facilities Council (the STFC) was formed on 1 April 2007 through merging two Research Councils, CCLRC and PPARC. All the responsibilities of these Councils transferred to the STFC, together with responsibility for nuclear physics which was transferred from EPSRC. The nature and scope of the STFC’s responsibilities and activities, together with some basic information on its funding (sources and recipients); size of its customer/supplier base, users, grant holders, etc; and staffing (type and geographical distribution), are summarised for ease of reference in Annex 1. The decision to set up the STFC was announced by Government on 25 July 2006. The merger was therefore effected over an 8 month period. Given this aggressive timetable, the primary objective agreed with DIUS was to establish by 1 April 2007 a legally compliant organisation, with the capacity to operate as a going concern and discharge effectively the responsibilities from the predecessor Councils. This was considered a realistic objective despite the timescale and constraints. These constraints included: • • the need to maintain business as usual and ensure a seamless transfer of responsibilities with no additional resource; the designate Chief Executive was only appointed in November 2006, designate senior management team in January 2007, and the Chair and Council at the end of March 2007; and,
•
the impact of coincident major organisational change, in particular, the development of the RCUK Shared Services Centre. The Shared Services Centre was initiated by all the Research Councils in June 2006, in response to the demand for full harmonisation of back office processes. Pending clarity on how the SSC would be implemented, it was judged that decisions on the harmonisation of many basic business processes and systems used by CCLRC and PPARC should not be taken prior to the merger.
The National Audit Office reviewed the merger project, concluded that it was achieved effectively and commended as good practice a number of features of the management of the project. It is to the credit of the staff that business as usual was maintained during the period of the merger. The Delivery Reports to DIUS for 2006/07 by both CCLRC and PPARC recorded that the objectives, performance targets and milestones of both organisations were achieved. As with most mergers, it was recognised at the outset that it would take both time and significant change to turn the STFC into a single coherent organisation with a shared vision, a clear set of priorities across its programme consistent with its funding, a shared and embedded set of cultural values, a cohort of staff with the capacity and skill to meet the Council’s short and medium term needs, efficient business processes and systems, and a unified IT infrastructure. The first year of STFC coincided with CSR07. As a new organisation, responding to CSR07 was particularly challenging. Annex 2 sets out the timelines against which the STFC had to develop its priorities for CSR07 under various planning scenarios presented by DIUS and produce its Delivery Plan for the CSR period consistent with the Council’s allocation. Progress to Date During the first year of the Council, significant progress has been made. A unified management structure was established and confirmed on 1 April 2007. A conscious decision was made by the Chair and Chief Executive, with the agreement of DIUS, to build the initial management team from the existing and experienced senior managers in CCLRC and PPARC to ensure continuity. This structure has then been evolved to reflect the breadth and complexity of the STFC compared with its predecessors, and to place greater focus on the areas where the STFC intends to provide greater impact. Within this structure, clearly defined levels of delegated authority were established. The corporate governance arrangements for the organisation have also evolved through the establishment of an Executive Board, an Operations Board, a Strategy Board and a Finance Committee, to ensure that those senior Directors with significant programme and organisational responsibility are involved in key decisions on strategy formulation, operational performance and finance.
The STFC Council is different from that of the other research councils by design. In addition to the Chair and Chief Executive, it is comprised of six non-executive and two executive members. It has met monthly and focuses on top level strategic and governance issues. The Science Board, which reports to it has responsibility for the stewardship of the science programme, a role traditionally played by the science members of its predecessor Councils. A unified science advisory structure was set up by July 2007. Having a unified structure was essential to ensure that the STFC had the capacity to develop coherent strategies for each of the science areas within its remit, and to tension and prioritise the investment choices across the broader science programme, needed to deliver a coherent investment plan. This structure also provided panels for the evaluation of grants by discipline, as well for facilities. It was recognised at the outset that this advisory structure would also evolve and, in particular, in relation to how STFC could best engage with its research communities and other stakeholders in informing its longer-term science, technology and economic impact strategies. The effectiveness of this new management and advisory structure was demonstrated by its ability to produce a prioritised science programme, as set out in the STFC’s first Delivery Plan which was produced in October 2007, and to review systematically all current programmes and facilities, and prioritise them for continuing investment (Programmatic Review) which was complete by January 2008. Despite the considerable concern in the community, the subsequent public consultation did not recommend any major material change to the programme. Some tough decisions had to be made, for example to cease the 4GLS project and create a New Light Source project, and to cease investment in The International Linear Collider Project. The STFC has carried through these decisions despite considerable controversy. There are issues around whether the STFC might have handled consultation and the communications associated with these and other decisions more effectively. Actions to address these issues are discussed later. However difficult decisions such as these must be made, if the STFC is to refocus its programme on those investments which it believes will deliver most impact for the UK. The STFC acknowledges that it did not sufficiently engage with its community and other stakeholders in forming its strategy and first Delivery Plan, but such consultation was not practicable within the timescale of, and constraints surrounding the CSR07 process and decisions. It is clear that STFC needs to engage more effectively with its external stakeholders in articulating and shaping its corporate strategy. Shortcomings in communications and consultation processes have been damaging to the STFC’s reputation, and steps have been, and will be taken to address this. External consultation based on STFC’s draft corporate strategy will take place this autumn, and there will be extensive consultation in developing its longer-term science and technology strategy moving forward, and in carrying out major reviews such as the programmatic review. In addition to wider consultation, STFC will enhance its peer-
review advisory structure to marshal more effectively inputs from the research community. On programme delivery, the STFC has met all of its targets. The facilities have continued to operate to the agreed high level of operational effectiveness and user satisfaction. Plans to upgrade and develop the facilities to meet the changing needs of the research communities supported have been successfully implemented. Key milestones have been achieved in relation to the major new investments for which the STFC inherited responsibility. These include the first year of operation of the Diamond Light Source; the commissioning of the Large Hadron Collider; and the construction of the ISIS second target station. The STFC has evaluated which major new large scale facilities offer most scientific opportunity for the UK, and prioritised them. As part of this process, it has worked with European and global international partners to shape more coherent strategies for the major science areas. The development of the Harwell and Daresbury Science and Innovation Campuses is a distinct responsibility of the STFC, and substantial progress has been made in setting up the Joint Venture for the Harwell Campus (this is expected to be announced in the next month), and in the development of the Daresbury Campus through a company limited by guarantee. Part of the strategy for these campuses is the development of Technology Gateway Centres on which the STFC has taken the lead, and which will provide support to the UK research base in five key areas of technology i.e. detectors, imaging, computational science, materials and space technology. The Government has recently announced earmarked funding for the first three areas. Discussions are in an advanced stage with the European Space Agency for the location of a space technology centre at Harwell, and with universities for developing a joint Materials Institute. On the financial side, robust processes are in place for planning the STFC programme going forward. The STFC has produced its first 10-year plan, which sets out both its financial requirements to deliver approved programmes, and its financial projections for future planned programmes within a flat cash budget. As part of the process of developing this plan, a critical analysis has been carried out on cost drivers for the programme, to ensure that the financial projections are realistic. In relation to financial management, both CCLRC and PPARC produced a cleanly audited set of Annual Accounts for 2006/07 and STFC, and produced its first set of Annual Accounts for 2007/08 which also received a clean audit. There are robust processes in place for monitoring and controlling budgets at a Directorate and project level. Organisational development is a key area in which further significant progress is required, to ensure there is the capability to meet the STFC’s organisational needs moving forward; that there is a highly flexible and motivated workforce with a shared sense of purpose; and that business processes are effectively geared and cost-effective.
In relation to core business processes, Annex 3 outlines those which were changed as part of the merger; those which have been developed further over the last 15 months; and those which still need to be addressed and changed. For many, the change required and the timetable is contingent on the implementation of the Shared Services Centre. STFC is committed to the development of the Shared Services Centre which will be a major deliverer of key services. Annex 4 summarises the status of the project with an assessment of the impact and risk to the STFC. The recent IiP report highlighted the fact that the STFC has a highly motivated and professional workforce. It is acknowledged however that most staff do not as yet see sufficiently how STFC differs in its objectives from their predecessors, how it going to add value and how the organisation will change as a consequence. Overall Self-Assessment The attached summary sheets set out the STFC’s self-assessment; the evidence supporting the assessment; and planned areas of improvement. The areas of improvements are in 3 categories • • • Critical/Urgent (category 1) Important (category 2) Desirable (category 3).
For each area a top-level assessment has been made against the traffic light system set out in the DIUS evaluation template. These are: Green (Good): Achieved or on track - low Risk to overall performance. Amber-Green (Mixed): Broadly on track, may need some additional action - medium Risk to overall performance. Amber-Red (Problematic): Going off track, significant corrective action needed - high risk to overall performance. Red (Highly Problematic): Not achieved or on track, substantial and/or urgent corrective action needed - very high risk to overall performance. Grey (Not Assessed): Data not available. The overall self-assessment is summarised in Annex 5. This assessment highlights the need for significant action as follows: • To develop a distinctive corporate strategy for the STFC, and create a framework within which this strategy is cascaded throughout organisation and is fully reflected in the objectives at both a departmental and individual level.
This strategy and its delivery will be underpinned by a performance management framework with key performance indicators. A project was established in February 2008 to delivery this strategy by December 2008. • To evaluate the need for, and implement a programme of organisational change which maps on to this strategy. A Blueprint programme has been established to deliver a programme of change with implementation activities starting in January 2009. To consult with, and communicate more effectively with staff on these programmes. The STFC has reviewed its capability in the area of internal as well as external communication, and actions are in hand to improve communications.
•
Conclusion Whilst STFC believes that many component areas are on track or broadly on track, as a relatively immature organisation there is still much to be done in developing its strategies; interacting more effectively with its much broader range of stakeholders and its staff; and putting in place plans for changing the organisation to be fit for purpose moving into the next decade. Taking this into account, STFC has concluded that its overall assessment should be amber.
ANNEX 1
STFC’s MISSION & KEY STATISTICS
“We are required to:
•
promote and support high-quality scientific and engineering research by developing and providing by any means, facilities and technical expertise in support of basic strategic and applied research programmes funded by persons established in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. promote and support by any means, high-quality basic, strategic and applied research and related post-graduate training in astronomy, particle physics, space science and nuclear physics and research in any other field which makes use of scientific facilities where access is provided, arranged or otherwise made available by the Council, having regard to the objects of the other research councils. promote and support the advancement of knowledge and technology (including the promotion and support of the exploitation of research outcomes) and to provide trained scientists and engineers, and thereby to contribute to the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom and the quality of life of its people, meeting the needs of users and beneficiaries.
•
•
We are also charged to:
• • • • •
generate public awareness; communicate research outcomes; encourage public engagement and dialogue; disseminate knowledge; and provide advice. “
ANNEX 1
STFC ACTIVITIES AND FUNCTIONS
STFC is a science-driven organisation. We make it possible for a broad range of scientists to do the highest quality research tackling some of the most fundamental scientific questions. We do this by:
• •
funding researchers in universities directly through grants particularly in astronomy, particle physics, space science and nuclear physics. providing in the UK access to world-class facilities, including ISIS, the Synchrotron Radiation Source (SRS), the Central Laser Facility, and HPCx. We are also a major stakeholder in the Diamond Light Source, which started operating this year. providing the UK with a broad range of scientific and technical expertise through capabilities in technology development, space science and technology, particle physics, e-science, nuclear physics, computational science and accelerator science and technology. providing access to world-class facilities overseas, including through CERN, the European Space Agency (ESA), the European Southern Observatory (ESO), the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF), the Institut LaueLangevin (ILL) and telescope facilities in Chile, Hawaii, La Palma, Australia and the MERLIN/VLBI National Facility, which includes the Lovell Telescope at Jodrell Bank Observatory.
•
•
We supply highly skilled scientists and engineers and generate ideas and technologies that have a much broader social and economic impact. We encourage researchers to create new businesses based on their discoveries and we help established companies to use the fruits of our research as the basis of new or improved products and services. Our staff are deployed at 7 locations, namely: Swindon where the headquarters is based; the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, which is part of the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus in Oxfordshire; the Daresbury Laboratory, which is part of the Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus in Cheshire; the Chilbolton Observatory in Hampshire; the UK Astronomy Technology Centre in Edinburgh; the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes on La Palma in the Canary Islands; and the Joint Astronomy Centre in Hawaii.
ANNEX 1
A selection of figures and tables follow which describe key areas of STFC business.
Figure 1 STFC Senior Management Structure ......................................................................... 4 Figure 2 STFC Science Advisory Structure .............................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Distribution of Government funding by source CSR07 (£m).................................. 5 Figure 4 Distribution of Government funding by source 2008-09 (£m) .............................. 5 Figure 5 Distribution of Government funding recipient CSR07 (£m) ................................... 6 Figure 6 Distribution of Government funding recipient 2008-09 (£m)................................ 7 Figure 7 Distribution of STFC staff by site (does not show staff on local university contracts) .................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 8 Distribution of STFC staff by site............................................................................... 8 Figure 9 Proportion of CLF Users by Subject Area (2007-08)................................................ 9 Figure 10 Proportion of ISIS Users by Subject Area (2007-08) ............................................. 9 Figure 11 Proportion of SRS Users by Subject Area (2007-08) ...........................................10 Figure 12 STFC Grants by value across research areas (July 2008) ....................................11 Figure 13 STFC Grants by number across research areas (July 2008) ................................12 Figure 14 Industrial Users of the SRS from 1997 - 2007......................................................13 Figure 15 STFC Corporate Stakeholder Map .........................................................................15
Table 1 Output data by major STFC facility/department (2007/08) (taken from draft Economic Impact Reporting Framework for DIUS) ..............................................................14
ANNEX 1
Figure 1 STFC Senior Management Structure
Figure 2 STFC Science Advisory Structure
ANNEX 1
Distribution of Government funding by source CSR07 (£m)
Large Facilities Capital Fund, 99.897 Other Capital, 295.094
Non Cash, 307.976
Near Cash, 1351.322
Figure 3 Distribution of Government funding by source CSR07 (£m)
Distribution of Government funding by source 2008-09 (£m)
Large Facilities Capital Fund, 49.075
Loan - Near Cash, 5.933 Loan - Capital, 20.314
Other Capital, 97.779
Non Cash, 92.838
Near Cash, 456.718
Figure 4 Distribution of Government funding by source 2008-09 (£m) n.b. Capital and Near Cash loans have been provided by DIUS to assist the Council mange its funds flow within the CSR07 period. The repayment of both loans by 2010/11 is provided for in STFC’s medium term financial plans.
ANNEX 1
Distribution of Government funding by recipient CSR07 (£m)
Non Cash, 307.976
Facilities Operations & Developments, 212.520
STFC fixed assets, 121.576 Other Projects and Programmes, 67.227 Admin, 89.937 Knowledge Transfer, 21.160 Diamond Light Source capital, 81.818 Diamond Light Source operations, 91.474 Grants, 327.130 Other international (XFEL, AAT, Gemini) , 26.427 Postgraduate Training, 56.817 Fellowships, 26.738 International Subscriptions (CERN,ESA,ESO,ESRF,ILL), 659.915
Figure 5 Distribution of Government funding recipient CSR07 (£m) n.b. Other Projects and Programmes comprise Re-structuring/Shared Service Centre Other Reserves Summer School Science in Society International Programme Programme Management Project Research and Development scheme
ANNEX 1
Distribution of Government funding by recipient 2008-09 (£m)
Non Cash, 92.838
Facilities Operations & Developments, 78.317
STFC fixed assets, 60.939
Other Projects and Programmes, 27.068 Admin, 31.704 Knowledge Transfer, 6.780 Diamond Light Source capital, 36.350 Diamond Light Source operations, 26.997 Grants, 118.635
International Subscriptions (CERN,ESA,ESO,ESRF,ILL), 210.119
Other international (XFEL, AAT, Gemini) , 7.977 Postgraduate Training, 16.745 Fellowships, 7.880
Figure 6 Distribution of Government funding recipient 2008-09 (£m)
ANNEX 1
STFC Staff by Site (July 2008)
JAC, 4 ING, 41 ATC, 95 SO, 164
DL, 451
RAL, 1365
Figure 7 Distribution of STFC staff by site (does not show JAC staff on local university contracts)
Distribution of STFC Staff across Departments (July 2008)
Commercial and Corporate Affairs, Accelerator Science 40 and Technology Centre, 61 Computational Finance, 62 Science and Engineering, 80 E-Science, 85 UK Astronomy Technology Centre, 95 Central Laser Facility, 98 Particle Physics, 105 Synchrotron Radiation, 110 Science Programmes Office, 115 Corporate Services, 317 Knowledge Exchange (incl CLIK), 32 Nuclear Physics, 11 ISIS, 419
Technology, 272
Space Science and Technology, 218
Figure 8 Distribution of STFC staff by site
ANNEX 1
Proportion of CLF Users by Subject Area (2007/08)
Technical Development, 2 Technology , Medicine, 3 Environment, 3 Chemistry, 8 Biochemistry, Biomaterials & Biology, 11
Materials, 11
Physics, 62
Figure 9 Proportion of CLF Users by Subject Area (2007-08)
Proportion of ISIS Users by Subject Area (2007/08)
Technique Development, 4 Engineering, Energy & Environment (Technology Development), 11 Biology, Bio-materials & Medicine, 8
Chemistry, 25
Physics, 21
Materials, 31
Figure 10 Proportion of ISIS Users by Subject Area (2007-08)
ANNEX 1
Proportion of SRS Users by Subject Area (2007/08)
Engineering, 1 Environment, 7 Physics, 14 Biology, 33
Materials, 10
Chemistry, 35
Figure 11 Proportion of SRS Users by Subject Area (2007-08)
ANNEX 1
Grants by Value Across Research Areas (July 2008)
180,000
160,000
156,026
155,264
140,000 123,838 120,000 Value (£'000) 109,595 107,096 106,467
100,000 79,871 80,000 65,252 60,000 64,737 79,308 Value (£'000)
40,000
20,000 1,856 0 Beyond the Standard Model The Standard Model Extragalactic astronomy and cosmology Particle cosmology Galactic and inter-stellar astronomy Stars Planetary Science Physics and physical processes not specifically astronomy, planetary science or particle physics Astronomy, celestial mechanics, databases and survey astronomy Solar and solarterrestrial physics Nuclear Structure Nuclear Physics Nuclear Astrophysics Theory Relativistic Heavy Ions Hadron Physics 1,255 942 477 381 199
Research Areas
Figure 12 STFC Grants by value across research areas (July 2008)
ANNEX 1
Grants by Number Across Research Areas (July 2008)
250
202 200
167 162 153 150 Number of Grants
165
147 138
Number 115 105 100 99
50
15 8 0 Beyond the Standard Model The Standard Extra-galactic Model astronomy and cosmology Particle cosmology Galactic and inter-stellar astronomy Stars Planetary Science Physics and physical processes not specifically astronomy, planetary science or particle physics Astronomy, celestial mechanics, databases and survey astronomy Solar and solarterrestrial physics Nuclear Structure Nuclear Physics Nuclear Astrophysics Theory Relativistic Heavy Ions Hadron Physics 7 7 1 1
Research Areas
Figure 13 STFC Grants by number across research areas (July 2008)
ANNEX 1
1997 - 2007 Industrial Users of the SRS
Energy, 1 Other SR sources, 3 Aerospace and Defence, 6 Miscellaneous, 7 Consumer products and food, 5 Chemicals and Specialities, 10 Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare, 37 Automotive, 1
Oil and Petroleum, 12 Academia, 17
Figure 14 Industrial Users of the SRS from 1997 - 2007
ANNEX 1 2007/08 Publications Lab reports /technical design studies Conference publications Experiments carried out CLF 97 2 79 Diamond 163 41 101 ISIS 350+ 382 NPD 14 20 SRD 340 27 20 690
Table 1 Output data by major STFC facility/department (2007/08) (taken from draft Economic Impact Reporting Framework for DIUS)
ANNEX 1
Figure 15 STFC Corporate Stakeholder Map
ANNEX 2 KEY EVENTS TIMELINE
2006 March April/ May June July August
Event “Next Steps” proposed possible restructuring of CCLRC/ PPARC. Government consultation on Next Step’s proposal. RCUK set up Shared Services implementation project. Government decision to merge CCLRC and PPARC. Merger Project initiated with joint Project Board comprising Chief Executives and senior managers from CCLRC and PPARC. Designate STFC Chief Executive appointed.
November 2007 January March End March April
Designate senior management team appointed Bi-lateral between CCLRC/PPARC and OSI on CSR07 STFC Council: Chair and non-executive members appointed STFC established: 2 meetings of Council to approve governance structure and processes. Management structure confirmed; delegation letters issued. First meeting of STFC Finance Committee. Membership of Science Board confirmed.
May
Science Board chair and deputy appointed from confirmed membership. Provisional Budget Allocations for 2007/08 issued to STFC departments
June
Membership and chairs of two main subcommittees (PPAN and PALS) of Science Board appointed.
Council considered first draft Delivery Plan under 4 financial scenarios. July Final Budget Allocations for 2007/08 issued. First STFC-OSI bilateral on CSR07. First STFC Audit Committee meeting. First Science Board/PPAN meetings. STFC submitted proposed Delivery Plan to OSI. Data collection for first STFC Programmatic Review initiated. September First meeting of PALS committee Council endorses Harwell Science and Innovation campus strategy. October CSR07 Allocations letter. STFC-DIUS bilateral to discuss impact of CSR07 Allocations. Council agrees Light Sources Review recommendations. Council agreed STFC facilities to be included in RCUK large facilities road map. November 2 Council meetings to discuss options for living within CSR07 Allocations, including input from Science Board and its subcommittees. Series of meetings with DIUS on Allocations. In-House Competencies review initiated. Chairman meets with SoS to brief him on the impact of CSR settlement and its consequences. December Science Board and PPAN and PALS start Programmatic Review. Council approved final Delivery Plan. STFC submitted final Delivery Plan to DIUS.
DIUS launch of Science Budget allocations. STFC published its Delivery Plan. Staff and Town meetings announcing Delivery Plan. 2008 January February Council considered initial outcome of Programmatic Review and Restructuring plans. STFC announced revised management structure. STFC initiated project on development of its corporate strategy. Science Board, PPAN and PALS make initial programmatic review recommendations. March Science Board town meeting STFC announced preliminary outcome of Programmatic Review and announced consultation on outcome. Web based consultation carried out; over 1400 inputs received. April Specialist Panels set up and meet to consider inputs from consultation. Panel chairs report to PPAN and PALS. May PPAN and PALS considered specialist panel reports and recommended programme to Science Board; Science Board recommended approval of this programme. June July Reports on specialist Panels and PPAN and PALS recommendations made public. Council approved investment plans based on outcome of Programmatic Review.
RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap published. Large Facilities capital fund earmarking decisions announced.
STFC announced its plans at a community Town Meeting & staff meetings. STFC initiated Blueprint programme, to plan and implement further organisational change.
ANNEX 3
KEY BUSINESS PROCESSES – POST MERGER
As part of the review process we have identified 14 key business processes. These have been mapped against the workstreams established during the original merger project and an assessment made on the current maturity of these key business processes.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(1) Constitution (and governance) of new Council.
Initial Merger Target
Obtain Charter and Transfer Order; establish the Council; develop Budget. Put in place governance framework and wind down the existing Councils. Develop and set the structure for the management of the Council. Establish delegated authorities and resource management regime. Establish functions and organisation of the Chief Executive’s office.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Legal status achieved 1st April 2007. Council membership established. Senior management positions filled. Key governing documents in place (Charter; Management Statement; Financial Memorandum). Initial structures established. Chief Executive’s office established. • • • •
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • Audit Committee established, (met 7 times to date); • Risk management continues to evolve but requires time to bed-in. Improvements include: ¾ Risk policy/ strategy; ¾ Risk Advisory Group; ¾ Risk Register (STAR Database); ¾ Organisation wide engagement. Delegation letters issued to senior staff; Stewardship Framework; Executive Structure revised Feb 08; Advisory Structure established.
1. Corporate Governance
• • • • • • • •
Regulatory framework; DIUS interface; Non-exec performance; Organisational structure; Delegation & accountability; Risk management; Business Continuity Planning; and Stewardship framework.
(2) Organisation and Management structure.
Risk Management embedded in Project Management and in some facility operations.. Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Policy & Procedural Framework.
Developing processes: • Assurance Reporting Framework; Business Continuity Planning; Risk Improvement – strategy overseen by Risk Advisory Group; Council / Non-exec. appraisal process; Programme of Policy & Procedure renewal; Enhanced corporate performance management framework. • • • • •
(8) Chief Executive’s Office.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(9) Business Strategy Committee
Initial Merger Target
Confirm the value and need for committee. specify its role, operation and advise on membership.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Planning Documentation & Processes, (Science Strategy; Delivery Plans). DIUS reporting arrangements continued.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • • • • • • • Strategy Board (Executive) established; Delivery Plan 2008/09 – 2010/11 aligned with DIUS’s PSA targets; Programmatic Review; RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap; 10-year Planning process; Allocations aligned to priorities and funding constraints; Ongoing consultation process (e.g. Vision Working Group; internal engagement Stratford May 08); Draft Vision statement; School of Government review of Strategy Office/structure.
2. Strategic & Operational Planning
• Strategic/Delivery Planning Framework; • Business Planning hierarchy (operational planning); • Monitoring / reporting framework.
Developing processes: • • STFC Corporate Vision; STFCs Corporate Strategy - (including Economic Impact & International Strategies, & updating its Science & Technology Strategy); STFC annual operating plan; Business Unit/ departmental strategies; Stakeholder engagement; Blueprint Programme; Campus Strategies.
• • • • •
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(7) Business Information Management Systems.
Initial Merger Target
Deliver the capability for the new Council to share key business information and for records management. Support IS/IT requirements of other w/streams.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Existing infrastructures remain largely unchanged. Reliance on 2 platforms (ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC). Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Policy & Procedural Framework Planning Documentation.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • • • Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the IT Strategy and Oversight Committee (ITSOC); ITC strategy agreed at ITSOC; new IT committee structure; Security Committee meets every six weeks; draft CICT Vision.
3. Information Technology & Systems
• IS/IT infrastructure & developments; • Security (integrity; confidentiality & availability); • Regulatory compliance; • Information / Knowledge management; and • Delivering and supporting IS/IT systems.
Developing processes: • • • DPA & FOI policies; Programme of Policy & Procedure renewal; Review & update Business Continuity Plans.
NB Impact of SSC impacting progress (e.g. Grants processing). • Stakeholder Engagement; • Media Relations; • Internal communication; • Web provision; • Events & publications; and • Marketing & branding. (15) Communications. (14) Science and Society.
4. Communications
(10) Corporate Identity.
Establish Corporate Identity for the new Research Council. Structure for management of science and society programmes, drawing on in-house (and university) capability. Structure for managing media communications and Public Relations.
Existing infrastructures remain largely unchanged. ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC identities retained (email addresses, intranet pages). PARCLife (ex-PPARC) & TeamCentral (ex-CCLRC) trusted reference points for staff - (policies, procedures, news & documentation), but not maintained consistently.
Achievements: • • • • • • • STFC Intranet in place (embryonic); Edelmans review of Communications; Communications Improvement Plan; Engagement of external consultations in communication and public affairs; Monthly staff forums at each site; Cascaded Group meetings through management chain; Integrated Science in Society organisational structure across all sites;
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(18) Website Project.
Initial Merger Target
Production of corporate website for the STFC.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
• •
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Development of Science in Society Strategy; Over £1.5 million allocated to engagement schemes.
Developing processes: • • • • • • • • • • Appointment of Director of Communications; Implementation of Corporate Communication Strategy; Further review of feedback from staff and external surveys as part of the Organisational Review; Enhanced Advisory Structure; Communication of Strategy and associated cultural change; Stakeholder engagement plans; Stakeholder perceptions audit; Harmonised IT systems to aid communication; Reinforce over arching corporate brand and culture; Embed communications plans as part of Blueprint and corporate strategy programmes. NB Impact of SSC impacting progress (e.g. Grants processing).
5. Advisory Structure
•
Organisational structure (inc reporting relationships); Roles & responsibilities (Terms of reference); Membership (representative/ balanced); Scope of business; Conflicts of interest (Propriety); Reporting / decisions.
(3) Science and Facilities Advisory Structure.
Develop and set the structure for Advisory Committees/panels; Establish and populate Advisory Structure.
First and second tier advisory structure agreed (Top level Science Board, Economic Impact, Audit, International and Education/Public Outreach). Terms of Reference for SB, EIAG and Audit approved by Project Board 26 February 2007. A call for nominations for the Science Board, PPAN, PALS, AGP, PPGP and NPGP requested via the external merger website. Nominations process underway.
Achievements: • Key Committees established: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ • Audit Committee; Science Board; PPAN & PALS; Economic Impact; International; Education / Public Outreach
• •
• • •
RCIAS Audit (Draft) – Substantial assurance – Grants Peer Review;
Developing processes: • • Advisory Panels (strategic input & engagement with community); Facility Advisory Boards.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(11) Programme / Facilities Management.
Initial Merger Target
Structure and processes for managing the NRC programme. translate science/ facility / technology strategies, (including oversight of facility operations, facility development, projects, grants and international subscriptions).
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
No change – Business as usual at operational level. For example: • • • • • • • • • Facility Access Panels; Business Plans; Operating Procedures; Reporting; New Community developments; new investment (e.g. TS2); scientific advisory structure; user/ stakeholder engagement; and embedded communications.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • Maintaining performance levels; In-house Science Audits (Research Reviews);
6. Facility Development & Operations
• Facility infrastructure & developments; • Operational performance (relevance; profile & availability); • Regulatory compliance (e.g. H&S); • Maintenance / upkeep; • Stakeholder interfaces.
• Large Facilities Roadmap; NB Facilities Supporting Evidence Developing processes: • • Facility Advisory Boards; Facility Development Review Panel.
7. Programme / Project Management
• Programme formulation; • Implementation; • Monitoring & Control (Programme / project management standards); • Evaluation & Review.
(4) Nuclear Physics.
Effect transfer of resources and responsibility for NP programme from EPSRC to the new Council. Structure and processes for managing the NRC programme. translating science/ facility / technology strategies (including oversight of facility operations, facility development, projects, grants and international subscriptions).
Wider programmes – business as usual. For example: • • • • Established investment appraisal process (inc PPRP) Traffic Light reporting; Project management standards; 10-year planning tool;.
Achievements: • • • • Maintaining performance levels; A Nuclear Physics Grants Panel established; New SPO management structure; Integrated into management (Ops Board) & Advisory; (Science Board) structures.
(11) Programme / Facilities Management.
Nuclear physics grants (pre-April 1st) transferred. Town Meeting held on 24 January 2007 to brief and exchange information with community. Interim bridging funding provided to the Nuclear Physics Groups pending established grants panel. Studentship allocations for 2007 agreed for Nuclear Physics.
Developing processes: • Project Management handbook revision.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
Identified as business as usual and therefore not reflected in merger workstreams.
Initial Merger Target
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Business as usual, although transfer notices issued to all major partners. International representation & collaboration securing access to world-class facilities, including: • CERN; • European Space Agency (ESA); • European Southern Observatory (ESO); • European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF); • Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL); • Diamond Light Source; and • Island Telescope sites (JAC - Hawaii & ING – La Palma).
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • • • • Maintaining performance levels; LHC Detectors on target; Seamless transition of changing representation; Programmatic Review; STFC is the International Co-ordinator for the PrepSKA project; STFC is the International Coordinator for the HiPER project;
8. Major Partnerships / Collaborations
International representation & collaboration securing access to world-class facilities, including: • CERN; • European Space Agency (ESA); • European Southern Observatory (ESO); • European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF); • Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL); • Diamond Light Source; and • Island Telescope sites (JAC Hawaii & ING – La Palma).
Developing processes • • Review strategy for all international partnerships; Review of DLS operating model.
9. Grants & Awards
• Grants Policy; recording and • Receipt, processing of Proposals; • Peer Review; • Award; • Post award administration; • final reports.
(13) Grants / Studentships / fellowships.
Structure and processes for managing and administration of peerreview processes.
No change – Business as usual at operational level. For example: • • • • Grants Policy; Peer review; Grants Administration; Funding assurance Programme;
Achievements: • • • • • • • • Maintaining performance levels; PPAN & PALS; Programmatic Review; Astronomy grants processes restructured; RCIAS Audit (Draft) – Substantial assurance – Grants Peer Review 2008-09; RCIAS Audit– Substantial assurance – Grants 2007-08.
• Cross-Council engagement. Grants programmes carried over from the predecessor councils without interruption or problem. The bulk of of astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics programmes (plus some smaller commitments from the facilities) involve the issuing of grants to HEI's. These programmes also involve substantial grants to HEI's for studentships. We have robust processes in place to receive proposals, to assess them through peer review panels, to issue funding, and to assess progress against agreed goals. All of these processes are working well.
Developing processes Final Reporting process (cross-Council); Grants funding profile may require alignment to updated Science and Technology strategy. NB 1 Impact of SSC impacting progress (e.g. Grants processing) NB 2 Further developments may be required subject to publication of the Wakeham review.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(12) Knowledge Transfer
Initial Merger Target
Establish management arrangements for campuses and KT programmes exploiting capabilities in-house, in universities and in funded facilities (eg CERN, ILL).
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
KE Directorate formed. DSIC & HSIC Strategies underway CLIK Ongoing.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • HSIC Public Sector Partnership established; HSIC Board meetings; Decision making mechanisms and dispute resolution procedures form part of the Shareholder's and Limited Partnership Agreements; Leadership and inputs regarding the placement of the proposed new Hartree High Performance Computational Science and Engineering Technology; earmarked Funding for 3 Gateway Centres (LFCF); Appointment of Gateway Centres Programme Manager; placement of a major new japanese R&D blue-chip company (~350 posts) at Daresbury; Daresbury has an Estates and Operations Strategy.
10. Knowledge Exchange/ Economic Impact
• Strategic Focus; • Operational plans; • Campus Developments; • Technology & Skills Development; • Technology Exploitation; • Commercialisation; and • Large Facilities.
•
• • • •
Developing processes: • • 11. Finance • Policy & procedure framework; • Finance system infrastructure; • Accounting routines; • Financial processing (Income & Expenditure); • Budgetary control; and • Banking. (5) Finance Establish financial policies, processes and systems which will enable the new Council to govern, manage and account for its business. Pending migration to the Shared Service Centre it was decided to retain the existing 2 finance platforms (ex-PPARC / exCCLRC) which were consolidated using an overarching consolidation system. Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Policy & Procedural Framework. RAL Estates and Operations Strategy; HSIC & DSIC science and business cases for the centres.
Achievements: • • • • • Clean set of accounts; IYFM & MA Frameworks established; Allocation communicated; Delegation & stewardship framework; RCIAS Substantial assurance - 2 reports on financial systems.
Developing processes: • • • SSC implementation; STFC Corporate Capital Investment Plan; Programme of renewal for Policies and Procedures. NB Impact of SSC impacting progress.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(6) Human Resources
Initial Merger Target
Establish HR services for new Council. Assess staffing implications of any structural/ resources requirements from other work streams. Implement the transfer of staff compliant with TUPE legislation.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Existing infrastructures remain largely unchanged staff on 2 different T & Cs inc appraisal processes and underlying support function. Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Policy & Procedural Framework (CEMs). NB IIP Report.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • • • • • A Joint Working Group on T & Cs was formed as the Conditions of Employment Memoranda Working Group (CWG); Cross-Council Harmonised pay arrangements; STFC T & Cs in draft; Administration of redundancy exercise; RCIAS Full assurance.
12. Human Resources
• • • • • • • • •
Organisational structure/ Roles & responsibilities; Communication of standards; Terms & Conditions; Retention & recruitment; Succession planning; Skills/ personal development; and Performance appraisal; Disciplinary procedures; Terms & Conditions (negotiation). Organisational structure/ Roles & responsibilities; Communication of codes; Regulatory compliance (audit & monitoring); Risk assessment; Corporate/ local systems (e.g. records management/ compliance); Training/ skills.
Developing processes: Natural wastage plan; Harmonised T & Cs. NB Impact of SSC impacting progress.
13. Safety, Health & Environment
• • • • •
(17) Health, Safety & Environment.
Management arrangements and policy statement to ensure compliance with HSE legislation and best practice.
Draft STFC Health, Safety and Environment policy agreed by Project Board and published on STFC intranet on 2 April. Appointment of DSO/Deputy for STFC agreed 29 March. An 18-month process of reviewing and launching approximately 60 new SHE Codes of Practice (Codes) commenced.
Achievements: • • • • • • • STFC Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) Policy revised and re-launched in October 2007; SHE Management System (SHEMS); Departmental Safety Committees; SHE Reporting into Ops Board; RCIAS Substantial assurance.
Developing processes: Audit Code; SHE business plan.
•
14. Estates and Infrastructure
• Capital Planning: e.g. Facility infrastructure & developments; • Operational performance (relevance; profile & availability); • Regulatory compliance (e.g. H&S); and • Maintenance/ upkeep.
(16) Estates Management.
Management arrangements and policies for estates management.
No change – Business as usual at operational level. Continue to build on a programme of infrastructure investment and facility development established by CCLRC.
Achievements: • • • • A substantial refurbishment programme for existing laboratory and office space at DL; A new [£6M] reception and security building has opened at RAL; The [£17M] Tier 1 computer centre; construction has begun on the [£26M] MRC-led Research Complex Building (scheduled for completion in late 2009).
Developing processes • • STFC Capital Investment Strategy; Review and update of Business Continuity Plans.
ANNEX 4
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RCUK SSC FOR THE OPERATION OF STFC
Background A letter from the Director General of Science and Innovation (DGSI) on 16 January 2006 made it clear that HM Treasury was looking for a step change reduction in the Research Councils’ back-office units. A further letter from the DGSI dated 8 February asked Chief Executives to prepare a plan for achieving by 2009 “full harmonisation of back office activities”. In June 2006, the Research Councils established the RCUK Shared Services Implementation Project with the aim of implementing a Shared Services Centre (SSC) by March 2009. The RCUK project is overseen by a project board on which all Councils have a representative. It is managed by a RCUK team. As part of this project, the Councils agreed the following as a basis for their SSC: • • • joint ownership of the SSC by all the Research Councils; location of the SSC in Swindon; scope of the SSC to cover finance; procurement; human resources; grants processing; and IT IS (for Swindon, Bristol and in-scope processes).
The key benefits of establishing the RCUK SSC were identified in the full business case as: • financial savings: operational savings (staff efficiencies and system rationalisation) over ten year of £45.6M (cash) and procurement savings of £404M (cash) equating to a NPV of £297M; enhanced focus on high-value activities in the retained functions in the Councils, and faster and more informed decision-making through the flow of standard, simple and shared information, realising efficiency savings of approximately 10% in the in-scope service functions retained in the Councils; support services operating at performance levels benchmarked against the best standards within the public sector and comparable with private industry sector standards; introduction of a simple, standard and shared solution;
•
•
•
• •
increased resources for research, training and knowledge transfer for the research community; clearer points of contact and enhanced services to external stakeholders.
Current Project Status The project is now in its implementation phase, having established RCUK Shared Services Ltd as a separate legal entity, appointed the senior management team and board, and contracted Fujitsu as the systems integrator for implementation of an Oracle Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. On the basis that the SSC would go-live for the first two Councils (EPSRC and ESRC) in September 2008, all in-scope RC staff were transferred under TUPE legislation on 1 April 2008. The project has experienced slippage from the original timetable with consequences for forecast implementation costs and savings as summarised in the following table: Date September 2007 Jan 2008 June 2008 Forecast First Go-Live June 2008 September 2008 Feb 2009 Project Costs £54.6M £63.3M £69.5M
Owing to the dominance of the forecast procurement savings, the increase in implementation costs and delay in realising operational savings has not impacted substantially on the NPV and payback period, the latest figures for which are £282M (was £297M) and 6 years (was 5). The above dates do not take account of the Grants services, for which the timetable is not yet finalised (current assumption is 2010).
Key Considerations for STFC’s Future Operations The key risks to Councils from the SSC project were identified as follows in the business case: • • • • failure to achieve the full expected benefits; an extended period of disruption to the ‘business as usual’ operation; loss of key employees, critical knowledge and experience both for the SSC and within the Councils; a reduction of service or negative customer experience for the during the transition period.
STFC continues to work with the project and SSC Ltd through their governance structures to mitigate the risks. Taking each in turn:
Failure to Achieve the Full Expected Benefits STFC is reasonably confident that the forecast procurement savings will be achieved. STFC is concerned about the project implementation costs and SSC Ltd operational costs. It remains STFC’s view that robust and effective project management control is key to minimising any further increases or delays, and we continue to work constructively with the project on a “one team” basis to achieve this.
Extended Period of Disruption to Business-As-Usual/ Loss of Key Employees The SSC implementation represents a major change, and the project is demanding considerable resources from STFC which are expected to increase over the coming months and when STFC’s migration approaches. These demands have been met so far through prioritisation of work, but not without some adverse impact on business-as-usual, and some staff working very long hours. The magnitude of the change and the extended period of uncertainty (both for those who have or will transfer to the SSC, and those staying with STFC) have combined to unsettle some staff considerably. Some resignations have occurred with rumours of more to follow. The most prominent case at present concerns strategic procurement, a service for which SSC Ltd is now responsible for delivering. In this area STFC are therefore working closely with SSC Ltd to ensure they understand our ongoing needs and priorities. More generally, STFC continues to try to reassure staff by providing them with information as it becomes available in an easily digested form, and engaging them in discussions about the project. Agency and temporary staff are being deployed to ensure essential work continues over the transition period.
Reduction of Service Levels Many staff presume that the service provided by the SSC will not be as good as that currently provided, primarily because of the loss of local contact and expertise. Countering this presumption is an aim of STFC’s change management activities.
SELF ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE
Category Score (R,A,G)
ANNEX 5
Comments
1. STRATEGY AND PLANNING
Vision Amber / Green STFC has set a vision and its priorities are clear. However, STFC recognise it needs to improve the communicating of its vision. STFC has well developed strategies in a number of areas. These are being consolidated as part of a major ongoing programme launched in February 2008 to develop a Corporate Strategy.
Strategic and Delivery Planning
Amber / Green
Overall Score
Amber / Green
2. CUSTOMER & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Customer Insight Amber / Red STFC has inherited a sound understanding of the needs of its wide customer base but has more to do in developing stakeholder engagement as STFC. Corporate: Red STFC has acknowledged that there is an urgent need to upgrade its corporate communications and thereby its reputation. A major review of function has been undertaken and implementation plans are being put in place. Operational: At an operational level STFC’s communications with its Green stakeholders and staff are effective. Engagement with Service Delivery Partners Amber / Green STFC has established effective dialogue with other service delivery partners but more is needed to ensure strategies are better aligned with some.
Communications
Overall Score
Red
Category
Score (R. A. G)
CommentsComments
3. MONITORING AND CONTROL
Governance and Risk Management Green STFC’s governance and risk management arrangements are sound and conform to best practice. STFC’s financial systems are robust. processes and
Financial Management
Green
Performance Management
Amber / Green
STFC complies effectively with the performance management regime agreed with DIUS but intends to develop a more sophisticated system to measure better its performance.
Overall Score
Green
4. DELIVERY
Leadership Amber / Red STFC has shown strong leadership in deciding how it can best deliver its mission. It has however failed to take parts of its community and its staff with it. Action is being taking to address these perceptions. STFC has a strong workforce and infrastructure supporting its programme. Reviews have been and will continue to be carried out to ensure the organisation has the right capability moving forward. STFC is outcomes. delivering its planned
Capability
Amber / Green
Outcomes
Green
Overall Score
Amber / Green
Category
Score (R. A. G.)
Comments
5. MANAGEMENT OF VALUE FOR MONEY 6. CHANGE
Green
Robust processes are in place.
Amber / Green
STFC is responding effectively to change and plans a major programme of on-going organisational development.
OVERALL SCORE
Amber
Whilst STFC believes that many component areas are on track or broadly on track, as a relatively immature organisation there is still much to be done in developing its strategies, interacting more effectively with its much broader range of stakeholders and its staff and putting in place plans for changing the organisation to be fit for purpose moving into the next decade. Taking this into account, STFC has concluded that its overall assessment should be amber.
ANNEX 6
Glossary and acronyms
4GLS AAT AGP APR BBSRC BNSC CERN Fourth generation light source Anglo-Australian Telescope, New South Wales, Australia Astronomy Grants Panel Annual Performance review Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council British National Space Centre Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire, Genève, Switzerland (European laboratory for particle physics) Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (now STFC) Conditions of Employment Memoranda Chief Executive Officer Corporate Information and Communications Technology Central Laser Facility Central Laboratory Innovation and Knowledge Transfer Limited, STFC’s wholly-owned technology exploitation company Central Microstructure Facility Comprehensive Spending Review Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 Conditions of Employment Memoranda Working Group Deutsches Elektronon Synchrotron Director General of Science and Innovation (now known as the Director General for Science and Research) Director General for Science and Research Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills STFC Daresbury Laboratory, DSIC Diamond Light Source Limited, HSIC Data Protection Act Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, Cheshire Departmental Security Officer Environment Agency Executive Board European - Extremely Large Telescope Economic Impact Economic Impact Advisory Group IS ISIS IT ITSOC
EIRF
EPSRC ERID ERP ERU ESA ESRF ESO EU FBU FDOD FEC FOI Gemini GPC HiPER HPCx HR HSE HSIC IYFM KE KT LFCF LHC LOB LSF H&S ICT IiP ILL ING
Economic Impact Reporting Framework
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council European Research Infrastructure Development (Watch) Enterprise Resource Planning Energy Research Unit European Space Agency European Synchrotron Radiation Facility European Southern Observatory European Union Facilities Business Unit Facility Development Operations Directorate Full Economic Cost Freedom of Information Gemini Observatory, based in Chile and Hawaii Government Procurement Card European High Power laser Energy Research facility UK's national high-performance computing service Human Resources Health and Safety Executive Harwell Science and Innovation Campus In-Year Financial Management Knowledge Exchange Knowledge Transfer Large Facilities Capital Fund Large Hadron Collider at CERN Laboratory Operations Board Lasers for Science Facility Health and safety Information and Communication Technology Investors in People Institut Laue Langevin, France Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, La Palma, Spain Information Systems Pulsed neutron and muon source at RAL Information Technology IT Strategy and Oversight Committee
CCLRC CEM CEO CICT CLF CLIK
CMF CSR CSR07 CWG DESY DGSI
DGSR
DIUS DL DLSL DPA DSIC DSO EA EB E-ELT EI EIAG
ANNEX 6
JAC JV LHC MA MRC NAO NASA NERC NDPB NP NPD NPGP NRC NPV NWDA OB OSI PALS PIPSS PPAN PPARC PPGP Joint Astronomy Centre, Hawaii Joint Venture Large Hadron Collider at CERN Management Accounting Medical Research Council National Audit Office National Aeronautics and Space Administration Natural Environment Research Council Non-Departmental Public Body Nuclear Physics Nuclear Physics Department Nuclear Physics Grants Panel New Research Council Net Present Value North West Development Agency Operations Board Office of Science and Innovation Physical and Life Sciences Committee Industrial Programmes Support Scheme Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics Science Committee Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (now STFC) Particle Physics Grants Panel SiS SKA SMG SO SoS SRG SRS SSC SSTD STBU STFC T&Cs ToR TS2 TSB TUPE UK ATC UKAEA XFEL RCRU RCUK Radiocommunications Research Unit Research Councils UK
RCUKEG Research Council UK Executive Group ROSPA SB SEEDA SHE SHEMS Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents Science Board South East England Development Agency Safety, Health and Environment Safety, Health and Environment Management System Science in Society Square Kilometre Array Senior Management Group STFC Swindon Office Secretary of State Science Research Group Synchrotron Radiation Source Shared Services Centre Space Science and Technology Department Science and Technology Business Unit Science and Technology Facilities Council Terms and Conditions Terms of Reference ISIS second target station Technology Strategy Board Transfer of undertakings STFC UK Astronomy Technology Centre, Edinburgh United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority X-ray Free Electron Laser
PrepSKA FP7-funded preparatory phase activity for the Square Kilometre Array project PSREs R&D RAL RCIAS Public Sector Research Establishments Research and Development STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, HSIC Research Councils Internal Audit Service
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT STRATEGY and PLANNING Strategic and Delivery Planning
Objective To ensure the Delivery Partner maintains a robust approach to developing its future strategy and planning its work, which is consistent with DIUS priorities and remains pertinent to its delivery.
Risks Plans are incomplete or out-of-date. Plans lack coherence and are insufficiently joined up.
Self-Assessment Amber / Green • Strategies for achieving the STFC’s mission consistent with DIUS’s objectives have been developed in the first year. These must continue to evolve, to take account of the changing research environment (both nationally and internationally); new opportunities; and on-going re-assessment of how the STFC can deliver most added-value. The STFC’s plans for the next three years are set out in its Delivery Plan 2008/09 – 2010/11. This plan is top level and articulates how the STFC will deliver its key strategic aims. These plans are aligned with DIUS’s PSA targets; the Government’s commitment to the development of the Harwell and Daresbury Science and Innovation Campuses; the priority given by Government to a number of crossCouncil multi-disciplinary initiatives; and the BNSC’s new Space Strategy for the UK. Detailed programme-based plans and strategies exist at a departmental/facility level, which address their specific areas of activity and stakeholders. These plans and strategies will be aligned with the STFC’s new corporate strategy, and will be contained in an annual Operating Plan. This Operating Plan will be
•
•
•
produced by individual delivery providers and will be introduced this year. • • The science programme and facility plans are the result of a rolling process of review and prioritisation, informed by a biennial Programmatic Review. Following the outcome of the recent Programmatic Review, the science programme for the next three years is now optimised within our CSR07 allocations, and includes provision for new opportunities as well as the highest priority existing programmes. Similarly, short-term spending plans have been developed for the STFC’s infrastructure which are commensurate with the CSR07 allocations, and meet our strategic objective of investing more in front line programmes and less on overheads. As part of the Blueprint programme, a longer-term infrastructure plan will be developed to ensure it is aligned with the agreed STFC strategy. Priorities for the next generation of Large-scale facilities have been set. Earmarked funding has recently been approved by DIUS for these facilities, subject to the development of the full science and business cases, (which will include the costs of operations), through the Gateway process. STFC has taken the lead in supporting the development of the RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap. This has been based on an analysis of the emerging needs for large-scale facilities on a European and global scale in relation to various science sectors, and those in which the UK has the capacity to take a lead. As part of this planned investment, we have identified the need for 5 Technology Gateway Centres which are intended to strengthen the UK’s capacity in computational science, detectors, imaging, space technology, and materials, through acting as catalysts for innovation. These Gateway Centres are a component of the vision and strategy for the development of the Daresbury and Harwell Science and Innovation Campuses. The overall strategy for the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus will be taken forward under a Joint Venture (JV), in which the STFC will be a significant (25%) stakeholder. Plans for the creation of this JV are well advanced, and a public announcement is expected shortly. Once established, the JV will develop a formal business plan and STFC’s contribution aligned to evolving organisational objectives. Our plans in some areas are as yet less well developed than others. For example, while the strategic aims in relation to Economic Impact and efficiencies in public sector delivery are set out, the detailed implementation plans are not yet fully developed. STFC is currently in the process of reviewing its entire KE portfolio and the various delivery mechanisms and funding initiatives associated with the innovation pipeline process. As part of the STFC KE strategy going forward, the organisation intends to adopt an increased programme of challenge-led initiatives delivering solutions for external organisations and industry. Strategic partnerships will be developed to identify partners prepared to cofund innovation initiatives at various stages along the innovation pipeline. The STFC has established a taskforce to evaluate options for maximising its non core vote income. An economic impact strategy is in development and will be in place by the
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
autumn of this year. Our capital investment strategy and organisational efficiency strategy will be in place by early 2009. • A major programme was initiated in February 2008 to develop the STFC’s first corporate strategy. This corporate strategy will incorporate the strategies for science and technology, economic impact, and international relations, and will be a key step towards the realisation of the STFC vision so that the UK can sustain world leading capabilities in key areas of scientific research and technology innovation. The corporate strategy is designed to ensure that the specific elements of our mission are effectively joined up, and fully aligned both horizontally and vertically across the organisation. There is also a framework for evolving our strategy for the longer-term. It will address the need to integrate different parts of the organisation in line with corporate organisational goals, and to engage with staff to gain their commitment to the vision for STFC. STFC has created both a Strategy Board and Operations Board, working under its Executive Board, with formal links between the two groups to ensure each element of the Council’s evolving strategy and operations are effectively joined up and managed. The corporate strategy is expected to be available in draft by the end of September 2008 and completed by the end of 2008. An important element of the programme is a comprehensive targeted consultation process with staff and external stakeholders, which will run from October to December 2008. This will be run in accordance to Cabinet Office guidance for consultation. In addition to developing the corporate strategy, the programme will deliver the business processes needed to implement; monitor; review; and update the strategy and the framework for assessing progress and performance. In parallel, a first ten year financial plan has been produced. This is the key planning tool for setting out our longer-terms plans and priorities within a given financial envelope. It also provides detailed financial information for scenario planning.
•
•
•
•
Evidence • • • • • • • • • Delivery Plan, Scorecard and Annual Delivery Plan Report Strategy for Science and Technology. Ten year plan. Programmatic Review List of Large Facilities Capital Fund earmarked programmes. Terms of Reference of Strategy and Operations Boards Corporate strategy project documentation, including development plan and examples of emerging work from the steering group and theme teams. The development of annual Operating Plans and Reports. Departmental strategies and plans
• • • • •
RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap Harwell Science & Innovation Campus Invitation to Tender Document (containing campus vision statement) Daresbury Science & innovation Campus Master Planning Document RCIAS Business Planning Audit and Management Response External Income Task Force Report.
Planned Improvements • Complete STFC’s Corporate Strategy, including Economic Impact International Strategy & updating its Science & Technology Strategy &
Category 2 • • Development of Business Unit/ departmental strategies in alignment with Corporate Strategy. Category 2 Further strengthen and formalise the link between Corporate & Business Unit/ departmental strategies and operational planning, establishing an STFC annual operating plan. Category 2 Further formalise the decision making process for key strategic and operational choices. Category 2 Strengthen engagement with other Research Councils and other stakeholders in identifying strategic objectives and plans. Category 2 Continuing the development of the Daresbury & Harwell Science & Innovation Campuses. Category 2
• • •
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT STRATEGY and PLANNING Vision
Objective To ensure that the Delivery Partner maintains a robust approach to developing its future strategy and planning its work which is consistent with DIUS priorities and remains pertinent to its delivery.
Risks The organisation has no clear vision, limiting its opportunity to make progress. Needs have not been prioritised or priorities are unclear, resulting in a lack of focus.
Self-Assessment Amber / Green • The Chief Executive, Council and the Executive Board have a shared vision for the organisation, consistent with the rationale for creating the STFC from a merger of CCLRC and PPARC. The key elements of this vision are: ¾ enabling a world-class science programme; ¾ improving the competitiveness of the UK research base, by targeted investment in state-of-the-art facilities and technologies which match the UK’s scientific priorities; ¾ greater economic impact, primarily through the development of the Daresbury and Harwell Science and Innovation Campuses, as vehicles for greater interaction between universities, industry and the STFC’s laboratories. Also to encourage open innovation, more targeted development and utilisation of the STFC-supported skill base, and greater direct technology transfer; ¾ greater international leverage in shaping European and global strategies
•
particularly in the development of large-scale physics-based facilities; ¾ more efficient operational delivery. • This vision has already driven and shaped STFC’s activities in its first year. These activities include: ¾ the continuous development of science strategy, to identify how the UK can make most impact within developing European and global strategies; ¾ identification of future high priority large-scale facilities; ¾ the focus on getting the campuses up and running, and extensive engagement with universities, industrial companies and ESA on the development of shared capability; ¾ the commitment to the Shared Services project, and the setting up of a programme to review and implement change in STFC’s business processes; ¾ The ongoing development of the Harwell and Daresbury Science & Innovation Campuses, in which STFC have taken the lead amongst the research councils. • There is more to be done to ensure that the vision and the strategies and plans which the STFC is adopting to deliver it (see sections on communications & strategic planning) are sufficiently understood both by the staff and all external stakeholders. For this reason the STFC self assessment is shown as Amber/ Green. For this reason STFC, as part of the process of developing its corporate strategy, is further developing a statement of corporate vision in consultation with both its staff and external stakeholders to : ¾ ensure a fuller understanding of the STFC’s objectives, ¾ clearly differentiate the areas in which the STFC will focus and can bring added value, ¾ enable effective alignment between STFC’s strategies and plans and those of external stakeholders, to optimise opportunities for partnership and avoid unnecessary duplication; ¾ ensure that staff at all organisational levels have a clear understanding of how they can contribute to the delivery of this vision. ¾ Support the development of an underpinning and shared culture across the STFC.
•
Evidence • • • Chief Executive ‘Vision’ Roadshow presentation to staff; Draft corporate vision document circulated to staff; Plans for the development of the corporate vision and strategy;
• •
Harwell Science & Innovation Campus Invitation to Tender Document (containing campus vision statement); Daresbury Science & innovation Campus Master Planning Document.
Planned Improvements • Ongoing development of a corporate vision statement as part of the development of a corporate strategy. Category 2
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT CUSTOMER AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Customer Insight
Objective To ensure Delivery Partners have sound arrangements for identifying and engaging their customers and other stakeholders and that they maintain a sound reputation.
Risks Plans do not reflect customer requirements. The organisation does little to engage with its customers.
Self-Assessment Amber / Red • • Engagement with its customers and other stakeholders is vital if STFC is to discharge its mission. STFC has various roles as a grant funder, large facilities operator, and the provider of scientific and technology services. Therefore STFC has a large and diverse range of stakeholders, many of whom have multiple relationships with STFC and with whom STFC engages on many different levels. The STFC has effective mechanisms in place with its “customers” at various levels. At the heart of its decision-making on the development of its science investment portfolio is the peer-review advisory structure. This structure reflects the research interests of the various research communities which the STFC supports. One role of this advisory structure is to ensure that the STFC’s priorities and plans are sufficiently aligned with the needs and aspirations of these communities. However it is clear from the experience of the last six months, that parts of the STFC research community and some of the professional organisations which represent the interests of the research community, have been angered by some
• •
•
of the decisions on the future programme in relation to its delivery plan and the programmatic review, and by a the lack of engagement and consultation by the STFC in making those decisions. This has damaged the STFC’s reputation. • The STFC recognises the need to improve its dialogue with the community and with other stakeholders. Action has been taken to engage more effectively, including evolving the STFC’s advisory structure, building on the specialist panels established as part of the 2008 Programmatic Review consultation. STFC opened up the preliminary outcome of the Programmatic Review to consultation. STFC received over 1400 submissions about the perceived impact of some of its planned priorities. It should be noted that when all the submissions were evaluated, the final programme did not differ because there was a high degree of consensus between submissions and the proposals from the peer-review advisory structure. Nevertheless the exercise was of value, some programmatic changes were made and more timely consultation will be built into the process. STFC will also build into its process for developing its future science and technology strategy, an element of broad community consultation. It is clear that the community would welcome this enhancement to the process and plans are now in place to implement it. At an operational level, all of our facilities are actively engaged with their user communities through both formal and informal channels in advising on how the facilities can best be utilised in terms of their science programmes; how they can best be developed to retain and enhance their competitive capability; and in exploring opportunities for inter-disciplinary/multidisciplinary programmes - either on a specific facility or using a suite of facilities. Peerreview panels also provide advice on which specific research programmes should have access to the facilities. Advice on effective utilisation and development of the facilities is supplemented by user satisfaction surveys, to monitor the degree of satisfaction in terms of the quality of service provided against a set of agreed targets. The STFC’s facilities are also open to limited industrial use, and the STFC has in place effective mechanisms for discussing with various industrial sectors the potential use of the facilities to solve their R&D problems. The STFC provides a broad range of services, either through collaborative partnerships or on a customer/contractor basis, with a wide range of users including industry, other Research Councils and international agencies. The STFC is in regular dialogue with these partners to access both their short- and long-term requirements; to ensure the STFC has the on-going capability to meet their needs, and, in the case of international organisations, that they meet the STFC’s needs. STFC has a programme of developing engagement with commercial, public sector and venture capital organisations that may be able to exploit the technologies developed to deliver the overall science programme, e.g. commercial projects; CLIK strategy for engaging with the potential commercial customers for the facilities at Harwell and Daresbury; and communication with industry through Knowledge Transfer Networks.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
Comprehensive monitoring of the potential suppliers to international research facilities is conducted in collaboration with UKTI. The STFC recognises that it has a much broader range of stakeholders, including: the other Research Councils; the Technology Strategy Board; industry; universities at Vice-Chancellor as well as Department Heads level; the Regional Agencies and Devolved Administrations; professional bodies including the Royal Society; the Royal Academy of Engineering; the Institute of Physics; and the Royal Astronomical Society; and international partners and agencies. While we have worked actively with many external stakeholders in the last year, there is considerable room for improvement in our relations with many of the stakeholders identified above, and we are developing as a matter of priority, a stakeholder engagement plan and programme to increase awareness of the STFC’s role and capabilities, and achieve more effective dialogue on how we can work in partnership to deliver mutually beneficial outcomes.
•
Evidence • • • • DIUS Bi-lateral meetings; International representation (e.g. ESFRI); RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap Consultation; Mechanisms for engaging with research communities, users, industrial customers etc. e.g. Formal town meetings with academic communities, Facility Access Panels, (advice on instruments, programmes and development), Facility scientific advisory panels; User satisfaction surveys; Stakeholder Engagement Plan for Announcement of July 2008 Programmatic Review decisions.
• •
Planned Improvements • • • Consolidate a single Stakeholder map. Implement a robust stakeholder engagement plan development of a corporate communications strategy Category 1 as part of STFC’s Category 1
Greater consultation on science strategy and programme through provision of specialist panels within the science advisory structure Category 2
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT CUSTOMER AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Communications
Objective
To ensure Delivery Partners have sound arrangements for identifying and engaging their customers and other stakeholders, and that they maintain a sound reputation.
Risk
The organisation fails to communicate effectively and there is little recognition of its role. The organisation has a poor public perception.
Self-Assessment
Corporate Communications (including corporate staff communications): Operational Communications: Corporate communications • The STFC’s corporate communications has been severely criticised over the last year. There has been strong external criticism by parts of the STFC’s community - primarily the particle physics and astronomy community, and by organisations representing physics in the UK - that the STFC failed to communicate with these stakeholders on its Delivery Plan and its Programmatic Review. These concerns were echoed in the House of Commons Select Committee report on the Science Budget Allocations. They are also reflected in the external survey commissioned as part of the Organisational Review. STFC management has also been criticised by many of its staff for failing to communicate effectively with them, both on the vision and plans for the STFC as distinct from its predecessor Councils, and how it relates to their Departmental and personal objectives, and on the management of the outcome of the Science Budget allocations. In relation to the latter, many perceive that STFC management has been overly preoccupied by external Red Green
•
“crisis” news management. Staff have also expressed concerns about the visibility of the senior management team and their lack of engagement in the development of the STFC’s strategy and plans. These criticisms are reflected in the recent Investors in People report, and the staff survey commissioned as part of the Organisational Review. • The STFC acknowledges these criticisms. It has taken action to improve both external and internal communications; regards further improvement as a very high priority; and is setting in place plans to achieve such improvement. As set out in the summary on customer insight, the STFC communicated effectively with many of its key stakeholders and in particular its research user communities and industry at an operational level. The STFC has carried out a major external review of its corporate communications capability and structure, and is in the process of implementing significant change, based on this review. The first element of this change is the appointment of a new professional Director, Communications, who will take up post on 4 August. Within the new structure, greater focus and resource will be put into external stakeholder engagement and internal communications In the interim and to improve its external news management, the STFC has employed external consultants in communication and public affairs to enable it to reflect more effectively its side of the story, in relation to the choices and decisions it has made in the Delivery Plan and how it intends to take its programme forward. In relation to internal communications, monthly staff fora have been introduced to enable monthly dialogue between senior Directors and staff at each of the STFC’s sites. This process supplements the cascading of information within departments, and is being further refined from September. Staff are being kept regularly informed on activity at a senior management level through the publication of minutes of the Executive Board, Operations Board, Strategy Board and the Finance Committee Further improvements will be made in the next 6 months. This will include the development of a comprehensive corporate communications strategy, including proactive media and public affairs strategies, and strategies for improving engagement and communication with staff and the community.
•
•
•
•
Operational Communications • STFC’S communications at an operational level with its research communities, other stakeholders and within the STFC at Business Unit and departmental levels are effective. Staff understand what they are doing and why. Interactions take place at many levels – through regular internal departmental meetings; town meetings; user group meetings; the KITE Club for engaging with various industrial sectors; outreach networks and peer review. These are supported by a variety of other resources such as websites; newsletters; email notifications; and annual reports. User satisfaction surveys commend the quality of STFC’s communications at this level. In the interests of transparency, the STFC makes public news from its Council, and the Science Advisory structure. Each major internal project - for example, the SRS closure project, the ISIS
• •
second target station construction programme or the Shared Services Centre project, is required to have a communications plan as part of the project, and staff are kept regularly informed through newsletters and staff meetings on progress, and its impact on them individually. • The STFC effectively communicates the outcome of the science it invests in and has been commended by the media for the quantity and quality of the material which it provides.
Evidence • • • • • • • • • • • • • STFC Annual Reports, including Corporate and Operational-levels (e.g. ISIS, JAC); External review of corporate communications; Staff survey on the SSC; Communications mechanisms for engaging with staff and other stakeholders; Staff and external stakeholder surveys as part of Organisational Review; SQW Report for DIUS on facilities; Town Meetings, Staff Forums etc; Websites, including public webs and staff intranet; Open Days; Knowledge Transfer Networks (KTN); Kite Club; Facility User interactions (e.g. User Groups); Draft STFC Communications Strategy documentation.
Planned Improvements • • • • • • • • Appointment of Director of Communications Completion of Corporate Communications Restructure Category 1 Category 1
Corporate communication strategy and implementation plans (including internal communication) to be completed. Category 1 Further review of feedback from staff and external surveys as part of the Organisational Review Category 1 More systematic identification of stakeholder communities and their representation including corporate engagement plans Category 2 Stakeholder perceptions audit Category 2
Harmonised IT systems to aid communication and reinforce over arching corporate brand and culture Category 2 Embed communications plans as part of Blueprint and corporate strategy programmes Category 2
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT CUSTOMER AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT: Engagement with Service Delivery Partners
Objective To ensure Delivery Partners have sound arrangements for identifying and engaging their customers and other stakeholders, and they maintain a sound reputation.
Risk The organisation fails to engage effectively with its own service delivery partners.
Self-Assessment Amber / Green • STFC has various roles as a grant funder; large facilities operator; and the provider of scientific and technology services. Therefore STFC has a large and diverse range of stakeholders, many of whom have multiple relationships with STFC and with whom STFC engages on many different levels. The major service delivery partners are those who enable STFC to deliver its objectives and include research communities; funding agencies; and public engagement organisations. Due to the nature of STFC’s work a great deal of these partners are international, and collaborations exist formally through inter-governmental and inter-agency agreements, which are supported or managed at a senior level within the organisation e.g. CERN, ESA, ESO, ESRF, ILL, and NASA. Whilst the STFC accepts that some recent decisions made in terms of international programmes have been unpopular with some scientists working in other countries, STFC has honoured all of its international agreements. Our partners in these international agencies face similar funding pressures to the STFC and are understanding of the STFC’s actions, the necessity for which they generally recognise, (indeed they often welcome us taking the initiative to reduce costs).
•
•
•
•
Senior members of the STFC continue to play key leadership roles in many of these organisations. In the recent past these have including chairing the finance committees of ESA, ESO and CERN. An STFC person has recently been reappointed as President of the ESO Council. The STFC currently chairs the ILL Steering Committee and has recently been reappointed Chair of the FALC Resource Committee. The STFC also leads the SKA Forum. It should be noted that several of these chairs have been awarded to members of the STFC outside the normal cycle of appointment, in recognition of their contribution. Both NASA and the US Department of Energy have recently confirmed that they wish to work more closely with the UK and with STFC. Associated with large scale international facilities, STFC has a partnership with UKTI that enables the matching of potential UK suppliers to international research facilities, providing procurement opportunities to UK industry. Links with industry and other collaborators or suppliers are achieved through procurement processes in STFC, which follow UK or EU guidelines for tendering dependent upon value of the contract. STFC is the major stakeholder in the Diamond Light Source (DLS) - the Wellcome Trust is the other partner. The DLS is central to our synchrotron light strategy for the UK, and we are working through the DLS Board to ensure this strategy is delivered. Overarching relationships with other Research Councils are coordinated through the RCUK partnership, where cross-Councils matters are managed and discussed, such as multidisciplinary priorities and the prioritisation of bids into the Large Facilities Capital Fund. STFC is also working with RCUK to deliver more efficient services. The prime example is the Shared Service Centre Project. Included within these cross-Council activities is the Research Organisations’ Consultative Group which oversees corporate level engagement with institutions, and meets regularly to obtain feedback. These activities are supported through interactions at a working level between programme managers and research administrative staff within the institutions, and also a programme of funding assurance visits to institutions, to audit activities and processes. Other overarching surveys are coordinated through this RCUK body to inform future policy direction. In addition to full cross-Council programmes individual Research Councils also enter into agreements with sub-groups of the whole family. It is recognised that improvements could be made in engagement with some Research Councils to better coordinate strategic facility development and exploitation. As part of RCUK, STFC is working through a cross-Council working group on interactions with the Technology Strategy Board, where STFC has committed to jointly support priority themes. In terms of scientific output and the delivery of knowledge, STFC works closely with academic communities, other research Council staff and some industrial partners to identify new opportunities, and establish appropriate mechanisms to deliver them. The support of scientific output also comes in the form of projects, which in some cases are formed from consortia and rely upon supply chains to deliver products that contribute to the complete project. The relationships with these
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
suppliers are dealt with locally, and their performance monitored through standard project management activities and formal contracts. • Part of the STFC mission is to improve the public understanding of science. A successful programme has been developed to inform and inspire a wide range of audiences by capitalising on the excitement of new developments and discoveries in the areas of science and technology that STFC supports. This is delivered through a variety of awards and schemes by close working partnerships with other organisations such as RCUK, British Association and the Royal Observatory and individuals including scientists, engineers, the media, educators and communications professionals. One key target audience is 11-16 year olds, often reached through the education system, which is uniquely supported by providing links between cutting edge research and the curriculum to translate young people’s fascination in scientific areas into an interest in developing a science career. From the £1.5 million invested since the merger exciting examples of specific partnership programmes include the programmes associated with Engagement Beacon Centres, Dark Skies Scotland and the Large Hadron Collider.
Evidence
• • • • UKTI customer database for potential suppliers to international large scale facilities; Facility interaction with users i.e. user groups, facility development panels; Diamond Light Source interaction; Formal cross-Council policies for engagement with grant holders, and systems to monitor performance including Funding Assurance Programme (FAP) and ad hoc review of specific areas such as the impact of FEC; Procurement policies and process; RCUK Research cross-council development groups; Project consortium agreements; Representation on science and technology governmental, inter-agency and project levels; collaborations at inter-
• • • • • •
Joint outreach events with other Research Councils, professional bodies and industry; Database of lectures and courses.
Planned Improvements
• • Enhance advisory structure to include greater number of specialist panels to provide greater engagement with research community. Category 2 Develop plans for more effective engagement with other provider, in particular the other research Councils and the Technology Strategy Board. Category 2 • Develop a comprehensive supplier database. Category 3
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MONITORING AND CONTROL Governance & Risk Management
Objective
To ensure governance and risk management processes are in place and that any significant issues arising are managed appropriately.
Risks
The organisation lacks the basic arrangements to control and manage the risks it faces. The organisation lacks the arrangements necessary to ensure probity.
Self-Assessment
Green STFC is generally compliant with good practice. Council • Council appointments are consistent with OCPA procedures - a code of practice exists and meetings are well planned, regular and appropriately focused. The Council receives standing reports on operations; finance; risk; health and safety; etc, as well as considering issues which impact on the development and delivery of the Council’s strategy. The outcomes from these meetings are well documented and actions followed through.
Audit Committee • The Audit Committee advises Council and the Chief Executive on governance and risk, and risk reporting to Audit Committee has occurred throughout the year. The Chair reports to each meeting of Council. The Audit Committee has welcomed the focus on risk throughout the organisation, and the further work in hand on the risk management framework and integrated risk reporting. The Executive Board, chaired by the Chief Executive, meets monthly and is the top-level governance and decision-making body. It receives reports from the Strategy and Operations Boards and the Finance Committee. It owns the top-
Executive Governance •
level corporate risk register. It considers issues which impact on overall strategy, performance and reputation. • The Operations Board, chaired by the Chief Operating Officer, meets monthly and is responsible for overseeing the management of the organisation. It oversees programme delivery, monitors operational risks, and develops the Council’s 10-year plan. It is responsible for overseeing the management of change within the organisation. The Finance Committee, chaired by the Chief Executive, meets monthly and is responsible for the oversight of governance and financial management. It owns the 10-year plan, approves changes to it, approves, monitors and agrees variations to annual allocations. It monitors high level risks and the governance of the organisation. Each senior Director receives an annual letter of delegation detailing their governance responsibilities, and they are required to report on the discharge of these responsibilities as part of the Assurance framework and input to compiling the Statement on Internal Control (SIC).
•
•
Programme / Project Governance • Each major programme/project has either a project oversight committee or project board which monitors performance against specification, time and budget. There is a risk log for each project; Risk management strategy, policy, register and advisory group are in place; A governance and risk management group has been established to develop best practice policies and procedures; There are financial and administrative procedures in place to guard against the risk of fraud. These are currently further supported by ex-PPARC & ex-CCLRC Fraud Policies and Response Plans; Internal Audit is provided by Research Councils’ Internal Audit Service (RCIAS) operating to GIAS standards.
• • •
•
Evidence
• • • • • • Appointment process consistent/ compliant with OCPA; Code of Practice for Non-Executive Council Members; Council remuneration consistent with remit agreed with DIUS and applied across the whole Research Council base; Typical Council business meeting agenda supported by Council minutes; Audit Committee Terms of Reference supported by minutes of meetings; Assurance framework as set out in Statement on Internal Control (SIC) supported by combination of Management Assurance and Independent Assurance. The NAO has confirmed that the SIC complies with HM Treasury guidance; Terms of reference of Executive governance structure – Executive Board, Operations Board, and Finance Committee;
•
• • • •
Corporate risk register maintained on STAR database. This is accessible and maintained across Directorate boundaries. Financial and other procedures on segregation of duties and guarding against the risk of fraud. Ex-PPARC & Ex-CCLRC Fraud Policies and Response Plans. Annual Treasury Fraud Return. RCIAS Audit Reports – Financial Systems (Health check & Full System review) – Substantial Assurance. RCIAS Annual Report ‘positive reasonable assurance’. No material issues relating governance or risk management, although not formally reviewed in period. Review scheduled for August 2008. Peer Review of RCIAS against GIAS is ongoing – awaiting report. Project Management Guidance documentation.
• •
Planned Improvements
• • Regularise assurance reports recommendations/ actions. to Executive Board for all critical Category 2
Pilot self-assessment with Audit Committee (Nov 08) with view to Council assessment every 2-years (i.e. assessment of collective performance as outlined in Code of Practice). Category 3 Plans are in place to develop Risk Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure consistency of logging and interpretation across the organisation. Category 3
•
• • • • • •
Work in hand to develop enhanced risk database that is integrated with performance management and assurance framework. Category 3 Enhance governance arrangements for project management Category 3
Planned action to introduce Council Member rolling appraisal process. Category 3 Update Council Members’ Handbook Update and issue STFC Fraud Policy & Response Plan Programme of renewal of STFC Policies and procedures Category 3 Category 3 Category 3
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MONITORING AND CONTROL Financial Management
Objective
To ensure governance and risk management processes are in place and that any significant issues arising are managed appropriately.
Risk
Budgets are not properly controlled, resulting in a risk of significant over/underspends
Self-Assessment
Green Processes are in place to control, monitor and to report on actual performance against budgets, and to mitigate the risks of significant over/underspends. • • Budgets are approved, monitored and adjusted by the Finance Committee, chaired by the Chief Executive as Accounting Officer. There is a financial report to the Executive Board, the Operations Board, the Finance Committee, Audit Committee and Council at each respective meeting. Annual budgets are set in the context of a 10-year plan which is the primary financial planning tool. The 10-year plan assumes no increase in income (flat cash) but planned expenditure is either the actual budget for an approved project or is cash planned (i.e. assumes inflation). This ensures budgets are based on reasonable medium-term financial projections and risk assessments. The 10-year plan is intended to: ¾ capture and assess the resource implications of the future plans of each STFC programme element, for both operations and development activity; the full plan has over 500 such entries; ¾ continuously track changes to plans and their status as they move through the STFC approval and post-approval monitoring processes;
•
•
¾ identify the expected lifetimes of projects and programmes and identify when programmes will be sunset, thereby allowing investment in new programme; ¾ provide a reliable basis in making future investment decisions.
•
In the 10-year plan budgets are set for three key 'types' of actual or potential commitment: ¾ approved project/activity i.e. a firm commitment; ¾ rmarked project/activity i.e. existing and/or ongoing programme activities (e.g. grants, facility operations) for which future budgets, or programme extensions, are planned but not yet formally approved; ¾ new opportunities e.g. an activity on the STFC Road Map and/or where a Statement of Interest has been requested/submitted.
•
In-Year Provisional Budgets to Directors are set close to the start of the financial year. Final budgets are set in late June. Monitoring and reporting is system based. Within delegated limits, in-year variations/changes to budgets are under the control of the appropriate director. Budget performance is monitored through a Council-wide outturn forecast (OTF) process. Reports are made routinely to the Operations Board, Finance Committee, Executive Board, Audit Committee and Council. Changes to Directorate budgets require the formal approval of the Finance Committee. Where agreed changes to the OTF have a knock-on effect into future years, these are captured and considered for approval as part of the 10-Year Planning process. Budgets for specific approved projects are monitored by Project Boards, and in the case of large projects by Oversight Committees. Risks of cost overruns are required to be reported as soon as a potential risk is identified and mitigating strategies agreed. Material issues of concerns are reported to the Finance Committee. STFC inherited the capital investment strategies and fixed asset management plans of its predecessor Councils. A new STFC wide strategy is being compiled; Creation of the new Council required that the financial processes, systems and procedures of the predecessor Councils be integrated and operate consistently from 1 April 2007. Prior to the merger, and with the agreement of the National Audit Office, it was decided to continue to use the ex-CCLRC and ex-PPARC extant finance systems until migration of the Council’s administration and finance activities to the Research Councils’ Shared Services Centre single unified system. Continued operation of the two systems brought with it the need to build an overarching consolidation system to provide STFC-wide financial information, and the full integration of processes, procedures and staffing. Encouragingly, the systems have operated successfully to the extent that full information has been provided to all budget holders throughout the financial year, and the final accounts prepared to time and quality. This is to the great credit of the Finance team. The National Audit Office have raised no issues in relation to this
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
consolidation process and were content with the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. They do however, emphasise the ‘need to continue to develop policies and procedures uniformly across the two previous bodies’ to ensure harmonised, complete and consistent standards. • The 2007/08 Annual Report and Accounts has been subject to full scrutiny by the executive, Council, the Audit Committee, DIUS and the NAO. The Accounts have received a clean audit opinion; A small planning team drawn from the Chief Operating Officer’s Office and Finance Directorate has been set up to manage corporate financial planning and budgetary control; A significant proportion of STFC financial processes will transfer to the RCUK Shared Service Centre in 2009. STFC requirements are being managed through the STFC SSC Project and representation on the RCUK SSC Project.
•
•
Evidence
• Regular & Comprehensive Financial reporting, including to: ¾ Operations Board, Finance Committee and Executive Board; ¾ Audit Committee; and ¾ Council; • • • Delegation Letters/ Allocation letters to Directors; Project management guidance documentation; RCIAS Audit Reports – Financial Systems (Health check & Full System review) – Substantial Assurance. RCIAS Annual Report ‘positive reasonable assurance’. Review scheduled for August 2008; IYFM/budget planning and control process; STFC first Annual Accounts obtained a clean audit; 10-year plan; Accounting policies.
• • • •
Planned Improvements
• A thorough review of STFC infrastructure and cost structure has commenced. The review will include use of assets and infrastructure and help give a fuller understanding of STFC’s cost structure and drivers. It is anticipated that the programme will take 9 months to complete with the aim of having any budget or structural changes in place for FY 2009/10. Category 2 Complete the STFC Capital Investment Plan. Category 2
• • •
Enhanced process in outturn forecasting through more robust review and oversight of variances. Category 3 Programme of renewal of STFC Policies and Procedures. Category 3
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MONITORING AND CONTROL Performance Management
Objective
To ensure governance and risk management processes are in place, and that any significant issues arising are managed appropriately.
Risks
Performance Plans are not realistic. Performance targets are not being met, or are not on course to be met.
Self-Assessment
Amber / Green • • • • At a top-level, STFC’s performance plans and targets are set out in its Delivery Plan. The Delivery Plan for 2007/08 matched the allocations transferred from CCLRC and PPARC, and from EPSRC for Nuclear Physics. The Delivery Plan for 2008/09 – 2010/11 is matched to the financial allocations from CSR07. STFC management reports quarterly to Council and to DIUS, under the agreed Performance Management Framework, on the delivery of these plans through the associated scorecard. In its first year the STFC achieved 94% of its targets. Plans and targets which were not achieved (these primarily relate to slippages in high risk technology projects), are discussed in Council and at the biannual meetings between DIUS and STFC’s management. Within the Performance Management Framework, DIUS and the Research
•
•
Councils have agreed a set of performance metrics under the Economic Impact Reporting Framework. STFC reports annually on these metrics. • At an operational level, each major facility has targets for technical performance, availability and user satisfaction. Outcomes are also monitored in relation to papers and citations compared with other similar facilities. For other programmes/services/projects provided by in-house departments or universities, performance targets are set between the customer and the service provider. Performance is monitored through project management Committees and by the STFC Operations Board. STFC’s evidence base and management information systems needs further development to underpin STFC’s decision-making and performance management.
•
•
Evidence
• • • • • • Delivery Plan, associated scorecards and reports to Council, EB & DIUS. Economic Impact Reporting Framework (EIRF) metrics. Most recent annual report on EIRF metrics. RCIAS Audit Report on performance management and Management Response Participation on RCUK Performance Evaluation Group (PEG) and Research Outputs Group Pre-existing operational-level performance management systems (e.g. Project Review committees, Grants FAP)
Planned Improvements
• The performance management framework between DIUS and the STFC will continue to evolve but moving forward the STFC has identified the need to set up a more systematic process of aligning its corporate strategy and stretching objectives for its Directorates, Departments and the individual member of staff. As part of this project the intent will be to develop a smarter set of key performance indicators which will enable the organisation to set trajectories and to monitor performance against the achievement of these targets. Category 2 • The STFC will produce an Annual Operating Plan and Report. The Operating Plan will capture the organisation’s operational milestones and targets which map on to the objectives in the Delivery Plan. An Operating Report will assess performance against each year’s targets. Category 2 To develop a framework of SMART metrics (key performance indicators), supported by a management information framework that facilitates the evaluation process. Category 2 To develop improved management information systems and processes. Category 2
•
•
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT DELIVERY Leadership
Objective To ensure the Delivery Partner (i.e. STFC) has the capacity to deliver, and that it delivers its planned outcomes in line with its budgets
Risk The organisation lacks sound leadership resulting in potential risk to delivery.
Self-Assessment Amber / Red • • Effective leadership is a key requirement in STFC, particularly given the scale of change following the merger in 2007. The formation of STFC in April 2007 required a major re-organisation and alignment of responsibilities which presented a number of new challenges in terms of top-level leadership, direction and control. The senior Director posts were filled by internal competition drawn from the previous CCLRC and PPARC management teams, independently assessed by members of Council. The STFC has responded to the evolving needs of the organisation by developing its management structure with the creation of three new posts: a Chief Operating Officer; a Director, Commercial and Corporate Affairs; a Director, Campus Strategy. The aim of these changes has been to : ¾ enable the Chief Executive to focus more on external engagement with key national and international stakeholders, while retaining overall responsibility and accountability for the effective performance of the STFC;
•
•
•
¾ provide, through the Chief Operating Officer, a stronger focus on managing the organisation and the delivery of the STFC’s programme; ¾ provide more dedicated leadership and focus in the areas of Commercial Affairs, Campus Development, Knowledge Exchange and Technology Development, all of which are key elements of the STFC’s mission. • These changes will be supplemented by the appointment in August 2008 of a new Director, Communications, an area in which the STFC recognises it must have enhanced capability, and the appointment of a new Director (acting), Knowledge Exchange. The STFC has also developed its corporate governance arrangements through an Executive Board; Strategy Board; Operations Board; and Finance Committee. This organisational structure needs to ‘bed-down’ and then be evaluated. Below this level there has been relatively little change reflecting the high quality of management which was inherited from CCLRC and PPARC at an operational level. The STFC will build on the leadership and management training programmes already in place within CCLRC and PPARC, and leadership programmes will form part of the “Blueprint” programme. Concerns have been expressed internally and externally about the leadership, particularly at a senior level in STC. It is acknowledged that the STFC need to do more to communicate more effectively, and engage with external stakeholders and its staff more, and earlier, in developing its vision, strategy and plans. These concerns must be put in perspective. As exemplified elsewhere in these self-assessment reports much has been achieved during the STFC’s first year. The STFC has demonstrated leadership as an organisation in the development of the RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap; in the successful development of the Technology Gateway Centres; to recently receive earmarked funding from DIUS from the Large Facility Capital Fund; and the ongoing development of strategy by the various international bodies of which the STFC is a member – with STFC members holding senior leadership positions in many of them, (including ESO, ILL etc). The Chief Executive and the senior management team have led effectively in shaping the STFC’s strategy; in delivering a prioritised programme for the next three years; in setting out major priorities for the next decade in terms of major facilities; in identifying new technology capabilities which will underpin the research base; in moving forward the campus agenda; and in working with funding agencies internationally to position the UK as a proactive partner in shaping future global science strategy. They have also initiated major programmes to develop a corporate strategy for the STFC, and a change management programme to ensure the organisation is fit for purpose moving forward. In terms of fundamentals, an effective system of delegation is in place; delivery targets have been achieved; operational performance is high; there is effective budgetary and risk management control; and the accounts have received a clean audit.
• • •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
There is a perception internally that there is a need for a stronger coupling between the vision which the corporate leadership has for the STFC, and the strategies and performance targets at an operational level. This need has been recognised and is being addressed as part of the corporate strategy development programme Many staff have expressed concern about the visibility of the Chief Executive and Senior Directors. The STFC is larger, more complex and more geographically dispersed organisation than its predecessors and has to engage with a much broader range of stakeholders. To enable effective dialogue, greater reliance must be placed on effectively cascading information about the direction and goals of the organisation, as well as sharing corporately its achievements. Actions have been put in place to supplement these normal processes. These include monthly staff talks at all of the STFC sites by one or more of the senior Directors. The Chief Operating Officer has also set up a blog through which he can update staff on current developments and answer staff questions. Externally, criticism of the STFC’s leadership has been associated particularly with the way in which the STFC was perceived to have handled the outcome of the CSR07 settlement. The concerns have focussed on two issues: ¾ the transparency and robustness of STFC’s decision-making; ¾ the way in which the STFC communicated with its stakeholders and community.
•
•
•
The STFC has acknowledged publicly that more effective communications is important. Specifically there is a need to achieve a better balance between transparencies, and communicating well thought out messages. As set out in the self-assessment report on communications, an external review of its communications capability has been carried out and actions are in hand to improve this capability. On the issue of decision-making, there will always be winners and losers when investment choices have to be made. However the STFC has acknowledged that it could have consulted more effectively as part of its decision-making. Better consultation will be put in place in developing future plans.
•
Evidence • • • • • • • • • Revised top-level staff structures. Chief Executive’s Letters of Delegation STFC Executive Board – membership, terms of reference STFC Operations Board – membership, terms of reference STFC Strategy Board – membership, terms of reference STFC Finance Committee – membership, terms of reference STFC corporate strategy development Decisions on Large Facilities Capital fund BLUEPRINT change management programme
• • • • •
CRISTAL Management Training Staff and External stakeholder surveys as part of Organisational Review Decisions on Large Facility Capital Fund, Programmatic Review Senior Management Excellence training programme Town Meetings, Staff Forums.
Planned Improvements • • • • • Consolidate & further develop all current initiatives including staff fora and the implementation of Corporate Communications Strategy. Category 1 Leadership development as part of the “Blueprint” programme in terms of managing change. Category 1 Implementing “quick wins” as identified by the Blueprint project. Category 1
Implementing a staff perceptions audit as part of the Blueprint Project. Category 2 The recent introduction of the CRISTAL management training programme to ensure managers have required skill set individually and as members of a team. Category 2
•
Complete STFC’s Corporate Strategy, including Economic Impact & International Strategy & updating its Science & Technology Strategy Category 2
• •
Development of Business Unit/ departmental strategies in alignment with Category 2 Corporate Strategy Further strengthen and formalise the link between Corporate & Business Unit/ departmental strategies and operational planning, establishing an STFC annual Category 2 operating plan. Further formalise the decision making process for key strategic and operational Category 2 choices. STFC Council will continue to support and review the ongoing development of leadership capability within the council. Category 2
• •
ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT DELIVERY Capability
Objective To ensure the Delivery Partner (i.e. STFC) has the capacity to deliver and that it delivers its planned outcomes in line with its budgets
Risk The organisation lacks the capability required to deliver its planned outcomes.
Self-Assessment Amber / Green • Capability is recognised as a critical success factor for STFC. It includes both the in-house expertise, and the infrastructure necessary to enable programme delivery and development.
Staffing • There are established procedures in place for workforce planning and control, and staff performance management systems help to ensure individual performance objectives are aligned with the STFC’s programme objectives. These HR policies existed within CCLRC and PPARC and are now being reviewed and harmonised to meet STFC’s requirements, as an understanding of what is required by STFC becomes clearer. Specific skills needed to maintain the required capability are developed through a range of training and other development methods, and Recruitment and Retention Allowances are used for retaining staff in areas of skill shortages. These methods include a Graduate Engineering scheme, apprenticeships and structured training in specific areas, e.g. safety. There are also established General Management and Project Management training programmes.
•
• •
The recruitment and retention of key skills will continue to be constrained by public sector pay. Individual requirements are addressed via the staff performance appraisal systems. All training is properly evaluated, and lessons learned are applied as part of staff performance review. Investors in People (IiP) principles are established, and are being used to ensure staff can reach their full potential. IiP accreditation was achieved by both CCLRC and PPARC. Re-accreditation is being sought to re-affirm the STFC’s commitment to its staff. Some issues were identified by the 2007 Investors in People (IiP) Review, in the main reflecting the organisation’s transition postmerger, and IiP Working Group is monitoring progress against actions agreed for re-accreditation in December 2008. Opportunities for External Income generation are being explored to make best use of competencies/capability to support STFC Delivery Plan priorities, and to meet DIUS’s targets for economic impact. Since its inception, STFC has been responding to significant organisational change, including the Shared Services Centre. The creation of the Shared Services Centre will have a major impact on the delivery of many of the key processes and systems which underpin the STFC’s service capability. The management of the implementation is, and will need to be, monitored closely to ensure that the capabilities within STFC and the Shared Services Centre are fully aligned To benchmark its capability, the STFC has carried our two major audits of its inhouse research effort and of its competencies, to capture key scientific/technical competencies, proficiency and applicability across the organisation.
•
•
•
•
Infrastructure
• •
STFC continues to strive to ensure that the research technological infrastructure of its laboratories and its estates remains 'fit for purpose'. Building on a programme of infrastructure investment and facility development established by CCLRC, STFC has in its first year delivered major enhancements at both its major sites: ¾ At DL, the [£16M] Energy Recovery Linac Prototype has been completed and has now entered its commissioning phase; ¾ At RAL, the [£6M] ASTRA-GEMINA laser system was inaugurated by the Science Minister in autumn 2007. The [£145M] ISIS Second Target Station project remains on budget and on schedule for science delivery in autumn 2008. A range of facility upgrade and enhancement projects supported by the [£7M] strategic Facility Development line have been delivered, enhancing capability and capacity at both ISIS and the Central Laser Facility; ¾ The world-leading £14M SCUBA2 instrument designing and built at the UK ATC has been successfully installed on the JCMT on Hawaii. ¾ A substantial refurbishment programme for existing laboratory and office space at DL is nearing completion. A new [£6M] reception and security building has opened at RAL; the [£17M] Tier 1 computer centre,
established as the UK centre to handle data from the Large Hadron Collider in CERN is on schedule for completion in Autumn 2008; and construction has begun on the [£26M] MRC-led Research Complex Building (scheduled for completion in late 2009).
•
STFC is producing, as part of its first 10-year investment plan, a capital investment strategy to ensure that our laboratory infrastructure is fit for purpose to deliver key elements of our science and innovation strategy. Early indications are that there are strongly competing priorities for capital expenditure.
Evidence • • • • • • HR processes, staff improvement schemes (e.g. Learning & Development); In-house research reviews; Competencies review; IiP report and action plan; BLUEPRINT programme – objectives, timescales; Estates/ Infrastructure development plans and achievements.
Planned Improvements • • Ex-CCLRC / ex-PPARC policies and procedures need to be harmonised – programme of renewal is ongoing. Category 2 Outcome of Competencies Survey to be considered against strategic objectives as these evolve and incorporated in future training programmes and learning and development plans. Category 2 Achieve IiP re-accreditation Category 2
• • •
Need to review and shape capability requirements to meet new strategic priorities in the area of economic impact. Category 2 Fully incorporated Capital Investment Strategy in the STFC’s 10-year plan Category 2
ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT DELIVERY Outcomes
Objective To ensure the Delivery Partner (i.e. STFC) has the capacity to deliver and that it delivers its planned outcomes in line with its budgets.
Risks The organisation fails to achieve its planned outcomes. The organisation fails to live within its budget. Self-Assessment Green • The STFC Delivery Plan and Scorecard 2008 provide top-level targets and deliverables against which to measure STFC progress and performance. These are being reported quarterly to DIUS; STFC met 94% of its targets in its first year; It lived within its budget in 2007/08 and indeed deliberately managed an underspend to ease the pressures on funding in 2008/09; STFC has set out its plans for the CSR07 period in its Delivery Plan for 2008/09 within its allocations; These plans have allowed for the introduction of a significant number of new programmes; The STFC has worked with DIUS to optimise the financial flexibility it has over this period. There are still some financial risks but these are considered manageable within the degree of flexibility agreed; STFC project delivery processes have been transferred across from PPARC/CCLRC. These processes were subject to an NAO VFM review in 2006; Arrangements for tracking delivery progress and performance across STFC are broadly sound. These are underpinned by robust processes for: ¾ project delivery governing the initiation, approval, implementation,
• • • • •
• •
monitoring and evaluation of projects/initiatives; ¾ Development, operation and maintenance of STFC Facilities and services ¾ An integrated programme for exploitation and knowledge exchange arising from institutes, international projects and laboratories, which are funded by STFC • Through its membership of, and R&D collaboration with, major international organisations (e.g. CERN, ESA, ESRF), STFC works to ensure these are operated as cost-effectively as possible, and that the UK has access to world-leading instruments, and gets the best scientific return for its investment. STFC has many success stories on its achievements, which demonstrate the outcomes it is delivering. These are captured and reported in a number of ways, both formal and informal, including via regular Director reports to Council, Operating Report to DIUS, website news/announcements, press releases and targeted events.
•
Evidence • • • • • • • • • STFC Delivery Plans and Scorecards Economic Impact Reporting Framework metrics and Annual report Annual Accounts Finance Committee – Terms of reference STFC project management handbooks Policy guidance on Facility operations KE funding initiatives and exploitation activities (e.g. PIPSS) Independent reviews of STFC facilities (internal and external) Key successes and achievements (examples provided)
Planned Improvements • Key lessons learned in how project management and assurance is dealt with as a discipline within the STFC programme/ project management environment, for example through gateway or post-implementation reviews, should be incorporated within STFC standard operating procedures. Category 3 Continue to enhance role and operation of new STFC peer review / advisory processes to ensure that the full spectrum of STFC programme activities are scrutinised independently and objectively, so that strategic decision-making is correctly tensioned against competing strategic priorities (e.g. facilities development and science programmes) Category 3 Some improvements in management information and reporting are needed to help demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of STFC investment (e.g. in terms of industrial return) to DIUS and Treasury Category 3 High level STFC interactions needed with EU regarding EC funding strategies/priorities for future programmes. Category 3
•
•
•
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MANAGEMENT OF VALUE FOR MONEY
Objective
To ensure the organisation achieves economy efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of its services
Risks
The organisation lacks focus on value for money. The organisation is not operating efficiently and is failing to achieve value for money
Self-Assessment
Green • • STFC actively seeks to maximise the value of the outputs it delivers, using the resources it has available. All current investments in programmes, facilities and projects are reviewed every two years (the Programmatic Review), to evaluate whether they are, and will, continue to deliver value for money. If the assessment is that they will not, investment is reduced or withdrawn. All new investment decisions are evaluated and prioritised by the executive. Independent advice is obtained on science and facilities investments from the science advisory structure. A number of criteria are used, but VFM is key. These processes passed scrutiny by NAO in the review of Big Science- Public Investment in Large Facilities (January 2007). A substantial proportion of STFC’s investment is in international subscriptions. Participation in CERN, ESA, ESO, ESRF and ILL are essential in delivering the STFC’s strategy by providing access to state-of-the art facilities and infrastructure in specific science areas. The extent to which the STFC is in a position to influence materially the policies and direction of the international
•
• •
organisations of which it is a member, is inevitably constrained by the voting rules and the wishes of the partnership. The STFC has gained influence and control over and above its stakeholder share by making key and timely additional investments, for example in ESA’s Aurora programme and by securing key posts at Council level, or as Chairs and / or key members of scientific, technical, finance, audit and administration committees. Through these mechanisms, the STFC has been instrumental in persuading such organisations to participate in developing global science strategies, to adopt reform programmes to ensure they are delivering value for money, and to implement certain UK accounting and governance standards; in particular at CERN, ESA and ESO. • • • In relation to ESA, a juste retour mechanism is in place to ensure UK industry benefits in proportion to our mandatory subscription. The STFC’s economic impact strategy is intended to maximise the return to the UK economy. In its Delivery Plan for 2008/09 – 2010/11, the STFC set aggressive targets for delivering efficiency savings in its operations. Further, it has stated its commitment to contribute to efficiency savings across the Research Councils against target savings (3% per annum) in administration, agreed with DIUS. These savings will be achieved primarily through the implementation of a Shared Service Centre which will provide administrative services (Finance, Procurement, HR, Grants Processing and IT) to all Research Councils. STFC is producing a capital investment strategy to ensure that its infrastructure is fit for purpose, to deliver key elements of its science and innovation strategy. This builds on the existing programme of improvements with funding provided in SR2004. STFC inherited from CCLRC and PPARC target savings under the Gershon Efficiency Project, as an outcome of SR04. STFC contributes to this process through its membership of the RCUK Efficiency Delivery Project (REDP). The STFC is on track to deliver its share of the savings. In relation to the savings targets set in STFC’s Delivery Plan for the CSR07 period, STFC is committed to developing and implementing a programme of business re-engineering to ensure that the new Council is fully integrated, and is operating cost-effectively in relation to its financial, procurement, HR and IT policy and business processes. This programme will be managed as part of a management of change programme – ‘Blueprint’ – and will build on previous initiatives such as Fit For the Future and adapt business processes to meet the new challenges facing STFC. STFC plays a key role in the Shared Service Centre project which has highly challenging targets, and will require significant resources to ensure its implementation benefits delivery for STFC.
•
•
•
•
•
Evidence
• • • • • • • • • • • • • STFC Delivery Plan, Scorecard and Delivery Plan Annual Report. Programmatic review – criteria and process for evaluating value for money from existing investments. Criteria and appraisal process for new investment decisions. Specific examples of influencing on European organisations (eg representation at CERN). NAO Report on Public Investment in Large Facilities. (2007) Compliant with Guidance from the Office of Science and Innovation (now DIUS) adopted by the Research Councils. Project management handbooks. Compliant with HM Treasury’s Green Book entitled ‘Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government’. Terms of reference of relevant peer review bodies. Reports to DIUS against Gershon targets. Blueprint programme – objectives. Grants Funding Assurance Programme (FAP) Procurement policy and guidelines (e.g. on competition)
Planned Improvements
• As set out in the performance management section, the STFC is developing a comprehensive set of KPIs, against which performance will be measured. These KPIs will include value for money. Category 3 Programme of business re-engineering as part of the Blueprint programme. Category 3 • Second round of ‘Gershon’ requires production of a unified single target regime for the whole council, replacing CCLRC/PPARC targets set for its predecessor bodies. Category 3
•
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
Objective
To ensure the Delivery Partner works in a flexible way and has a drive to innovation in its service delivery and that where change is undertaken it is managed effectively.
Risks
Plans for changing operations are poor. The organisation lacks the capacity to successfully implement its change plans, resulting in the ultimate failure to achieve its plans, or waste of money in implementation.
Self-Assessment
Amber / Green STFC operates in an environment which is subject to continuous improvement and change. Consistent with the Government’s PSA targets and in common with other Delivery Partners, it must be proactive and have the capacity to: • • • refresh its science programme to sustain the competitiveness of the UK research base; develop innovative ways of delivering greater economic impact; and deliver more effective services.
In parallel, as a relatively new organisation, the STFC is undergoing a process of organisational change, to ensure that its culture and processes are fully aligned with its objectives and organisational needs. For example: • Various processes exist for developing and refreshing the science and technology programme - each tailored to meet the needs of the different communities we support. These include a process by which research groups can, at any time, submit statements of interest to develop new capabilities; Significant new programmes are subjected to a number of stages of peer
•
review, including open community meetings and formal cost and management reviews; • Through the development of a 10-year plan and the biennial programmatic review, STFC has a rolling process of assessing priorities and, in doing so. identifying resources for support of new opportunities; In its first year, the STFC has demonstrated its capacity to take decisions to change direction in either sunsetting or reshaping programmes. Examples include ceasing support for the existing International Linear Collider project, and setting up a New Light Source project; STFC has effectively managed the rundown and closure of a major facility, the Synchrotron Radiation Source at the Daresbury Laboratory with minimum disruption to the science programme, and a sensitively managed redundancy programme; While CCLRC and PPARC both had a good track record for knowledge exchange, enhancing the STFC’s impact requires some change in culture and approach. In the area of technology development, departments are incentivised through a mix of direct vote and external income to continuously develop new state-of-the-art capability which will both enhance the competitiveness of the science programme, and deliver greater economic impact. This process of technology transfer is enabled through CLIK; In relation to overall organisation change, the merger project was achieved with the minimum of additional resource, and disruption to the on-going programme. The merger was considered a success by the NAO; STFC is playing a key role in the creation of the new Shared Services Centre; Following the merger, STFC recognises that significant cultural differences remain within the organisation. While major changes have already been made in the STFC’s governance and decision-making processes, it will take time to create a new organisation with its own culture, a shared understanding of a coherent strategy, its delivery and integrated ways of working, and processes; In order to manage this process, an ongoing programme specifically designed to deliver change and a project framework is being put in place, to produce a ‘Blueprint’ for the organisation going forward. The Blueprint programme with its inclusive and structured approach will provide a critical means to managing change effectively. The objectives are to : Implement a long term business model for STFC aligned to: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Its Vision and strategy Priorities Funding
•
•
•
•
• •
•
Implement organisational changes Core processes Support infrastructure
Develop World Class management capability Culture and team spirit Skills – (based on awareness of commercial, cost and motivational drivers) Processes
Incorporate: ? ? “Quick wins” identified by “theme teams” Actions agreed from the Organisational Review
Engage and motivate all managers and staff in the process.
Evidence
• • • • • • • • • • 10-year plan Statements of Interest process Programmatic review Schemes for enabling/incentivising technology development and transfer IIP report BLUEPRINT programme – objectives, timescales, methodology. SSC Project management documentation for STFC implementation project SRS Closure project documentation Merger Implementation project documentation, including NAO report New Light Source development project
Planned Improvements
• • • A Formal Change Management programme overseen by the Operations Board Category 2 Formal project management standards, including communications plan, applied to Blueprint programme Category 2 Executive Board assurance framework receiving progress report on agreed actions Category 2
For further information contact: Mr Gordon Stewart Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX UK Tel: +44 (0) 1235 445000 (general number) Email: [email protected]
doc_326771513.pdf
In social psychology, self-assessment is the process of looking at oneself in order to assess aspects that are important to one's identity. It is one of the motives that drive self-evaluation, along with self-verification and self-enhancement.
Organisational Review
Self Assessment Report
August 2008
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW SELF- ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW
Introduction The basis of this Organisational Review is a self-assessment by the STFC management, subject to review and validation by an external panel. The findings are to be jointly agreed between the STFC management and the Panel prior to sign-off by DIUS, with any significant areas of disagreement highlighted. This overview presents background on the formation of the STFC, outlines progress that has been made during its first 15 months, and a summary self-assessment. Background The Science and Technology Facilities Council (the STFC) was formed on 1 April 2007 through merging two Research Councils, CCLRC and PPARC. All the responsibilities of these Councils transferred to the STFC, together with responsibility for nuclear physics which was transferred from EPSRC. The nature and scope of the STFC’s responsibilities and activities, together with some basic information on its funding (sources and recipients); size of its customer/supplier base, users, grant holders, etc; and staffing (type and geographical distribution), are summarised for ease of reference in Annex 1. The decision to set up the STFC was announced by Government on 25 July 2006. The merger was therefore effected over an 8 month period. Given this aggressive timetable, the primary objective agreed with DIUS was to establish by 1 April 2007 a legally compliant organisation, with the capacity to operate as a going concern and discharge effectively the responsibilities from the predecessor Councils. This was considered a realistic objective despite the timescale and constraints. These constraints included: • • the need to maintain business as usual and ensure a seamless transfer of responsibilities with no additional resource; the designate Chief Executive was only appointed in November 2006, designate senior management team in January 2007, and the Chair and Council at the end of March 2007; and,
•
the impact of coincident major organisational change, in particular, the development of the RCUK Shared Services Centre. The Shared Services Centre was initiated by all the Research Councils in June 2006, in response to the demand for full harmonisation of back office processes. Pending clarity on how the SSC would be implemented, it was judged that decisions on the harmonisation of many basic business processes and systems used by CCLRC and PPARC should not be taken prior to the merger.
The National Audit Office reviewed the merger project, concluded that it was achieved effectively and commended as good practice a number of features of the management of the project. It is to the credit of the staff that business as usual was maintained during the period of the merger. The Delivery Reports to DIUS for 2006/07 by both CCLRC and PPARC recorded that the objectives, performance targets and milestones of both organisations were achieved. As with most mergers, it was recognised at the outset that it would take both time and significant change to turn the STFC into a single coherent organisation with a shared vision, a clear set of priorities across its programme consistent with its funding, a shared and embedded set of cultural values, a cohort of staff with the capacity and skill to meet the Council’s short and medium term needs, efficient business processes and systems, and a unified IT infrastructure. The first year of STFC coincided with CSR07. As a new organisation, responding to CSR07 was particularly challenging. Annex 2 sets out the timelines against which the STFC had to develop its priorities for CSR07 under various planning scenarios presented by DIUS and produce its Delivery Plan for the CSR period consistent with the Council’s allocation. Progress to Date During the first year of the Council, significant progress has been made. A unified management structure was established and confirmed on 1 April 2007. A conscious decision was made by the Chair and Chief Executive, with the agreement of DIUS, to build the initial management team from the existing and experienced senior managers in CCLRC and PPARC to ensure continuity. This structure has then been evolved to reflect the breadth and complexity of the STFC compared with its predecessors, and to place greater focus on the areas where the STFC intends to provide greater impact. Within this structure, clearly defined levels of delegated authority were established. The corporate governance arrangements for the organisation have also evolved through the establishment of an Executive Board, an Operations Board, a Strategy Board and a Finance Committee, to ensure that those senior Directors with significant programme and organisational responsibility are involved in key decisions on strategy formulation, operational performance and finance.
The STFC Council is different from that of the other research councils by design. In addition to the Chair and Chief Executive, it is comprised of six non-executive and two executive members. It has met monthly and focuses on top level strategic and governance issues. The Science Board, which reports to it has responsibility for the stewardship of the science programme, a role traditionally played by the science members of its predecessor Councils. A unified science advisory structure was set up by July 2007. Having a unified structure was essential to ensure that the STFC had the capacity to develop coherent strategies for each of the science areas within its remit, and to tension and prioritise the investment choices across the broader science programme, needed to deliver a coherent investment plan. This structure also provided panels for the evaluation of grants by discipline, as well for facilities. It was recognised at the outset that this advisory structure would also evolve and, in particular, in relation to how STFC could best engage with its research communities and other stakeholders in informing its longer-term science, technology and economic impact strategies. The effectiveness of this new management and advisory structure was demonstrated by its ability to produce a prioritised science programme, as set out in the STFC’s first Delivery Plan which was produced in October 2007, and to review systematically all current programmes and facilities, and prioritise them for continuing investment (Programmatic Review) which was complete by January 2008. Despite the considerable concern in the community, the subsequent public consultation did not recommend any major material change to the programme. Some tough decisions had to be made, for example to cease the 4GLS project and create a New Light Source project, and to cease investment in The International Linear Collider Project. The STFC has carried through these decisions despite considerable controversy. There are issues around whether the STFC might have handled consultation and the communications associated with these and other decisions more effectively. Actions to address these issues are discussed later. However difficult decisions such as these must be made, if the STFC is to refocus its programme on those investments which it believes will deliver most impact for the UK. The STFC acknowledges that it did not sufficiently engage with its community and other stakeholders in forming its strategy and first Delivery Plan, but such consultation was not practicable within the timescale of, and constraints surrounding the CSR07 process and decisions. It is clear that STFC needs to engage more effectively with its external stakeholders in articulating and shaping its corporate strategy. Shortcomings in communications and consultation processes have been damaging to the STFC’s reputation, and steps have been, and will be taken to address this. External consultation based on STFC’s draft corporate strategy will take place this autumn, and there will be extensive consultation in developing its longer-term science and technology strategy moving forward, and in carrying out major reviews such as the programmatic review. In addition to wider consultation, STFC will enhance its peer-
review advisory structure to marshal more effectively inputs from the research community. On programme delivery, the STFC has met all of its targets. The facilities have continued to operate to the agreed high level of operational effectiveness and user satisfaction. Plans to upgrade and develop the facilities to meet the changing needs of the research communities supported have been successfully implemented. Key milestones have been achieved in relation to the major new investments for which the STFC inherited responsibility. These include the first year of operation of the Diamond Light Source; the commissioning of the Large Hadron Collider; and the construction of the ISIS second target station. The STFC has evaluated which major new large scale facilities offer most scientific opportunity for the UK, and prioritised them. As part of this process, it has worked with European and global international partners to shape more coherent strategies for the major science areas. The development of the Harwell and Daresbury Science and Innovation Campuses is a distinct responsibility of the STFC, and substantial progress has been made in setting up the Joint Venture for the Harwell Campus (this is expected to be announced in the next month), and in the development of the Daresbury Campus through a company limited by guarantee. Part of the strategy for these campuses is the development of Technology Gateway Centres on which the STFC has taken the lead, and which will provide support to the UK research base in five key areas of technology i.e. detectors, imaging, computational science, materials and space technology. The Government has recently announced earmarked funding for the first three areas. Discussions are in an advanced stage with the European Space Agency for the location of a space technology centre at Harwell, and with universities for developing a joint Materials Institute. On the financial side, robust processes are in place for planning the STFC programme going forward. The STFC has produced its first 10-year plan, which sets out both its financial requirements to deliver approved programmes, and its financial projections for future planned programmes within a flat cash budget. As part of the process of developing this plan, a critical analysis has been carried out on cost drivers for the programme, to ensure that the financial projections are realistic. In relation to financial management, both CCLRC and PPARC produced a cleanly audited set of Annual Accounts for 2006/07 and STFC, and produced its first set of Annual Accounts for 2007/08 which also received a clean audit. There are robust processes in place for monitoring and controlling budgets at a Directorate and project level. Organisational development is a key area in which further significant progress is required, to ensure there is the capability to meet the STFC’s organisational needs moving forward; that there is a highly flexible and motivated workforce with a shared sense of purpose; and that business processes are effectively geared and cost-effective.
In relation to core business processes, Annex 3 outlines those which were changed as part of the merger; those which have been developed further over the last 15 months; and those which still need to be addressed and changed. For many, the change required and the timetable is contingent on the implementation of the Shared Services Centre. STFC is committed to the development of the Shared Services Centre which will be a major deliverer of key services. Annex 4 summarises the status of the project with an assessment of the impact and risk to the STFC. The recent IiP report highlighted the fact that the STFC has a highly motivated and professional workforce. It is acknowledged however that most staff do not as yet see sufficiently how STFC differs in its objectives from their predecessors, how it going to add value and how the organisation will change as a consequence. Overall Self-Assessment The attached summary sheets set out the STFC’s self-assessment; the evidence supporting the assessment; and planned areas of improvement. The areas of improvements are in 3 categories • • • Critical/Urgent (category 1) Important (category 2) Desirable (category 3).
For each area a top-level assessment has been made against the traffic light system set out in the DIUS evaluation template. These are: Green (Good): Achieved or on track - low Risk to overall performance. Amber-Green (Mixed): Broadly on track, may need some additional action - medium Risk to overall performance. Amber-Red (Problematic): Going off track, significant corrective action needed - high risk to overall performance. Red (Highly Problematic): Not achieved or on track, substantial and/or urgent corrective action needed - very high risk to overall performance. Grey (Not Assessed): Data not available. The overall self-assessment is summarised in Annex 5. This assessment highlights the need for significant action as follows: • To develop a distinctive corporate strategy for the STFC, and create a framework within which this strategy is cascaded throughout organisation and is fully reflected in the objectives at both a departmental and individual level.
This strategy and its delivery will be underpinned by a performance management framework with key performance indicators. A project was established in February 2008 to delivery this strategy by December 2008. • To evaluate the need for, and implement a programme of organisational change which maps on to this strategy. A Blueprint programme has been established to deliver a programme of change with implementation activities starting in January 2009. To consult with, and communicate more effectively with staff on these programmes. The STFC has reviewed its capability in the area of internal as well as external communication, and actions are in hand to improve communications.
•
Conclusion Whilst STFC believes that many component areas are on track or broadly on track, as a relatively immature organisation there is still much to be done in developing its strategies; interacting more effectively with its much broader range of stakeholders and its staff; and putting in place plans for changing the organisation to be fit for purpose moving into the next decade. Taking this into account, STFC has concluded that its overall assessment should be amber.
ANNEX 1
STFC’s MISSION & KEY STATISTICS
“We are required to:
•
promote and support high-quality scientific and engineering research by developing and providing by any means, facilities and technical expertise in support of basic strategic and applied research programmes funded by persons established in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. promote and support by any means, high-quality basic, strategic and applied research and related post-graduate training in astronomy, particle physics, space science and nuclear physics and research in any other field which makes use of scientific facilities where access is provided, arranged or otherwise made available by the Council, having regard to the objects of the other research councils. promote and support the advancement of knowledge and technology (including the promotion and support of the exploitation of research outcomes) and to provide trained scientists and engineers, and thereby to contribute to the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom and the quality of life of its people, meeting the needs of users and beneficiaries.
•
•
We are also charged to:
• • • • •
generate public awareness; communicate research outcomes; encourage public engagement and dialogue; disseminate knowledge; and provide advice. “
ANNEX 1
STFC ACTIVITIES AND FUNCTIONS
STFC is a science-driven organisation. We make it possible for a broad range of scientists to do the highest quality research tackling some of the most fundamental scientific questions. We do this by:
• •
funding researchers in universities directly through grants particularly in astronomy, particle physics, space science and nuclear physics. providing in the UK access to world-class facilities, including ISIS, the Synchrotron Radiation Source (SRS), the Central Laser Facility, and HPCx. We are also a major stakeholder in the Diamond Light Source, which started operating this year. providing the UK with a broad range of scientific and technical expertise through capabilities in technology development, space science and technology, particle physics, e-science, nuclear physics, computational science and accelerator science and technology. providing access to world-class facilities overseas, including through CERN, the European Space Agency (ESA), the European Southern Observatory (ESO), the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF), the Institut LaueLangevin (ILL) and telescope facilities in Chile, Hawaii, La Palma, Australia and the MERLIN/VLBI National Facility, which includes the Lovell Telescope at Jodrell Bank Observatory.
•
•
We supply highly skilled scientists and engineers and generate ideas and technologies that have a much broader social and economic impact. We encourage researchers to create new businesses based on their discoveries and we help established companies to use the fruits of our research as the basis of new or improved products and services. Our staff are deployed at 7 locations, namely: Swindon where the headquarters is based; the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, which is part of the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus in Oxfordshire; the Daresbury Laboratory, which is part of the Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus in Cheshire; the Chilbolton Observatory in Hampshire; the UK Astronomy Technology Centre in Edinburgh; the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes on La Palma in the Canary Islands; and the Joint Astronomy Centre in Hawaii.
ANNEX 1
A selection of figures and tables follow which describe key areas of STFC business.
Figure 1 STFC Senior Management Structure ......................................................................... 4 Figure 2 STFC Science Advisory Structure .............................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Distribution of Government funding by source CSR07 (£m).................................. 5 Figure 4 Distribution of Government funding by source 2008-09 (£m) .............................. 5 Figure 5 Distribution of Government funding recipient CSR07 (£m) ................................... 6 Figure 6 Distribution of Government funding recipient 2008-09 (£m)................................ 7 Figure 7 Distribution of STFC staff by site (does not show staff on local university contracts) .................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 8 Distribution of STFC staff by site............................................................................... 8 Figure 9 Proportion of CLF Users by Subject Area (2007-08)................................................ 9 Figure 10 Proportion of ISIS Users by Subject Area (2007-08) ............................................. 9 Figure 11 Proportion of SRS Users by Subject Area (2007-08) ...........................................10 Figure 12 STFC Grants by value across research areas (July 2008) ....................................11 Figure 13 STFC Grants by number across research areas (July 2008) ................................12 Figure 14 Industrial Users of the SRS from 1997 - 2007......................................................13 Figure 15 STFC Corporate Stakeholder Map .........................................................................15
Table 1 Output data by major STFC facility/department (2007/08) (taken from draft Economic Impact Reporting Framework for DIUS) ..............................................................14
ANNEX 1
Figure 1 STFC Senior Management Structure
Figure 2 STFC Science Advisory Structure
ANNEX 1
Distribution of Government funding by source CSR07 (£m)
Large Facilities Capital Fund, 99.897 Other Capital, 295.094
Non Cash, 307.976
Near Cash, 1351.322
Figure 3 Distribution of Government funding by source CSR07 (£m)
Distribution of Government funding by source 2008-09 (£m)
Large Facilities Capital Fund, 49.075
Loan - Near Cash, 5.933 Loan - Capital, 20.314
Other Capital, 97.779
Non Cash, 92.838
Near Cash, 456.718
Figure 4 Distribution of Government funding by source 2008-09 (£m) n.b. Capital and Near Cash loans have been provided by DIUS to assist the Council mange its funds flow within the CSR07 period. The repayment of both loans by 2010/11 is provided for in STFC’s medium term financial plans.
ANNEX 1
Distribution of Government funding by recipient CSR07 (£m)
Non Cash, 307.976
Facilities Operations & Developments, 212.520
STFC fixed assets, 121.576 Other Projects and Programmes, 67.227 Admin, 89.937 Knowledge Transfer, 21.160 Diamond Light Source capital, 81.818 Diamond Light Source operations, 91.474 Grants, 327.130 Other international (XFEL, AAT, Gemini) , 26.427 Postgraduate Training, 56.817 Fellowships, 26.738 International Subscriptions (CERN,ESA,ESO,ESRF,ILL), 659.915
Figure 5 Distribution of Government funding recipient CSR07 (£m) n.b. Other Projects and Programmes comprise Re-structuring/Shared Service Centre Other Reserves Summer School Science in Society International Programme Programme Management Project Research and Development scheme
ANNEX 1
Distribution of Government funding by recipient 2008-09 (£m)
Non Cash, 92.838
Facilities Operations & Developments, 78.317
STFC fixed assets, 60.939
Other Projects and Programmes, 27.068 Admin, 31.704 Knowledge Transfer, 6.780 Diamond Light Source capital, 36.350 Diamond Light Source operations, 26.997 Grants, 118.635
International Subscriptions (CERN,ESA,ESO,ESRF,ILL), 210.119
Other international (XFEL, AAT, Gemini) , 7.977 Postgraduate Training, 16.745 Fellowships, 7.880
Figure 6 Distribution of Government funding recipient 2008-09 (£m)
ANNEX 1
STFC Staff by Site (July 2008)
JAC, 4 ING, 41 ATC, 95 SO, 164
DL, 451
RAL, 1365
Figure 7 Distribution of STFC staff by site (does not show JAC staff on local university contracts)
Distribution of STFC Staff across Departments (July 2008)
Commercial and Corporate Affairs, Accelerator Science 40 and Technology Centre, 61 Computational Finance, 62 Science and Engineering, 80 E-Science, 85 UK Astronomy Technology Centre, 95 Central Laser Facility, 98 Particle Physics, 105 Synchrotron Radiation, 110 Science Programmes Office, 115 Corporate Services, 317 Knowledge Exchange (incl CLIK), 32 Nuclear Physics, 11 ISIS, 419
Technology, 272
Space Science and Technology, 218
Figure 8 Distribution of STFC staff by site
ANNEX 1
Proportion of CLF Users by Subject Area (2007/08)
Technical Development, 2 Technology , Medicine, 3 Environment, 3 Chemistry, 8 Biochemistry, Biomaterials & Biology, 11
Materials, 11
Physics, 62
Figure 9 Proportion of CLF Users by Subject Area (2007-08)
Proportion of ISIS Users by Subject Area (2007/08)
Technique Development, 4 Engineering, Energy & Environment (Technology Development), 11 Biology, Bio-materials & Medicine, 8
Chemistry, 25
Physics, 21
Materials, 31
Figure 10 Proportion of ISIS Users by Subject Area (2007-08)
ANNEX 1
Proportion of SRS Users by Subject Area (2007/08)
Engineering, 1 Environment, 7 Physics, 14 Biology, 33
Materials, 10
Chemistry, 35
Figure 11 Proportion of SRS Users by Subject Area (2007-08)
ANNEX 1
Grants by Value Across Research Areas (July 2008)
180,000
160,000
156,026
155,264
140,000 123,838 120,000 Value (£'000) 109,595 107,096 106,467
100,000 79,871 80,000 65,252 60,000 64,737 79,308 Value (£'000)
40,000
20,000 1,856 0 Beyond the Standard Model The Standard Model Extragalactic astronomy and cosmology Particle cosmology Galactic and inter-stellar astronomy Stars Planetary Science Physics and physical processes not specifically astronomy, planetary science or particle physics Astronomy, celestial mechanics, databases and survey astronomy Solar and solarterrestrial physics Nuclear Structure Nuclear Physics Nuclear Astrophysics Theory Relativistic Heavy Ions Hadron Physics 1,255 942 477 381 199
Research Areas
Figure 12 STFC Grants by value across research areas (July 2008)
ANNEX 1
Grants by Number Across Research Areas (July 2008)
250
202 200
167 162 153 150 Number of Grants
165
147 138
Number 115 105 100 99
50
15 8 0 Beyond the Standard Model The Standard Extra-galactic Model astronomy and cosmology Particle cosmology Galactic and inter-stellar astronomy Stars Planetary Science Physics and physical processes not specifically astronomy, planetary science or particle physics Astronomy, celestial mechanics, databases and survey astronomy Solar and solarterrestrial physics Nuclear Structure Nuclear Physics Nuclear Astrophysics Theory Relativistic Heavy Ions Hadron Physics 7 7 1 1
Research Areas
Figure 13 STFC Grants by number across research areas (July 2008)
ANNEX 1
1997 - 2007 Industrial Users of the SRS
Energy, 1 Other SR sources, 3 Aerospace and Defence, 6 Miscellaneous, 7 Consumer products and food, 5 Chemicals and Specialities, 10 Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare, 37 Automotive, 1
Oil and Petroleum, 12 Academia, 17
Figure 14 Industrial Users of the SRS from 1997 - 2007
ANNEX 1 2007/08 Publications Lab reports /technical design studies Conference publications Experiments carried out CLF 97 2 79 Diamond 163 41 101 ISIS 350+ 382 NPD 14 20 SRD 340 27 20 690
Table 1 Output data by major STFC facility/department (2007/08) (taken from draft Economic Impact Reporting Framework for DIUS)
ANNEX 1
Figure 15 STFC Corporate Stakeholder Map
ANNEX 2 KEY EVENTS TIMELINE
2006 March April/ May June July August
Event “Next Steps” proposed possible restructuring of CCLRC/ PPARC. Government consultation on Next Step’s proposal. RCUK set up Shared Services implementation project. Government decision to merge CCLRC and PPARC. Merger Project initiated with joint Project Board comprising Chief Executives and senior managers from CCLRC and PPARC. Designate STFC Chief Executive appointed.
November 2007 January March End March April
Designate senior management team appointed Bi-lateral between CCLRC/PPARC and OSI on CSR07 STFC Council: Chair and non-executive members appointed STFC established: 2 meetings of Council to approve governance structure and processes. Management structure confirmed; delegation letters issued. First meeting of STFC Finance Committee. Membership of Science Board confirmed.
May
Science Board chair and deputy appointed from confirmed membership. Provisional Budget Allocations for 2007/08 issued to STFC departments
June
Membership and chairs of two main subcommittees (PPAN and PALS) of Science Board appointed.
Council considered first draft Delivery Plan under 4 financial scenarios. July Final Budget Allocations for 2007/08 issued. First STFC-OSI bilateral on CSR07. First STFC Audit Committee meeting. First Science Board/PPAN meetings. STFC submitted proposed Delivery Plan to OSI. Data collection for first STFC Programmatic Review initiated. September First meeting of PALS committee Council endorses Harwell Science and Innovation campus strategy. October CSR07 Allocations letter. STFC-DIUS bilateral to discuss impact of CSR07 Allocations. Council agrees Light Sources Review recommendations. Council agreed STFC facilities to be included in RCUK large facilities road map. November 2 Council meetings to discuss options for living within CSR07 Allocations, including input from Science Board and its subcommittees. Series of meetings with DIUS on Allocations. In-House Competencies review initiated. Chairman meets with SoS to brief him on the impact of CSR settlement and its consequences. December Science Board and PPAN and PALS start Programmatic Review. Council approved final Delivery Plan. STFC submitted final Delivery Plan to DIUS.
DIUS launch of Science Budget allocations. STFC published its Delivery Plan. Staff and Town meetings announcing Delivery Plan. 2008 January February Council considered initial outcome of Programmatic Review and Restructuring plans. STFC announced revised management structure. STFC initiated project on development of its corporate strategy. Science Board, PPAN and PALS make initial programmatic review recommendations. March Science Board town meeting STFC announced preliminary outcome of Programmatic Review and announced consultation on outcome. Web based consultation carried out; over 1400 inputs received. April Specialist Panels set up and meet to consider inputs from consultation. Panel chairs report to PPAN and PALS. May PPAN and PALS considered specialist panel reports and recommended programme to Science Board; Science Board recommended approval of this programme. June July Reports on specialist Panels and PPAN and PALS recommendations made public. Council approved investment plans based on outcome of Programmatic Review.
RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap published. Large Facilities capital fund earmarking decisions announced.
STFC announced its plans at a community Town Meeting & staff meetings. STFC initiated Blueprint programme, to plan and implement further organisational change.
ANNEX 3
KEY BUSINESS PROCESSES – POST MERGER
As part of the review process we have identified 14 key business processes. These have been mapped against the workstreams established during the original merger project and an assessment made on the current maturity of these key business processes.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(1) Constitution (and governance) of new Council.
Initial Merger Target
Obtain Charter and Transfer Order; establish the Council; develop Budget. Put in place governance framework and wind down the existing Councils. Develop and set the structure for the management of the Council. Establish delegated authorities and resource management regime. Establish functions and organisation of the Chief Executive’s office.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Legal status achieved 1st April 2007. Council membership established. Senior management positions filled. Key governing documents in place (Charter; Management Statement; Financial Memorandum). Initial structures established. Chief Executive’s office established. • • • •
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • Audit Committee established, (met 7 times to date); • Risk management continues to evolve but requires time to bed-in. Improvements include: ¾ Risk policy/ strategy; ¾ Risk Advisory Group; ¾ Risk Register (STAR Database); ¾ Organisation wide engagement. Delegation letters issued to senior staff; Stewardship Framework; Executive Structure revised Feb 08; Advisory Structure established.
1. Corporate Governance
• • • • • • • •
Regulatory framework; DIUS interface; Non-exec performance; Organisational structure; Delegation & accountability; Risk management; Business Continuity Planning; and Stewardship framework.
(2) Organisation and Management structure.
Risk Management embedded in Project Management and in some facility operations.. Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Policy & Procedural Framework.
Developing processes: • Assurance Reporting Framework; Business Continuity Planning; Risk Improvement – strategy overseen by Risk Advisory Group; Council / Non-exec. appraisal process; Programme of Policy & Procedure renewal; Enhanced corporate performance management framework. • • • • •
(8) Chief Executive’s Office.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(9) Business Strategy Committee
Initial Merger Target
Confirm the value and need for committee. specify its role, operation and advise on membership.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Planning Documentation & Processes, (Science Strategy; Delivery Plans). DIUS reporting arrangements continued.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • • • • • • • Strategy Board (Executive) established; Delivery Plan 2008/09 – 2010/11 aligned with DIUS’s PSA targets; Programmatic Review; RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap; 10-year Planning process; Allocations aligned to priorities and funding constraints; Ongoing consultation process (e.g. Vision Working Group; internal engagement Stratford May 08); Draft Vision statement; School of Government review of Strategy Office/structure.
2. Strategic & Operational Planning
• Strategic/Delivery Planning Framework; • Business Planning hierarchy (operational planning); • Monitoring / reporting framework.
Developing processes: • • STFC Corporate Vision; STFCs Corporate Strategy - (including Economic Impact & International Strategies, & updating its Science & Technology Strategy); STFC annual operating plan; Business Unit/ departmental strategies; Stakeholder engagement; Blueprint Programme; Campus Strategies.
• • • • •
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(7) Business Information Management Systems.
Initial Merger Target
Deliver the capability for the new Council to share key business information and for records management. Support IS/IT requirements of other w/streams.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Existing infrastructures remain largely unchanged. Reliance on 2 platforms (ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC). Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Policy & Procedural Framework Planning Documentation.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • • • Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the IT Strategy and Oversight Committee (ITSOC); ITC strategy agreed at ITSOC; new IT committee structure; Security Committee meets every six weeks; draft CICT Vision.
3. Information Technology & Systems
• IS/IT infrastructure & developments; • Security (integrity; confidentiality & availability); • Regulatory compliance; • Information / Knowledge management; and • Delivering and supporting IS/IT systems.
Developing processes: • • • DPA & FOI policies; Programme of Policy & Procedure renewal; Review & update Business Continuity Plans.
NB Impact of SSC impacting progress (e.g. Grants processing). • Stakeholder Engagement; • Media Relations; • Internal communication; • Web provision; • Events & publications; and • Marketing & branding. (15) Communications. (14) Science and Society.
4. Communications
(10) Corporate Identity.
Establish Corporate Identity for the new Research Council. Structure for management of science and society programmes, drawing on in-house (and university) capability. Structure for managing media communications and Public Relations.
Existing infrastructures remain largely unchanged. ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC identities retained (email addresses, intranet pages). PARCLife (ex-PPARC) & TeamCentral (ex-CCLRC) trusted reference points for staff - (policies, procedures, news & documentation), but not maintained consistently.
Achievements: • • • • • • • STFC Intranet in place (embryonic); Edelmans review of Communications; Communications Improvement Plan; Engagement of external consultations in communication and public affairs; Monthly staff forums at each site; Cascaded Group meetings through management chain; Integrated Science in Society organisational structure across all sites;
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(18) Website Project.
Initial Merger Target
Production of corporate website for the STFC.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
• •
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Development of Science in Society Strategy; Over £1.5 million allocated to engagement schemes.
Developing processes: • • • • • • • • • • Appointment of Director of Communications; Implementation of Corporate Communication Strategy; Further review of feedback from staff and external surveys as part of the Organisational Review; Enhanced Advisory Structure; Communication of Strategy and associated cultural change; Stakeholder engagement plans; Stakeholder perceptions audit; Harmonised IT systems to aid communication; Reinforce over arching corporate brand and culture; Embed communications plans as part of Blueprint and corporate strategy programmes. NB Impact of SSC impacting progress (e.g. Grants processing).
5. Advisory Structure
•
Organisational structure (inc reporting relationships); Roles & responsibilities (Terms of reference); Membership (representative/ balanced); Scope of business; Conflicts of interest (Propriety); Reporting / decisions.
(3) Science and Facilities Advisory Structure.
Develop and set the structure for Advisory Committees/panels; Establish and populate Advisory Structure.
First and second tier advisory structure agreed (Top level Science Board, Economic Impact, Audit, International and Education/Public Outreach). Terms of Reference for SB, EIAG and Audit approved by Project Board 26 February 2007. A call for nominations for the Science Board, PPAN, PALS, AGP, PPGP and NPGP requested via the external merger website. Nominations process underway.
Achievements: • Key Committees established: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ • Audit Committee; Science Board; PPAN & PALS; Economic Impact; International; Education / Public Outreach
• •
• • •
RCIAS Audit (Draft) – Substantial assurance – Grants Peer Review;
Developing processes: • • Advisory Panels (strategic input & engagement with community); Facility Advisory Boards.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(11) Programme / Facilities Management.
Initial Merger Target
Structure and processes for managing the NRC programme. translate science/ facility / technology strategies, (including oversight of facility operations, facility development, projects, grants and international subscriptions).
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
No change – Business as usual at operational level. For example: • • • • • • • • • Facility Access Panels; Business Plans; Operating Procedures; Reporting; New Community developments; new investment (e.g. TS2); scientific advisory structure; user/ stakeholder engagement; and embedded communications.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • Maintaining performance levels; In-house Science Audits (Research Reviews);
6. Facility Development & Operations
• Facility infrastructure & developments; • Operational performance (relevance; profile & availability); • Regulatory compliance (e.g. H&S); • Maintenance / upkeep; • Stakeholder interfaces.
• Large Facilities Roadmap; NB Facilities Supporting Evidence Developing processes: • • Facility Advisory Boards; Facility Development Review Panel.
7. Programme / Project Management
• Programme formulation; • Implementation; • Monitoring & Control (Programme / project management standards); • Evaluation & Review.
(4) Nuclear Physics.
Effect transfer of resources and responsibility for NP programme from EPSRC to the new Council. Structure and processes for managing the NRC programme. translating science/ facility / technology strategies (including oversight of facility operations, facility development, projects, grants and international subscriptions).
Wider programmes – business as usual. For example: • • • • Established investment appraisal process (inc PPRP) Traffic Light reporting; Project management standards; 10-year planning tool;.
Achievements: • • • • Maintaining performance levels; A Nuclear Physics Grants Panel established; New SPO management structure; Integrated into management (Ops Board) & Advisory; (Science Board) structures.
(11) Programme / Facilities Management.
Nuclear physics grants (pre-April 1st) transferred. Town Meeting held on 24 January 2007 to brief and exchange information with community. Interim bridging funding provided to the Nuclear Physics Groups pending established grants panel. Studentship allocations for 2007 agreed for Nuclear Physics.
Developing processes: • Project Management handbook revision.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
Identified as business as usual and therefore not reflected in merger workstreams.
Initial Merger Target
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Business as usual, although transfer notices issued to all major partners. International representation & collaboration securing access to world-class facilities, including: • CERN; • European Space Agency (ESA); • European Southern Observatory (ESO); • European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF); • Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL); • Diamond Light Source; and • Island Telescope sites (JAC - Hawaii & ING – La Palma).
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • • • • Maintaining performance levels; LHC Detectors on target; Seamless transition of changing representation; Programmatic Review; STFC is the International Co-ordinator for the PrepSKA project; STFC is the International Coordinator for the HiPER project;
8. Major Partnerships / Collaborations
International representation & collaboration securing access to world-class facilities, including: • CERN; • European Space Agency (ESA); • European Southern Observatory (ESO); • European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF); • Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL); • Diamond Light Source; and • Island Telescope sites (JAC Hawaii & ING – La Palma).
Developing processes • • Review strategy for all international partnerships; Review of DLS operating model.
9. Grants & Awards
• Grants Policy; recording and • Receipt, processing of Proposals; • Peer Review; • Award; • Post award administration; • final reports.
(13) Grants / Studentships / fellowships.
Structure and processes for managing and administration of peerreview processes.
No change – Business as usual at operational level. For example: • • • • Grants Policy; Peer review; Grants Administration; Funding assurance Programme;
Achievements: • • • • • • • • Maintaining performance levels; PPAN & PALS; Programmatic Review; Astronomy grants processes restructured; RCIAS Audit (Draft) – Substantial assurance – Grants Peer Review 2008-09; RCIAS Audit– Substantial assurance – Grants 2007-08.
• Cross-Council engagement. Grants programmes carried over from the predecessor councils without interruption or problem. The bulk of of astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics programmes (plus some smaller commitments from the facilities) involve the issuing of grants to HEI's. These programmes also involve substantial grants to HEI's for studentships. We have robust processes in place to receive proposals, to assess them through peer review panels, to issue funding, and to assess progress against agreed goals. All of these processes are working well.
Developing processes Final Reporting process (cross-Council); Grants funding profile may require alignment to updated Science and Technology strategy. NB 1 Impact of SSC impacting progress (e.g. Grants processing) NB 2 Further developments may be required subject to publication of the Wakeham review.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(12) Knowledge Transfer
Initial Merger Target
Establish management arrangements for campuses and KT programmes exploiting capabilities in-house, in universities and in funded facilities (eg CERN, ILL).
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
KE Directorate formed. DSIC & HSIC Strategies underway CLIK Ongoing.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • HSIC Public Sector Partnership established; HSIC Board meetings; Decision making mechanisms and dispute resolution procedures form part of the Shareholder's and Limited Partnership Agreements; Leadership and inputs regarding the placement of the proposed new Hartree High Performance Computational Science and Engineering Technology; earmarked Funding for 3 Gateway Centres (LFCF); Appointment of Gateway Centres Programme Manager; placement of a major new japanese R&D blue-chip company (~350 posts) at Daresbury; Daresbury has an Estates and Operations Strategy.
10. Knowledge Exchange/ Economic Impact
• Strategic Focus; • Operational plans; • Campus Developments; • Technology & Skills Development; • Technology Exploitation; • Commercialisation; and • Large Facilities.
•
• • • •
Developing processes: • • 11. Finance • Policy & procedure framework; • Finance system infrastructure; • Accounting routines; • Financial processing (Income & Expenditure); • Budgetary control; and • Banking. (5) Finance Establish financial policies, processes and systems which will enable the new Council to govern, manage and account for its business. Pending migration to the Shared Service Centre it was decided to retain the existing 2 finance platforms (ex-PPARC / exCCLRC) which were consolidated using an overarching consolidation system. Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Policy & Procedural Framework. RAL Estates and Operations Strategy; HSIC & DSIC science and business cases for the centres.
Achievements: • • • • • Clean set of accounts; IYFM & MA Frameworks established; Allocation communicated; Delegation & stewardship framework; RCIAS Substantial assurance - 2 reports on financial systems.
Developing processes: • • • SSC implementation; STFC Corporate Capital Investment Plan; Programme of renewal for Policies and Procedures. NB Impact of SSC impacting progress.
Business Process
Scope
Merger Workstream(s)
(6) Human Resources
Initial Merger Target
Establish HR services for new Council. Assess staffing implications of any structural/ resources requirements from other work streams. Implement the transfer of staff compliant with TUPE legislation.
Post Merger Status (1st April 2007)
Existing infrastructures remain largely unchanged staff on 2 different T & Cs inc appraisal processes and underlying support function. Reliance on ex-PPARC / ex-CCLRC Policy & Procedural Framework (CEMs). NB IIP Report.
Current Status (See also Annex 2 - Timeline)
Achievements: • • • • • • • A Joint Working Group on T & Cs was formed as the Conditions of Employment Memoranda Working Group (CWG); Cross-Council Harmonised pay arrangements; STFC T & Cs in draft; Administration of redundancy exercise; RCIAS Full assurance.
12. Human Resources
• • • • • • • • •
Organisational structure/ Roles & responsibilities; Communication of standards; Terms & Conditions; Retention & recruitment; Succession planning; Skills/ personal development; and Performance appraisal; Disciplinary procedures; Terms & Conditions (negotiation). Organisational structure/ Roles & responsibilities; Communication of codes; Regulatory compliance (audit & monitoring); Risk assessment; Corporate/ local systems (e.g. records management/ compliance); Training/ skills.
Developing processes: Natural wastage plan; Harmonised T & Cs. NB Impact of SSC impacting progress.
13. Safety, Health & Environment
• • • • •
(17) Health, Safety & Environment.
Management arrangements and policy statement to ensure compliance with HSE legislation and best practice.
Draft STFC Health, Safety and Environment policy agreed by Project Board and published on STFC intranet on 2 April. Appointment of DSO/Deputy for STFC agreed 29 March. An 18-month process of reviewing and launching approximately 60 new SHE Codes of Practice (Codes) commenced.
Achievements: • • • • • • • STFC Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) Policy revised and re-launched in October 2007; SHE Management System (SHEMS); Departmental Safety Committees; SHE Reporting into Ops Board; RCIAS Substantial assurance.
Developing processes: Audit Code; SHE business plan.
•
14. Estates and Infrastructure
• Capital Planning: e.g. Facility infrastructure & developments; • Operational performance (relevance; profile & availability); • Regulatory compliance (e.g. H&S); and • Maintenance/ upkeep.
(16) Estates Management.
Management arrangements and policies for estates management.
No change – Business as usual at operational level. Continue to build on a programme of infrastructure investment and facility development established by CCLRC.
Achievements: • • • • A substantial refurbishment programme for existing laboratory and office space at DL; A new [£6M] reception and security building has opened at RAL; The [£17M] Tier 1 computer centre; construction has begun on the [£26M] MRC-led Research Complex Building (scheduled for completion in late 2009).
Developing processes • • STFC Capital Investment Strategy; Review and update of Business Continuity Plans.
ANNEX 4
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RCUK SSC FOR THE OPERATION OF STFC
Background A letter from the Director General of Science and Innovation (DGSI) on 16 January 2006 made it clear that HM Treasury was looking for a step change reduction in the Research Councils’ back-office units. A further letter from the DGSI dated 8 February asked Chief Executives to prepare a plan for achieving by 2009 “full harmonisation of back office activities”. In June 2006, the Research Councils established the RCUK Shared Services Implementation Project with the aim of implementing a Shared Services Centre (SSC) by March 2009. The RCUK project is overseen by a project board on which all Councils have a representative. It is managed by a RCUK team. As part of this project, the Councils agreed the following as a basis for their SSC: • • • joint ownership of the SSC by all the Research Councils; location of the SSC in Swindon; scope of the SSC to cover finance; procurement; human resources; grants processing; and IT IS (for Swindon, Bristol and in-scope processes).
The key benefits of establishing the RCUK SSC were identified in the full business case as: • financial savings: operational savings (staff efficiencies and system rationalisation) over ten year of £45.6M (cash) and procurement savings of £404M (cash) equating to a NPV of £297M; enhanced focus on high-value activities in the retained functions in the Councils, and faster and more informed decision-making through the flow of standard, simple and shared information, realising efficiency savings of approximately 10% in the in-scope service functions retained in the Councils; support services operating at performance levels benchmarked against the best standards within the public sector and comparable with private industry sector standards; introduction of a simple, standard and shared solution;
•
•
•
• •
increased resources for research, training and knowledge transfer for the research community; clearer points of contact and enhanced services to external stakeholders.
Current Project Status The project is now in its implementation phase, having established RCUK Shared Services Ltd as a separate legal entity, appointed the senior management team and board, and contracted Fujitsu as the systems integrator for implementation of an Oracle Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. On the basis that the SSC would go-live for the first two Councils (EPSRC and ESRC) in September 2008, all in-scope RC staff were transferred under TUPE legislation on 1 April 2008. The project has experienced slippage from the original timetable with consequences for forecast implementation costs and savings as summarised in the following table: Date September 2007 Jan 2008 June 2008 Forecast First Go-Live June 2008 September 2008 Feb 2009 Project Costs £54.6M £63.3M £69.5M
Owing to the dominance of the forecast procurement savings, the increase in implementation costs and delay in realising operational savings has not impacted substantially on the NPV and payback period, the latest figures for which are £282M (was £297M) and 6 years (was 5). The above dates do not take account of the Grants services, for which the timetable is not yet finalised (current assumption is 2010).
Key Considerations for STFC’s Future Operations The key risks to Councils from the SSC project were identified as follows in the business case: • • • • failure to achieve the full expected benefits; an extended period of disruption to the ‘business as usual’ operation; loss of key employees, critical knowledge and experience both for the SSC and within the Councils; a reduction of service or negative customer experience for the during the transition period.
STFC continues to work with the project and SSC Ltd through their governance structures to mitigate the risks. Taking each in turn:
Failure to Achieve the Full Expected Benefits STFC is reasonably confident that the forecast procurement savings will be achieved. STFC is concerned about the project implementation costs and SSC Ltd operational costs. It remains STFC’s view that robust and effective project management control is key to minimising any further increases or delays, and we continue to work constructively with the project on a “one team” basis to achieve this.
Extended Period of Disruption to Business-As-Usual/ Loss of Key Employees The SSC implementation represents a major change, and the project is demanding considerable resources from STFC which are expected to increase over the coming months and when STFC’s migration approaches. These demands have been met so far through prioritisation of work, but not without some adverse impact on business-as-usual, and some staff working very long hours. The magnitude of the change and the extended period of uncertainty (both for those who have or will transfer to the SSC, and those staying with STFC) have combined to unsettle some staff considerably. Some resignations have occurred with rumours of more to follow. The most prominent case at present concerns strategic procurement, a service for which SSC Ltd is now responsible for delivering. In this area STFC are therefore working closely with SSC Ltd to ensure they understand our ongoing needs and priorities. More generally, STFC continues to try to reassure staff by providing them with information as it becomes available in an easily digested form, and engaging them in discussions about the project. Agency and temporary staff are being deployed to ensure essential work continues over the transition period.
Reduction of Service Levels Many staff presume that the service provided by the SSC will not be as good as that currently provided, primarily because of the loss of local contact and expertise. Countering this presumption is an aim of STFC’s change management activities.
SELF ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE
Category Score (R,A,G)
ANNEX 5
Comments
1. STRATEGY AND PLANNING
Vision Amber / Green STFC has set a vision and its priorities are clear. However, STFC recognise it needs to improve the communicating of its vision. STFC has well developed strategies in a number of areas. These are being consolidated as part of a major ongoing programme launched in February 2008 to develop a Corporate Strategy.
Strategic and Delivery Planning
Amber / Green
Overall Score
Amber / Green
2. CUSTOMER & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Customer Insight Amber / Red STFC has inherited a sound understanding of the needs of its wide customer base but has more to do in developing stakeholder engagement as STFC. Corporate: Red STFC has acknowledged that there is an urgent need to upgrade its corporate communications and thereby its reputation. A major review of function has been undertaken and implementation plans are being put in place. Operational: At an operational level STFC’s communications with its Green stakeholders and staff are effective. Engagement with Service Delivery Partners Amber / Green STFC has established effective dialogue with other service delivery partners but more is needed to ensure strategies are better aligned with some.
Communications
Overall Score
Red
Category
Score (R. A. G)
CommentsComments
3. MONITORING AND CONTROL
Governance and Risk Management Green STFC’s governance and risk management arrangements are sound and conform to best practice. STFC’s financial systems are robust. processes and
Financial Management
Green
Performance Management
Amber / Green
STFC complies effectively with the performance management regime agreed with DIUS but intends to develop a more sophisticated system to measure better its performance.
Overall Score
Green
4. DELIVERY
Leadership Amber / Red STFC has shown strong leadership in deciding how it can best deliver its mission. It has however failed to take parts of its community and its staff with it. Action is being taking to address these perceptions. STFC has a strong workforce and infrastructure supporting its programme. Reviews have been and will continue to be carried out to ensure the organisation has the right capability moving forward. STFC is outcomes. delivering its planned
Capability
Amber / Green
Outcomes
Green
Overall Score
Amber / Green
Category
Score (R. A. G.)
Comments
5. MANAGEMENT OF VALUE FOR MONEY 6. CHANGE
Green
Robust processes are in place.
Amber / Green
STFC is responding effectively to change and plans a major programme of on-going organisational development.
OVERALL SCORE
Amber
Whilst STFC believes that many component areas are on track or broadly on track, as a relatively immature organisation there is still much to be done in developing its strategies, interacting more effectively with its much broader range of stakeholders and its staff and putting in place plans for changing the organisation to be fit for purpose moving into the next decade. Taking this into account, STFC has concluded that its overall assessment should be amber.
ANNEX 6
Glossary and acronyms
4GLS AAT AGP APR BBSRC BNSC CERN Fourth generation light source Anglo-Australian Telescope, New South Wales, Australia Astronomy Grants Panel Annual Performance review Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council British National Space Centre Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire, Genève, Switzerland (European laboratory for particle physics) Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (now STFC) Conditions of Employment Memoranda Chief Executive Officer Corporate Information and Communications Technology Central Laser Facility Central Laboratory Innovation and Knowledge Transfer Limited, STFC’s wholly-owned technology exploitation company Central Microstructure Facility Comprehensive Spending Review Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 Conditions of Employment Memoranda Working Group Deutsches Elektronon Synchrotron Director General of Science and Innovation (now known as the Director General for Science and Research) Director General for Science and Research Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills STFC Daresbury Laboratory, DSIC Diamond Light Source Limited, HSIC Data Protection Act Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, Cheshire Departmental Security Officer Environment Agency Executive Board European - Extremely Large Telescope Economic Impact Economic Impact Advisory Group IS ISIS IT ITSOC
EIRF
EPSRC ERID ERP ERU ESA ESRF ESO EU FBU FDOD FEC FOI Gemini GPC HiPER HPCx HR HSE HSIC IYFM KE KT LFCF LHC LOB LSF H&S ICT IiP ILL ING
Economic Impact Reporting Framework
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council European Research Infrastructure Development (Watch) Enterprise Resource Planning Energy Research Unit European Space Agency European Synchrotron Radiation Facility European Southern Observatory European Union Facilities Business Unit Facility Development Operations Directorate Full Economic Cost Freedom of Information Gemini Observatory, based in Chile and Hawaii Government Procurement Card European High Power laser Energy Research facility UK's national high-performance computing service Human Resources Health and Safety Executive Harwell Science and Innovation Campus In-Year Financial Management Knowledge Exchange Knowledge Transfer Large Facilities Capital Fund Large Hadron Collider at CERN Laboratory Operations Board Lasers for Science Facility Health and safety Information and Communication Technology Investors in People Institut Laue Langevin, France Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, La Palma, Spain Information Systems Pulsed neutron and muon source at RAL Information Technology IT Strategy and Oversight Committee
CCLRC CEM CEO CICT CLF CLIK
CMF CSR CSR07 CWG DESY DGSI
DGSR
DIUS DL DLSL DPA DSIC DSO EA EB E-ELT EI EIAG
ANNEX 6
JAC JV LHC MA MRC NAO NASA NERC NDPB NP NPD NPGP NRC NPV NWDA OB OSI PALS PIPSS PPAN PPARC PPGP Joint Astronomy Centre, Hawaii Joint Venture Large Hadron Collider at CERN Management Accounting Medical Research Council National Audit Office National Aeronautics and Space Administration Natural Environment Research Council Non-Departmental Public Body Nuclear Physics Nuclear Physics Department Nuclear Physics Grants Panel New Research Council Net Present Value North West Development Agency Operations Board Office of Science and Innovation Physical and Life Sciences Committee Industrial Programmes Support Scheme Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics Science Committee Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (now STFC) Particle Physics Grants Panel SiS SKA SMG SO SoS SRG SRS SSC SSTD STBU STFC T&Cs ToR TS2 TSB TUPE UK ATC UKAEA XFEL RCRU RCUK Radiocommunications Research Unit Research Councils UK
RCUKEG Research Council UK Executive Group ROSPA SB SEEDA SHE SHEMS Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents Science Board South East England Development Agency Safety, Health and Environment Safety, Health and Environment Management System Science in Society Square Kilometre Array Senior Management Group STFC Swindon Office Secretary of State Science Research Group Synchrotron Radiation Source Shared Services Centre Space Science and Technology Department Science and Technology Business Unit Science and Technology Facilities Council Terms and Conditions Terms of Reference ISIS second target station Technology Strategy Board Transfer of undertakings STFC UK Astronomy Technology Centre, Edinburgh United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority X-ray Free Electron Laser
PrepSKA FP7-funded preparatory phase activity for the Square Kilometre Array project PSREs R&D RAL RCIAS Public Sector Research Establishments Research and Development STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, HSIC Research Councils Internal Audit Service
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT STRATEGY and PLANNING Strategic and Delivery Planning
Objective To ensure the Delivery Partner maintains a robust approach to developing its future strategy and planning its work, which is consistent with DIUS priorities and remains pertinent to its delivery.
Risks Plans are incomplete or out-of-date. Plans lack coherence and are insufficiently joined up.
Self-Assessment Amber / Green • Strategies for achieving the STFC’s mission consistent with DIUS’s objectives have been developed in the first year. These must continue to evolve, to take account of the changing research environment (both nationally and internationally); new opportunities; and on-going re-assessment of how the STFC can deliver most added-value. The STFC’s plans for the next three years are set out in its Delivery Plan 2008/09 – 2010/11. This plan is top level and articulates how the STFC will deliver its key strategic aims. These plans are aligned with DIUS’s PSA targets; the Government’s commitment to the development of the Harwell and Daresbury Science and Innovation Campuses; the priority given by Government to a number of crossCouncil multi-disciplinary initiatives; and the BNSC’s new Space Strategy for the UK. Detailed programme-based plans and strategies exist at a departmental/facility level, which address their specific areas of activity and stakeholders. These plans and strategies will be aligned with the STFC’s new corporate strategy, and will be contained in an annual Operating Plan. This Operating Plan will be
•
•
•
produced by individual delivery providers and will be introduced this year. • • The science programme and facility plans are the result of a rolling process of review and prioritisation, informed by a biennial Programmatic Review. Following the outcome of the recent Programmatic Review, the science programme for the next three years is now optimised within our CSR07 allocations, and includes provision for new opportunities as well as the highest priority existing programmes. Similarly, short-term spending plans have been developed for the STFC’s infrastructure which are commensurate with the CSR07 allocations, and meet our strategic objective of investing more in front line programmes and less on overheads. As part of the Blueprint programme, a longer-term infrastructure plan will be developed to ensure it is aligned with the agreed STFC strategy. Priorities for the next generation of Large-scale facilities have been set. Earmarked funding has recently been approved by DIUS for these facilities, subject to the development of the full science and business cases, (which will include the costs of operations), through the Gateway process. STFC has taken the lead in supporting the development of the RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap. This has been based on an analysis of the emerging needs for large-scale facilities on a European and global scale in relation to various science sectors, and those in which the UK has the capacity to take a lead. As part of this planned investment, we have identified the need for 5 Technology Gateway Centres which are intended to strengthen the UK’s capacity in computational science, detectors, imaging, space technology, and materials, through acting as catalysts for innovation. These Gateway Centres are a component of the vision and strategy for the development of the Daresbury and Harwell Science and Innovation Campuses. The overall strategy for the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus will be taken forward under a Joint Venture (JV), in which the STFC will be a significant (25%) stakeholder. Plans for the creation of this JV are well advanced, and a public announcement is expected shortly. Once established, the JV will develop a formal business plan and STFC’s contribution aligned to evolving organisational objectives. Our plans in some areas are as yet less well developed than others. For example, while the strategic aims in relation to Economic Impact and efficiencies in public sector delivery are set out, the detailed implementation plans are not yet fully developed. STFC is currently in the process of reviewing its entire KE portfolio and the various delivery mechanisms and funding initiatives associated with the innovation pipeline process. As part of the STFC KE strategy going forward, the organisation intends to adopt an increased programme of challenge-led initiatives delivering solutions for external organisations and industry. Strategic partnerships will be developed to identify partners prepared to cofund innovation initiatives at various stages along the innovation pipeline. The STFC has established a taskforce to evaluate options for maximising its non core vote income. An economic impact strategy is in development and will be in place by the
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
autumn of this year. Our capital investment strategy and organisational efficiency strategy will be in place by early 2009. • A major programme was initiated in February 2008 to develop the STFC’s first corporate strategy. This corporate strategy will incorporate the strategies for science and technology, economic impact, and international relations, and will be a key step towards the realisation of the STFC vision so that the UK can sustain world leading capabilities in key areas of scientific research and technology innovation. The corporate strategy is designed to ensure that the specific elements of our mission are effectively joined up, and fully aligned both horizontally and vertically across the organisation. There is also a framework for evolving our strategy for the longer-term. It will address the need to integrate different parts of the organisation in line with corporate organisational goals, and to engage with staff to gain their commitment to the vision for STFC. STFC has created both a Strategy Board and Operations Board, working under its Executive Board, with formal links between the two groups to ensure each element of the Council’s evolving strategy and operations are effectively joined up and managed. The corporate strategy is expected to be available in draft by the end of September 2008 and completed by the end of 2008. An important element of the programme is a comprehensive targeted consultation process with staff and external stakeholders, which will run from October to December 2008. This will be run in accordance to Cabinet Office guidance for consultation. In addition to developing the corporate strategy, the programme will deliver the business processes needed to implement; monitor; review; and update the strategy and the framework for assessing progress and performance. In parallel, a first ten year financial plan has been produced. This is the key planning tool for setting out our longer-terms plans and priorities within a given financial envelope. It also provides detailed financial information for scenario planning.
•
•
•
•
Evidence • • • • • • • • • Delivery Plan, Scorecard and Annual Delivery Plan Report Strategy for Science and Technology. Ten year plan. Programmatic Review List of Large Facilities Capital Fund earmarked programmes. Terms of Reference of Strategy and Operations Boards Corporate strategy project documentation, including development plan and examples of emerging work from the steering group and theme teams. The development of annual Operating Plans and Reports. Departmental strategies and plans
• • • • •
RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap Harwell Science & Innovation Campus Invitation to Tender Document (containing campus vision statement) Daresbury Science & innovation Campus Master Planning Document RCIAS Business Planning Audit and Management Response External Income Task Force Report.
Planned Improvements • Complete STFC’s Corporate Strategy, including Economic Impact International Strategy & updating its Science & Technology Strategy &
Category 2 • • Development of Business Unit/ departmental strategies in alignment with Corporate Strategy. Category 2 Further strengthen and formalise the link between Corporate & Business Unit/ departmental strategies and operational planning, establishing an STFC annual operating plan. Category 2 Further formalise the decision making process for key strategic and operational choices. Category 2 Strengthen engagement with other Research Councils and other stakeholders in identifying strategic objectives and plans. Category 2 Continuing the development of the Daresbury & Harwell Science & Innovation Campuses. Category 2
• • •
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT STRATEGY and PLANNING Vision
Objective To ensure that the Delivery Partner maintains a robust approach to developing its future strategy and planning its work which is consistent with DIUS priorities and remains pertinent to its delivery.
Risks The organisation has no clear vision, limiting its opportunity to make progress. Needs have not been prioritised or priorities are unclear, resulting in a lack of focus.
Self-Assessment Amber / Green • The Chief Executive, Council and the Executive Board have a shared vision for the organisation, consistent with the rationale for creating the STFC from a merger of CCLRC and PPARC. The key elements of this vision are: ¾ enabling a world-class science programme; ¾ improving the competitiveness of the UK research base, by targeted investment in state-of-the-art facilities and technologies which match the UK’s scientific priorities; ¾ greater economic impact, primarily through the development of the Daresbury and Harwell Science and Innovation Campuses, as vehicles for greater interaction between universities, industry and the STFC’s laboratories. Also to encourage open innovation, more targeted development and utilisation of the STFC-supported skill base, and greater direct technology transfer; ¾ greater international leverage in shaping European and global strategies
•
particularly in the development of large-scale physics-based facilities; ¾ more efficient operational delivery. • This vision has already driven and shaped STFC’s activities in its first year. These activities include: ¾ the continuous development of science strategy, to identify how the UK can make most impact within developing European and global strategies; ¾ identification of future high priority large-scale facilities; ¾ the focus on getting the campuses up and running, and extensive engagement with universities, industrial companies and ESA on the development of shared capability; ¾ the commitment to the Shared Services project, and the setting up of a programme to review and implement change in STFC’s business processes; ¾ The ongoing development of the Harwell and Daresbury Science & Innovation Campuses, in which STFC have taken the lead amongst the research councils. • There is more to be done to ensure that the vision and the strategies and plans which the STFC is adopting to deliver it (see sections on communications & strategic planning) are sufficiently understood both by the staff and all external stakeholders. For this reason the STFC self assessment is shown as Amber/ Green. For this reason STFC, as part of the process of developing its corporate strategy, is further developing a statement of corporate vision in consultation with both its staff and external stakeholders to : ¾ ensure a fuller understanding of the STFC’s objectives, ¾ clearly differentiate the areas in which the STFC will focus and can bring added value, ¾ enable effective alignment between STFC’s strategies and plans and those of external stakeholders, to optimise opportunities for partnership and avoid unnecessary duplication; ¾ ensure that staff at all organisational levels have a clear understanding of how they can contribute to the delivery of this vision. ¾ Support the development of an underpinning and shared culture across the STFC.
•
Evidence • • • Chief Executive ‘Vision’ Roadshow presentation to staff; Draft corporate vision document circulated to staff; Plans for the development of the corporate vision and strategy;
• •
Harwell Science & Innovation Campus Invitation to Tender Document (containing campus vision statement); Daresbury Science & innovation Campus Master Planning Document.
Planned Improvements • Ongoing development of a corporate vision statement as part of the development of a corporate strategy. Category 2
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT CUSTOMER AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Customer Insight
Objective To ensure Delivery Partners have sound arrangements for identifying and engaging their customers and other stakeholders and that they maintain a sound reputation.
Risks Plans do not reflect customer requirements. The organisation does little to engage with its customers.
Self-Assessment Amber / Red • • Engagement with its customers and other stakeholders is vital if STFC is to discharge its mission. STFC has various roles as a grant funder, large facilities operator, and the provider of scientific and technology services. Therefore STFC has a large and diverse range of stakeholders, many of whom have multiple relationships with STFC and with whom STFC engages on many different levels. The STFC has effective mechanisms in place with its “customers” at various levels. At the heart of its decision-making on the development of its science investment portfolio is the peer-review advisory structure. This structure reflects the research interests of the various research communities which the STFC supports. One role of this advisory structure is to ensure that the STFC’s priorities and plans are sufficiently aligned with the needs and aspirations of these communities. However it is clear from the experience of the last six months, that parts of the STFC research community and some of the professional organisations which represent the interests of the research community, have been angered by some
• •
•
of the decisions on the future programme in relation to its delivery plan and the programmatic review, and by a the lack of engagement and consultation by the STFC in making those decisions. This has damaged the STFC’s reputation. • The STFC recognises the need to improve its dialogue with the community and with other stakeholders. Action has been taken to engage more effectively, including evolving the STFC’s advisory structure, building on the specialist panels established as part of the 2008 Programmatic Review consultation. STFC opened up the preliminary outcome of the Programmatic Review to consultation. STFC received over 1400 submissions about the perceived impact of some of its planned priorities. It should be noted that when all the submissions were evaluated, the final programme did not differ because there was a high degree of consensus between submissions and the proposals from the peer-review advisory structure. Nevertheless the exercise was of value, some programmatic changes were made and more timely consultation will be built into the process. STFC will also build into its process for developing its future science and technology strategy, an element of broad community consultation. It is clear that the community would welcome this enhancement to the process and plans are now in place to implement it. At an operational level, all of our facilities are actively engaged with their user communities through both formal and informal channels in advising on how the facilities can best be utilised in terms of their science programmes; how they can best be developed to retain and enhance their competitive capability; and in exploring opportunities for inter-disciplinary/multidisciplinary programmes - either on a specific facility or using a suite of facilities. Peerreview panels also provide advice on which specific research programmes should have access to the facilities. Advice on effective utilisation and development of the facilities is supplemented by user satisfaction surveys, to monitor the degree of satisfaction in terms of the quality of service provided against a set of agreed targets. The STFC’s facilities are also open to limited industrial use, and the STFC has in place effective mechanisms for discussing with various industrial sectors the potential use of the facilities to solve their R&D problems. The STFC provides a broad range of services, either through collaborative partnerships or on a customer/contractor basis, with a wide range of users including industry, other Research Councils and international agencies. The STFC is in regular dialogue with these partners to access both their short- and long-term requirements; to ensure the STFC has the on-going capability to meet their needs, and, in the case of international organisations, that they meet the STFC’s needs. STFC has a programme of developing engagement with commercial, public sector and venture capital organisations that may be able to exploit the technologies developed to deliver the overall science programme, e.g. commercial projects; CLIK strategy for engaging with the potential commercial customers for the facilities at Harwell and Daresbury; and communication with industry through Knowledge Transfer Networks.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
Comprehensive monitoring of the potential suppliers to international research facilities is conducted in collaboration with UKTI. The STFC recognises that it has a much broader range of stakeholders, including: the other Research Councils; the Technology Strategy Board; industry; universities at Vice-Chancellor as well as Department Heads level; the Regional Agencies and Devolved Administrations; professional bodies including the Royal Society; the Royal Academy of Engineering; the Institute of Physics; and the Royal Astronomical Society; and international partners and agencies. While we have worked actively with many external stakeholders in the last year, there is considerable room for improvement in our relations with many of the stakeholders identified above, and we are developing as a matter of priority, a stakeholder engagement plan and programme to increase awareness of the STFC’s role and capabilities, and achieve more effective dialogue on how we can work in partnership to deliver mutually beneficial outcomes.
•
Evidence • • • • DIUS Bi-lateral meetings; International representation (e.g. ESFRI); RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap Consultation; Mechanisms for engaging with research communities, users, industrial customers etc. e.g. Formal town meetings with academic communities, Facility Access Panels, (advice on instruments, programmes and development), Facility scientific advisory panels; User satisfaction surveys; Stakeholder Engagement Plan for Announcement of July 2008 Programmatic Review decisions.
• •
Planned Improvements • • • Consolidate a single Stakeholder map. Implement a robust stakeholder engagement plan development of a corporate communications strategy Category 1 as part of STFC’s Category 1
Greater consultation on science strategy and programme through provision of specialist panels within the science advisory structure Category 2
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT CUSTOMER AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Communications
Objective
To ensure Delivery Partners have sound arrangements for identifying and engaging their customers and other stakeholders, and that they maintain a sound reputation.
Risk
The organisation fails to communicate effectively and there is little recognition of its role. The organisation has a poor public perception.
Self-Assessment
Corporate Communications (including corporate staff communications): Operational Communications: Corporate communications • The STFC’s corporate communications has been severely criticised over the last year. There has been strong external criticism by parts of the STFC’s community - primarily the particle physics and astronomy community, and by organisations representing physics in the UK - that the STFC failed to communicate with these stakeholders on its Delivery Plan and its Programmatic Review. These concerns were echoed in the House of Commons Select Committee report on the Science Budget Allocations. They are also reflected in the external survey commissioned as part of the Organisational Review. STFC management has also been criticised by many of its staff for failing to communicate effectively with them, both on the vision and plans for the STFC as distinct from its predecessor Councils, and how it relates to their Departmental and personal objectives, and on the management of the outcome of the Science Budget allocations. In relation to the latter, many perceive that STFC management has been overly preoccupied by external Red Green
•
“crisis” news management. Staff have also expressed concerns about the visibility of the senior management team and their lack of engagement in the development of the STFC’s strategy and plans. These criticisms are reflected in the recent Investors in People report, and the staff survey commissioned as part of the Organisational Review. • The STFC acknowledges these criticisms. It has taken action to improve both external and internal communications; regards further improvement as a very high priority; and is setting in place plans to achieve such improvement. As set out in the summary on customer insight, the STFC communicated effectively with many of its key stakeholders and in particular its research user communities and industry at an operational level. The STFC has carried out a major external review of its corporate communications capability and structure, and is in the process of implementing significant change, based on this review. The first element of this change is the appointment of a new professional Director, Communications, who will take up post on 4 August. Within the new structure, greater focus and resource will be put into external stakeholder engagement and internal communications In the interim and to improve its external news management, the STFC has employed external consultants in communication and public affairs to enable it to reflect more effectively its side of the story, in relation to the choices and decisions it has made in the Delivery Plan and how it intends to take its programme forward. In relation to internal communications, monthly staff fora have been introduced to enable monthly dialogue between senior Directors and staff at each of the STFC’s sites. This process supplements the cascading of information within departments, and is being further refined from September. Staff are being kept regularly informed on activity at a senior management level through the publication of minutes of the Executive Board, Operations Board, Strategy Board and the Finance Committee Further improvements will be made in the next 6 months. This will include the development of a comprehensive corporate communications strategy, including proactive media and public affairs strategies, and strategies for improving engagement and communication with staff and the community.
•
•
•
•
Operational Communications • STFC’S communications at an operational level with its research communities, other stakeholders and within the STFC at Business Unit and departmental levels are effective. Staff understand what they are doing and why. Interactions take place at many levels – through regular internal departmental meetings; town meetings; user group meetings; the KITE Club for engaging with various industrial sectors; outreach networks and peer review. These are supported by a variety of other resources such as websites; newsletters; email notifications; and annual reports. User satisfaction surveys commend the quality of STFC’s communications at this level. In the interests of transparency, the STFC makes public news from its Council, and the Science Advisory structure. Each major internal project - for example, the SRS closure project, the ISIS
• •
second target station construction programme or the Shared Services Centre project, is required to have a communications plan as part of the project, and staff are kept regularly informed through newsletters and staff meetings on progress, and its impact on them individually. • The STFC effectively communicates the outcome of the science it invests in and has been commended by the media for the quantity and quality of the material which it provides.
Evidence • • • • • • • • • • • • • STFC Annual Reports, including Corporate and Operational-levels (e.g. ISIS, JAC); External review of corporate communications; Staff survey on the SSC; Communications mechanisms for engaging with staff and other stakeholders; Staff and external stakeholder surveys as part of Organisational Review; SQW Report for DIUS on facilities; Town Meetings, Staff Forums etc; Websites, including public webs and staff intranet; Open Days; Knowledge Transfer Networks (KTN); Kite Club; Facility User interactions (e.g. User Groups); Draft STFC Communications Strategy documentation.
Planned Improvements • • • • • • • • Appointment of Director of Communications Completion of Corporate Communications Restructure Category 1 Category 1
Corporate communication strategy and implementation plans (including internal communication) to be completed. Category 1 Further review of feedback from staff and external surveys as part of the Organisational Review Category 1 More systematic identification of stakeholder communities and their representation including corporate engagement plans Category 2 Stakeholder perceptions audit Category 2
Harmonised IT systems to aid communication and reinforce over arching corporate brand and culture Category 2 Embed communications plans as part of Blueprint and corporate strategy programmes Category 2
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT CUSTOMER AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT: Engagement with Service Delivery Partners
Objective To ensure Delivery Partners have sound arrangements for identifying and engaging their customers and other stakeholders, and they maintain a sound reputation.
Risk The organisation fails to engage effectively with its own service delivery partners.
Self-Assessment Amber / Green • STFC has various roles as a grant funder; large facilities operator; and the provider of scientific and technology services. Therefore STFC has a large and diverse range of stakeholders, many of whom have multiple relationships with STFC and with whom STFC engages on many different levels. The major service delivery partners are those who enable STFC to deliver its objectives and include research communities; funding agencies; and public engagement organisations. Due to the nature of STFC’s work a great deal of these partners are international, and collaborations exist formally through inter-governmental and inter-agency agreements, which are supported or managed at a senior level within the organisation e.g. CERN, ESA, ESO, ESRF, ILL, and NASA. Whilst the STFC accepts that some recent decisions made in terms of international programmes have been unpopular with some scientists working in other countries, STFC has honoured all of its international agreements. Our partners in these international agencies face similar funding pressures to the STFC and are understanding of the STFC’s actions, the necessity for which they generally recognise, (indeed they often welcome us taking the initiative to reduce costs).
•
•
•
•
Senior members of the STFC continue to play key leadership roles in many of these organisations. In the recent past these have including chairing the finance committees of ESA, ESO and CERN. An STFC person has recently been reappointed as President of the ESO Council. The STFC currently chairs the ILL Steering Committee and has recently been reappointed Chair of the FALC Resource Committee. The STFC also leads the SKA Forum. It should be noted that several of these chairs have been awarded to members of the STFC outside the normal cycle of appointment, in recognition of their contribution. Both NASA and the US Department of Energy have recently confirmed that they wish to work more closely with the UK and with STFC. Associated with large scale international facilities, STFC has a partnership with UKTI that enables the matching of potential UK suppliers to international research facilities, providing procurement opportunities to UK industry. Links with industry and other collaborators or suppliers are achieved through procurement processes in STFC, which follow UK or EU guidelines for tendering dependent upon value of the contract. STFC is the major stakeholder in the Diamond Light Source (DLS) - the Wellcome Trust is the other partner. The DLS is central to our synchrotron light strategy for the UK, and we are working through the DLS Board to ensure this strategy is delivered. Overarching relationships with other Research Councils are coordinated through the RCUK partnership, where cross-Councils matters are managed and discussed, such as multidisciplinary priorities and the prioritisation of bids into the Large Facilities Capital Fund. STFC is also working with RCUK to deliver more efficient services. The prime example is the Shared Service Centre Project. Included within these cross-Council activities is the Research Organisations’ Consultative Group which oversees corporate level engagement with institutions, and meets regularly to obtain feedback. These activities are supported through interactions at a working level between programme managers and research administrative staff within the institutions, and also a programme of funding assurance visits to institutions, to audit activities and processes. Other overarching surveys are coordinated through this RCUK body to inform future policy direction. In addition to full cross-Council programmes individual Research Councils also enter into agreements with sub-groups of the whole family. It is recognised that improvements could be made in engagement with some Research Councils to better coordinate strategic facility development and exploitation. As part of RCUK, STFC is working through a cross-Council working group on interactions with the Technology Strategy Board, where STFC has committed to jointly support priority themes. In terms of scientific output and the delivery of knowledge, STFC works closely with academic communities, other research Council staff and some industrial partners to identify new opportunities, and establish appropriate mechanisms to deliver them. The support of scientific output also comes in the form of projects, which in some cases are formed from consortia and rely upon supply chains to deliver products that contribute to the complete project. The relationships with these
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
suppliers are dealt with locally, and their performance monitored through standard project management activities and formal contracts. • Part of the STFC mission is to improve the public understanding of science. A successful programme has been developed to inform and inspire a wide range of audiences by capitalising on the excitement of new developments and discoveries in the areas of science and technology that STFC supports. This is delivered through a variety of awards and schemes by close working partnerships with other organisations such as RCUK, British Association and the Royal Observatory and individuals including scientists, engineers, the media, educators and communications professionals. One key target audience is 11-16 year olds, often reached through the education system, which is uniquely supported by providing links between cutting edge research and the curriculum to translate young people’s fascination in scientific areas into an interest in developing a science career. From the £1.5 million invested since the merger exciting examples of specific partnership programmes include the programmes associated with Engagement Beacon Centres, Dark Skies Scotland and the Large Hadron Collider.
Evidence
• • • • UKTI customer database for potential suppliers to international large scale facilities; Facility interaction with users i.e. user groups, facility development panels; Diamond Light Source interaction; Formal cross-Council policies for engagement with grant holders, and systems to monitor performance including Funding Assurance Programme (FAP) and ad hoc review of specific areas such as the impact of FEC; Procurement policies and process; RCUK Research cross-council development groups; Project consortium agreements; Representation on science and technology governmental, inter-agency and project levels; collaborations at inter-
• • • • • •
Joint outreach events with other Research Councils, professional bodies and industry; Database of lectures and courses.
Planned Improvements
• • Enhance advisory structure to include greater number of specialist panels to provide greater engagement with research community. Category 2 Develop plans for more effective engagement with other provider, in particular the other research Councils and the Technology Strategy Board. Category 2 • Develop a comprehensive supplier database. Category 3
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MONITORING AND CONTROL Governance & Risk Management
Objective
To ensure governance and risk management processes are in place and that any significant issues arising are managed appropriately.
Risks
The organisation lacks the basic arrangements to control and manage the risks it faces. The organisation lacks the arrangements necessary to ensure probity.
Self-Assessment
Green STFC is generally compliant with good practice. Council • Council appointments are consistent with OCPA procedures - a code of practice exists and meetings are well planned, regular and appropriately focused. The Council receives standing reports on operations; finance; risk; health and safety; etc, as well as considering issues which impact on the development and delivery of the Council’s strategy. The outcomes from these meetings are well documented and actions followed through.
Audit Committee • The Audit Committee advises Council and the Chief Executive on governance and risk, and risk reporting to Audit Committee has occurred throughout the year. The Chair reports to each meeting of Council. The Audit Committee has welcomed the focus on risk throughout the organisation, and the further work in hand on the risk management framework and integrated risk reporting. The Executive Board, chaired by the Chief Executive, meets monthly and is the top-level governance and decision-making body. It receives reports from the Strategy and Operations Boards and the Finance Committee. It owns the top-
Executive Governance •
level corporate risk register. It considers issues which impact on overall strategy, performance and reputation. • The Operations Board, chaired by the Chief Operating Officer, meets monthly and is responsible for overseeing the management of the organisation. It oversees programme delivery, monitors operational risks, and develops the Council’s 10-year plan. It is responsible for overseeing the management of change within the organisation. The Finance Committee, chaired by the Chief Executive, meets monthly and is responsible for the oversight of governance and financial management. It owns the 10-year plan, approves changes to it, approves, monitors and agrees variations to annual allocations. It monitors high level risks and the governance of the organisation. Each senior Director receives an annual letter of delegation detailing their governance responsibilities, and they are required to report on the discharge of these responsibilities as part of the Assurance framework and input to compiling the Statement on Internal Control (SIC).
•
•
Programme / Project Governance • Each major programme/project has either a project oversight committee or project board which monitors performance against specification, time and budget. There is a risk log for each project; Risk management strategy, policy, register and advisory group are in place; A governance and risk management group has been established to develop best practice policies and procedures; There are financial and administrative procedures in place to guard against the risk of fraud. These are currently further supported by ex-PPARC & ex-CCLRC Fraud Policies and Response Plans; Internal Audit is provided by Research Councils’ Internal Audit Service (RCIAS) operating to GIAS standards.
• • •
•
Evidence
• • • • • • Appointment process consistent/ compliant with OCPA; Code of Practice for Non-Executive Council Members; Council remuneration consistent with remit agreed with DIUS and applied across the whole Research Council base; Typical Council business meeting agenda supported by Council minutes; Audit Committee Terms of Reference supported by minutes of meetings; Assurance framework as set out in Statement on Internal Control (SIC) supported by combination of Management Assurance and Independent Assurance. The NAO has confirmed that the SIC complies with HM Treasury guidance; Terms of reference of Executive governance structure – Executive Board, Operations Board, and Finance Committee;
•
• • • •
Corporate risk register maintained on STAR database. This is accessible and maintained across Directorate boundaries. Financial and other procedures on segregation of duties and guarding against the risk of fraud. Ex-PPARC & Ex-CCLRC Fraud Policies and Response Plans. Annual Treasury Fraud Return. RCIAS Audit Reports – Financial Systems (Health check & Full System review) – Substantial Assurance. RCIAS Annual Report ‘positive reasonable assurance’. No material issues relating governance or risk management, although not formally reviewed in period. Review scheduled for August 2008. Peer Review of RCIAS against GIAS is ongoing – awaiting report. Project Management Guidance documentation.
• •
Planned Improvements
• • Regularise assurance reports recommendations/ actions. to Executive Board for all critical Category 2
Pilot self-assessment with Audit Committee (Nov 08) with view to Council assessment every 2-years (i.e. assessment of collective performance as outlined in Code of Practice). Category 3 Plans are in place to develop Risk Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure consistency of logging and interpretation across the organisation. Category 3
•
• • • • • •
Work in hand to develop enhanced risk database that is integrated with performance management and assurance framework. Category 3 Enhance governance arrangements for project management Category 3
Planned action to introduce Council Member rolling appraisal process. Category 3 Update Council Members’ Handbook Update and issue STFC Fraud Policy & Response Plan Programme of renewal of STFC Policies and procedures Category 3 Category 3 Category 3
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MONITORING AND CONTROL Financial Management
Objective
To ensure governance and risk management processes are in place and that any significant issues arising are managed appropriately.
Risk
Budgets are not properly controlled, resulting in a risk of significant over/underspends
Self-Assessment
Green Processes are in place to control, monitor and to report on actual performance against budgets, and to mitigate the risks of significant over/underspends. • • Budgets are approved, monitored and adjusted by the Finance Committee, chaired by the Chief Executive as Accounting Officer. There is a financial report to the Executive Board, the Operations Board, the Finance Committee, Audit Committee and Council at each respective meeting. Annual budgets are set in the context of a 10-year plan which is the primary financial planning tool. The 10-year plan assumes no increase in income (flat cash) but planned expenditure is either the actual budget for an approved project or is cash planned (i.e. assumes inflation). This ensures budgets are based on reasonable medium-term financial projections and risk assessments. The 10-year plan is intended to: ¾ capture and assess the resource implications of the future plans of each STFC programme element, for both operations and development activity; the full plan has over 500 such entries; ¾ continuously track changes to plans and their status as they move through the STFC approval and post-approval monitoring processes;
•
•
¾ identify the expected lifetimes of projects and programmes and identify when programmes will be sunset, thereby allowing investment in new programme; ¾ provide a reliable basis in making future investment decisions.
•
In the 10-year plan budgets are set for three key 'types' of actual or potential commitment: ¾ approved project/activity i.e. a firm commitment; ¾ rmarked project/activity i.e. existing and/or ongoing programme activities (e.g. grants, facility operations) for which future budgets, or programme extensions, are planned but not yet formally approved; ¾ new opportunities e.g. an activity on the STFC Road Map and/or where a Statement of Interest has been requested/submitted.
•
In-Year Provisional Budgets to Directors are set close to the start of the financial year. Final budgets are set in late June. Monitoring and reporting is system based. Within delegated limits, in-year variations/changes to budgets are under the control of the appropriate director. Budget performance is monitored through a Council-wide outturn forecast (OTF) process. Reports are made routinely to the Operations Board, Finance Committee, Executive Board, Audit Committee and Council. Changes to Directorate budgets require the formal approval of the Finance Committee. Where agreed changes to the OTF have a knock-on effect into future years, these are captured and considered for approval as part of the 10-Year Planning process. Budgets for specific approved projects are monitored by Project Boards, and in the case of large projects by Oversight Committees. Risks of cost overruns are required to be reported as soon as a potential risk is identified and mitigating strategies agreed. Material issues of concerns are reported to the Finance Committee. STFC inherited the capital investment strategies and fixed asset management plans of its predecessor Councils. A new STFC wide strategy is being compiled; Creation of the new Council required that the financial processes, systems and procedures of the predecessor Councils be integrated and operate consistently from 1 April 2007. Prior to the merger, and with the agreement of the National Audit Office, it was decided to continue to use the ex-CCLRC and ex-PPARC extant finance systems until migration of the Council’s administration and finance activities to the Research Councils’ Shared Services Centre single unified system. Continued operation of the two systems brought with it the need to build an overarching consolidation system to provide STFC-wide financial information, and the full integration of processes, procedures and staffing. Encouragingly, the systems have operated successfully to the extent that full information has been provided to all budget holders throughout the financial year, and the final accounts prepared to time and quality. This is to the great credit of the Finance team. The National Audit Office have raised no issues in relation to this
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
consolidation process and were content with the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. They do however, emphasise the ‘need to continue to develop policies and procedures uniformly across the two previous bodies’ to ensure harmonised, complete and consistent standards. • The 2007/08 Annual Report and Accounts has been subject to full scrutiny by the executive, Council, the Audit Committee, DIUS and the NAO. The Accounts have received a clean audit opinion; A small planning team drawn from the Chief Operating Officer’s Office and Finance Directorate has been set up to manage corporate financial planning and budgetary control; A significant proportion of STFC financial processes will transfer to the RCUK Shared Service Centre in 2009. STFC requirements are being managed through the STFC SSC Project and representation on the RCUK SSC Project.
•
•
Evidence
• Regular & Comprehensive Financial reporting, including to: ¾ Operations Board, Finance Committee and Executive Board; ¾ Audit Committee; and ¾ Council; • • • Delegation Letters/ Allocation letters to Directors; Project management guidance documentation; RCIAS Audit Reports – Financial Systems (Health check & Full System review) – Substantial Assurance. RCIAS Annual Report ‘positive reasonable assurance’. Review scheduled for August 2008; IYFM/budget planning and control process; STFC first Annual Accounts obtained a clean audit; 10-year plan; Accounting policies.
• • • •
Planned Improvements
• A thorough review of STFC infrastructure and cost structure has commenced. The review will include use of assets and infrastructure and help give a fuller understanding of STFC’s cost structure and drivers. It is anticipated that the programme will take 9 months to complete with the aim of having any budget or structural changes in place for FY 2009/10. Category 2 Complete the STFC Capital Investment Plan. Category 2
• • •
Enhanced process in outturn forecasting through more robust review and oversight of variances. Category 3 Programme of renewal of STFC Policies and Procedures. Category 3
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MONITORING AND CONTROL Performance Management
Objective
To ensure governance and risk management processes are in place, and that any significant issues arising are managed appropriately.
Risks
Performance Plans are not realistic. Performance targets are not being met, or are not on course to be met.
Self-Assessment
Amber / Green • • • • At a top-level, STFC’s performance plans and targets are set out in its Delivery Plan. The Delivery Plan for 2007/08 matched the allocations transferred from CCLRC and PPARC, and from EPSRC for Nuclear Physics. The Delivery Plan for 2008/09 – 2010/11 is matched to the financial allocations from CSR07. STFC management reports quarterly to Council and to DIUS, under the agreed Performance Management Framework, on the delivery of these plans through the associated scorecard. In its first year the STFC achieved 94% of its targets. Plans and targets which were not achieved (these primarily relate to slippages in high risk technology projects), are discussed in Council and at the biannual meetings between DIUS and STFC’s management. Within the Performance Management Framework, DIUS and the Research
•
•
Councils have agreed a set of performance metrics under the Economic Impact Reporting Framework. STFC reports annually on these metrics. • At an operational level, each major facility has targets for technical performance, availability and user satisfaction. Outcomes are also monitored in relation to papers and citations compared with other similar facilities. For other programmes/services/projects provided by in-house departments or universities, performance targets are set between the customer and the service provider. Performance is monitored through project management Committees and by the STFC Operations Board. STFC’s evidence base and management information systems needs further development to underpin STFC’s decision-making and performance management.
•
•
Evidence
• • • • • • Delivery Plan, associated scorecards and reports to Council, EB & DIUS. Economic Impact Reporting Framework (EIRF) metrics. Most recent annual report on EIRF metrics. RCIAS Audit Report on performance management and Management Response Participation on RCUK Performance Evaluation Group (PEG) and Research Outputs Group Pre-existing operational-level performance management systems (e.g. Project Review committees, Grants FAP)
Planned Improvements
• The performance management framework between DIUS and the STFC will continue to evolve but moving forward the STFC has identified the need to set up a more systematic process of aligning its corporate strategy and stretching objectives for its Directorates, Departments and the individual member of staff. As part of this project the intent will be to develop a smarter set of key performance indicators which will enable the organisation to set trajectories and to monitor performance against the achievement of these targets. Category 2 • The STFC will produce an Annual Operating Plan and Report. The Operating Plan will capture the organisation’s operational milestones and targets which map on to the objectives in the Delivery Plan. An Operating Report will assess performance against each year’s targets. Category 2 To develop a framework of SMART metrics (key performance indicators), supported by a management information framework that facilitates the evaluation process. Category 2 To develop improved management information systems and processes. Category 2
•
•
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT DELIVERY Leadership
Objective To ensure the Delivery Partner (i.e. STFC) has the capacity to deliver, and that it delivers its planned outcomes in line with its budgets
Risk The organisation lacks sound leadership resulting in potential risk to delivery.
Self-Assessment Amber / Red • • Effective leadership is a key requirement in STFC, particularly given the scale of change following the merger in 2007. The formation of STFC in April 2007 required a major re-organisation and alignment of responsibilities which presented a number of new challenges in terms of top-level leadership, direction and control. The senior Director posts were filled by internal competition drawn from the previous CCLRC and PPARC management teams, independently assessed by members of Council. The STFC has responded to the evolving needs of the organisation by developing its management structure with the creation of three new posts: a Chief Operating Officer; a Director, Commercial and Corporate Affairs; a Director, Campus Strategy. The aim of these changes has been to : ¾ enable the Chief Executive to focus more on external engagement with key national and international stakeholders, while retaining overall responsibility and accountability for the effective performance of the STFC;
•
•
•
¾ provide, through the Chief Operating Officer, a stronger focus on managing the organisation and the delivery of the STFC’s programme; ¾ provide more dedicated leadership and focus in the areas of Commercial Affairs, Campus Development, Knowledge Exchange and Technology Development, all of which are key elements of the STFC’s mission. • These changes will be supplemented by the appointment in August 2008 of a new Director, Communications, an area in which the STFC recognises it must have enhanced capability, and the appointment of a new Director (acting), Knowledge Exchange. The STFC has also developed its corporate governance arrangements through an Executive Board; Strategy Board; Operations Board; and Finance Committee. This organisational structure needs to ‘bed-down’ and then be evaluated. Below this level there has been relatively little change reflecting the high quality of management which was inherited from CCLRC and PPARC at an operational level. The STFC will build on the leadership and management training programmes already in place within CCLRC and PPARC, and leadership programmes will form part of the “Blueprint” programme. Concerns have been expressed internally and externally about the leadership, particularly at a senior level in STC. It is acknowledged that the STFC need to do more to communicate more effectively, and engage with external stakeholders and its staff more, and earlier, in developing its vision, strategy and plans. These concerns must be put in perspective. As exemplified elsewhere in these self-assessment reports much has been achieved during the STFC’s first year. The STFC has demonstrated leadership as an organisation in the development of the RCUK Large Facilities Roadmap; in the successful development of the Technology Gateway Centres; to recently receive earmarked funding from DIUS from the Large Facility Capital Fund; and the ongoing development of strategy by the various international bodies of which the STFC is a member – with STFC members holding senior leadership positions in many of them, (including ESO, ILL etc). The Chief Executive and the senior management team have led effectively in shaping the STFC’s strategy; in delivering a prioritised programme for the next three years; in setting out major priorities for the next decade in terms of major facilities; in identifying new technology capabilities which will underpin the research base; in moving forward the campus agenda; and in working with funding agencies internationally to position the UK as a proactive partner in shaping future global science strategy. They have also initiated major programmes to develop a corporate strategy for the STFC, and a change management programme to ensure the organisation is fit for purpose moving forward. In terms of fundamentals, an effective system of delegation is in place; delivery targets have been achieved; operational performance is high; there is effective budgetary and risk management control; and the accounts have received a clean audit.
• • •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
There is a perception internally that there is a need for a stronger coupling between the vision which the corporate leadership has for the STFC, and the strategies and performance targets at an operational level. This need has been recognised and is being addressed as part of the corporate strategy development programme Many staff have expressed concern about the visibility of the Chief Executive and Senior Directors. The STFC is larger, more complex and more geographically dispersed organisation than its predecessors and has to engage with a much broader range of stakeholders. To enable effective dialogue, greater reliance must be placed on effectively cascading information about the direction and goals of the organisation, as well as sharing corporately its achievements. Actions have been put in place to supplement these normal processes. These include monthly staff talks at all of the STFC sites by one or more of the senior Directors. The Chief Operating Officer has also set up a blog through which he can update staff on current developments and answer staff questions. Externally, criticism of the STFC’s leadership has been associated particularly with the way in which the STFC was perceived to have handled the outcome of the CSR07 settlement. The concerns have focussed on two issues: ¾ the transparency and robustness of STFC’s decision-making; ¾ the way in which the STFC communicated with its stakeholders and community.
•
•
•
The STFC has acknowledged publicly that more effective communications is important. Specifically there is a need to achieve a better balance between transparencies, and communicating well thought out messages. As set out in the self-assessment report on communications, an external review of its communications capability has been carried out and actions are in hand to improve this capability. On the issue of decision-making, there will always be winners and losers when investment choices have to be made. However the STFC has acknowledged that it could have consulted more effectively as part of its decision-making. Better consultation will be put in place in developing future plans.
•
Evidence • • • • • • • • • Revised top-level staff structures. Chief Executive’s Letters of Delegation STFC Executive Board – membership, terms of reference STFC Operations Board – membership, terms of reference STFC Strategy Board – membership, terms of reference STFC Finance Committee – membership, terms of reference STFC corporate strategy development Decisions on Large Facilities Capital fund BLUEPRINT change management programme
• • • • •
CRISTAL Management Training Staff and External stakeholder surveys as part of Organisational Review Decisions on Large Facility Capital Fund, Programmatic Review Senior Management Excellence training programme Town Meetings, Staff Forums.
Planned Improvements • • • • • Consolidate & further develop all current initiatives including staff fora and the implementation of Corporate Communications Strategy. Category 1 Leadership development as part of the “Blueprint” programme in terms of managing change. Category 1 Implementing “quick wins” as identified by the Blueprint project. Category 1
Implementing a staff perceptions audit as part of the Blueprint Project. Category 2 The recent introduction of the CRISTAL management training programme to ensure managers have required skill set individually and as members of a team. Category 2
•
Complete STFC’s Corporate Strategy, including Economic Impact & International Strategy & updating its Science & Technology Strategy Category 2
• •
Development of Business Unit/ departmental strategies in alignment with Category 2 Corporate Strategy Further strengthen and formalise the link between Corporate & Business Unit/ departmental strategies and operational planning, establishing an STFC annual Category 2 operating plan. Further formalise the decision making process for key strategic and operational Category 2 choices. STFC Council will continue to support and review the ongoing development of leadership capability within the council. Category 2
• •
ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT DELIVERY Capability
Objective To ensure the Delivery Partner (i.e. STFC) has the capacity to deliver and that it delivers its planned outcomes in line with its budgets
Risk The organisation lacks the capability required to deliver its planned outcomes.
Self-Assessment Amber / Green • Capability is recognised as a critical success factor for STFC. It includes both the in-house expertise, and the infrastructure necessary to enable programme delivery and development.
Staffing • There are established procedures in place for workforce planning and control, and staff performance management systems help to ensure individual performance objectives are aligned with the STFC’s programme objectives. These HR policies existed within CCLRC and PPARC and are now being reviewed and harmonised to meet STFC’s requirements, as an understanding of what is required by STFC becomes clearer. Specific skills needed to maintain the required capability are developed through a range of training and other development methods, and Recruitment and Retention Allowances are used for retaining staff in areas of skill shortages. These methods include a Graduate Engineering scheme, apprenticeships and structured training in specific areas, e.g. safety. There are also established General Management and Project Management training programmes.
•
• •
The recruitment and retention of key skills will continue to be constrained by public sector pay. Individual requirements are addressed via the staff performance appraisal systems. All training is properly evaluated, and lessons learned are applied as part of staff performance review. Investors in People (IiP) principles are established, and are being used to ensure staff can reach their full potential. IiP accreditation was achieved by both CCLRC and PPARC. Re-accreditation is being sought to re-affirm the STFC’s commitment to its staff. Some issues were identified by the 2007 Investors in People (IiP) Review, in the main reflecting the organisation’s transition postmerger, and IiP Working Group is monitoring progress against actions agreed for re-accreditation in December 2008. Opportunities for External Income generation are being explored to make best use of competencies/capability to support STFC Delivery Plan priorities, and to meet DIUS’s targets for economic impact. Since its inception, STFC has been responding to significant organisational change, including the Shared Services Centre. The creation of the Shared Services Centre will have a major impact on the delivery of many of the key processes and systems which underpin the STFC’s service capability. The management of the implementation is, and will need to be, monitored closely to ensure that the capabilities within STFC and the Shared Services Centre are fully aligned To benchmark its capability, the STFC has carried our two major audits of its inhouse research effort and of its competencies, to capture key scientific/technical competencies, proficiency and applicability across the organisation.
•
•
•
•
Infrastructure
• •
STFC continues to strive to ensure that the research technological infrastructure of its laboratories and its estates remains 'fit for purpose'. Building on a programme of infrastructure investment and facility development established by CCLRC, STFC has in its first year delivered major enhancements at both its major sites: ¾ At DL, the [£16M] Energy Recovery Linac Prototype has been completed and has now entered its commissioning phase; ¾ At RAL, the [£6M] ASTRA-GEMINA laser system was inaugurated by the Science Minister in autumn 2007. The [£145M] ISIS Second Target Station project remains on budget and on schedule for science delivery in autumn 2008. A range of facility upgrade and enhancement projects supported by the [£7M] strategic Facility Development line have been delivered, enhancing capability and capacity at both ISIS and the Central Laser Facility; ¾ The world-leading £14M SCUBA2 instrument designing and built at the UK ATC has been successfully installed on the JCMT on Hawaii. ¾ A substantial refurbishment programme for existing laboratory and office space at DL is nearing completion. A new [£6M] reception and security building has opened at RAL; the [£17M] Tier 1 computer centre,
established as the UK centre to handle data from the Large Hadron Collider in CERN is on schedule for completion in Autumn 2008; and construction has begun on the [£26M] MRC-led Research Complex Building (scheduled for completion in late 2009).
•
STFC is producing, as part of its first 10-year investment plan, a capital investment strategy to ensure that our laboratory infrastructure is fit for purpose to deliver key elements of our science and innovation strategy. Early indications are that there are strongly competing priorities for capital expenditure.
Evidence • • • • • • HR processes, staff improvement schemes (e.g. Learning & Development); In-house research reviews; Competencies review; IiP report and action plan; BLUEPRINT programme – objectives, timescales; Estates/ Infrastructure development plans and achievements.
Planned Improvements • • Ex-CCLRC / ex-PPARC policies and procedures need to be harmonised – programme of renewal is ongoing. Category 2 Outcome of Competencies Survey to be considered against strategic objectives as these evolve and incorporated in future training programmes and learning and development plans. Category 2 Achieve IiP re-accreditation Category 2
• • •
Need to review and shape capability requirements to meet new strategic priorities in the area of economic impact. Category 2 Fully incorporated Capital Investment Strategy in the STFC’s 10-year plan Category 2
ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT DELIVERY Outcomes
Objective To ensure the Delivery Partner (i.e. STFC) has the capacity to deliver and that it delivers its planned outcomes in line with its budgets.
Risks The organisation fails to achieve its planned outcomes. The organisation fails to live within its budget. Self-Assessment Green • The STFC Delivery Plan and Scorecard 2008 provide top-level targets and deliverables against which to measure STFC progress and performance. These are being reported quarterly to DIUS; STFC met 94% of its targets in its first year; It lived within its budget in 2007/08 and indeed deliberately managed an underspend to ease the pressures on funding in 2008/09; STFC has set out its plans for the CSR07 period in its Delivery Plan for 2008/09 within its allocations; These plans have allowed for the introduction of a significant number of new programmes; The STFC has worked with DIUS to optimise the financial flexibility it has over this period. There are still some financial risks but these are considered manageable within the degree of flexibility agreed; STFC project delivery processes have been transferred across from PPARC/CCLRC. These processes were subject to an NAO VFM review in 2006; Arrangements for tracking delivery progress and performance across STFC are broadly sound. These are underpinned by robust processes for: ¾ project delivery governing the initiation, approval, implementation,
• • • • •
• •
monitoring and evaluation of projects/initiatives; ¾ Development, operation and maintenance of STFC Facilities and services ¾ An integrated programme for exploitation and knowledge exchange arising from institutes, international projects and laboratories, which are funded by STFC • Through its membership of, and R&D collaboration with, major international organisations (e.g. CERN, ESA, ESRF), STFC works to ensure these are operated as cost-effectively as possible, and that the UK has access to world-leading instruments, and gets the best scientific return for its investment. STFC has many success stories on its achievements, which demonstrate the outcomes it is delivering. These are captured and reported in a number of ways, both formal and informal, including via regular Director reports to Council, Operating Report to DIUS, website news/announcements, press releases and targeted events.
•
Evidence • • • • • • • • • STFC Delivery Plans and Scorecards Economic Impact Reporting Framework metrics and Annual report Annual Accounts Finance Committee – Terms of reference STFC project management handbooks Policy guidance on Facility operations KE funding initiatives and exploitation activities (e.g. PIPSS) Independent reviews of STFC facilities (internal and external) Key successes and achievements (examples provided)
Planned Improvements • Key lessons learned in how project management and assurance is dealt with as a discipline within the STFC programme/ project management environment, for example through gateway or post-implementation reviews, should be incorporated within STFC standard operating procedures. Category 3 Continue to enhance role and operation of new STFC peer review / advisory processes to ensure that the full spectrum of STFC programme activities are scrutinised independently and objectively, so that strategic decision-making is correctly tensioned against competing strategic priorities (e.g. facilities development and science programmes) Category 3 Some improvements in management information and reporting are needed to help demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of STFC investment (e.g. in terms of industrial return) to DIUS and Treasury Category 3 High level STFC interactions needed with EU regarding EC funding strategies/priorities for future programmes. Category 3
•
•
•
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MANAGEMENT OF VALUE FOR MONEY
Objective
To ensure the organisation achieves economy efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of its services
Risks
The organisation lacks focus on value for money. The organisation is not operating efficiently and is failing to achieve value for money
Self-Assessment
Green • • STFC actively seeks to maximise the value of the outputs it delivers, using the resources it has available. All current investments in programmes, facilities and projects are reviewed every two years (the Programmatic Review), to evaluate whether they are, and will, continue to deliver value for money. If the assessment is that they will not, investment is reduced or withdrawn. All new investment decisions are evaluated and prioritised by the executive. Independent advice is obtained on science and facilities investments from the science advisory structure. A number of criteria are used, but VFM is key. These processes passed scrutiny by NAO in the review of Big Science- Public Investment in Large Facilities (January 2007). A substantial proportion of STFC’s investment is in international subscriptions. Participation in CERN, ESA, ESO, ESRF and ILL are essential in delivering the STFC’s strategy by providing access to state-of-the art facilities and infrastructure in specific science areas. The extent to which the STFC is in a position to influence materially the policies and direction of the international
•
• •
organisations of which it is a member, is inevitably constrained by the voting rules and the wishes of the partnership. The STFC has gained influence and control over and above its stakeholder share by making key and timely additional investments, for example in ESA’s Aurora programme and by securing key posts at Council level, or as Chairs and / or key members of scientific, technical, finance, audit and administration committees. Through these mechanisms, the STFC has been instrumental in persuading such organisations to participate in developing global science strategies, to adopt reform programmes to ensure they are delivering value for money, and to implement certain UK accounting and governance standards; in particular at CERN, ESA and ESO. • • • In relation to ESA, a juste retour mechanism is in place to ensure UK industry benefits in proportion to our mandatory subscription. The STFC’s economic impact strategy is intended to maximise the return to the UK economy. In its Delivery Plan for 2008/09 – 2010/11, the STFC set aggressive targets for delivering efficiency savings in its operations. Further, it has stated its commitment to contribute to efficiency savings across the Research Councils against target savings (3% per annum) in administration, agreed with DIUS. These savings will be achieved primarily through the implementation of a Shared Service Centre which will provide administrative services (Finance, Procurement, HR, Grants Processing and IT) to all Research Councils. STFC is producing a capital investment strategy to ensure that its infrastructure is fit for purpose, to deliver key elements of its science and innovation strategy. This builds on the existing programme of improvements with funding provided in SR2004. STFC inherited from CCLRC and PPARC target savings under the Gershon Efficiency Project, as an outcome of SR04. STFC contributes to this process through its membership of the RCUK Efficiency Delivery Project (REDP). The STFC is on track to deliver its share of the savings. In relation to the savings targets set in STFC’s Delivery Plan for the CSR07 period, STFC is committed to developing and implementing a programme of business re-engineering to ensure that the new Council is fully integrated, and is operating cost-effectively in relation to its financial, procurement, HR and IT policy and business processes. This programme will be managed as part of a management of change programme – ‘Blueprint’ – and will build on previous initiatives such as Fit For the Future and adapt business processes to meet the new challenges facing STFC. STFC plays a key role in the Shared Service Centre project which has highly challenging targets, and will require significant resources to ensure its implementation benefits delivery for STFC.
•
•
•
•
•
Evidence
• • • • • • • • • • • • • STFC Delivery Plan, Scorecard and Delivery Plan Annual Report. Programmatic review – criteria and process for evaluating value for money from existing investments. Criteria and appraisal process for new investment decisions. Specific examples of influencing on European organisations (eg representation at CERN). NAO Report on Public Investment in Large Facilities. (2007) Compliant with Guidance from the Office of Science and Innovation (now DIUS) adopted by the Research Councils. Project management handbooks. Compliant with HM Treasury’s Green Book entitled ‘Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government’. Terms of reference of relevant peer review bodies. Reports to DIUS against Gershon targets. Blueprint programme – objectives. Grants Funding Assurance Programme (FAP) Procurement policy and guidelines (e.g. on competition)
Planned Improvements
• As set out in the performance management section, the STFC is developing a comprehensive set of KPIs, against which performance will be measured. These KPIs will include value for money. Category 3 Programme of business re-engineering as part of the Blueprint programme. Category 3 • Second round of ‘Gershon’ requires production of a unified single target regime for the whole council, replacing CCLRC/PPARC targets set for its predecessor bodies. Category 3
•
STFC ORGANISATIONAL REVIEW
SUMMARY COMPONENT REPORT MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
Objective
To ensure the Delivery Partner works in a flexible way and has a drive to innovation in its service delivery and that where change is undertaken it is managed effectively.
Risks
Plans for changing operations are poor. The organisation lacks the capacity to successfully implement its change plans, resulting in the ultimate failure to achieve its plans, or waste of money in implementation.
Self-Assessment
Amber / Green STFC operates in an environment which is subject to continuous improvement and change. Consistent with the Government’s PSA targets and in common with other Delivery Partners, it must be proactive and have the capacity to: • • • refresh its science programme to sustain the competitiveness of the UK research base; develop innovative ways of delivering greater economic impact; and deliver more effective services.
In parallel, as a relatively new organisation, the STFC is undergoing a process of organisational change, to ensure that its culture and processes are fully aligned with its objectives and organisational needs. For example: • Various processes exist for developing and refreshing the science and technology programme - each tailored to meet the needs of the different communities we support. These include a process by which research groups can, at any time, submit statements of interest to develop new capabilities; Significant new programmes are subjected to a number of stages of peer
•
review, including open community meetings and formal cost and management reviews; • Through the development of a 10-year plan and the biennial programmatic review, STFC has a rolling process of assessing priorities and, in doing so. identifying resources for support of new opportunities; In its first year, the STFC has demonstrated its capacity to take decisions to change direction in either sunsetting or reshaping programmes. Examples include ceasing support for the existing International Linear Collider project, and setting up a New Light Source project; STFC has effectively managed the rundown and closure of a major facility, the Synchrotron Radiation Source at the Daresbury Laboratory with minimum disruption to the science programme, and a sensitively managed redundancy programme; While CCLRC and PPARC both had a good track record for knowledge exchange, enhancing the STFC’s impact requires some change in culture and approach. In the area of technology development, departments are incentivised through a mix of direct vote and external income to continuously develop new state-of-the-art capability which will both enhance the competitiveness of the science programme, and deliver greater economic impact. This process of technology transfer is enabled through CLIK; In relation to overall organisation change, the merger project was achieved with the minimum of additional resource, and disruption to the on-going programme. The merger was considered a success by the NAO; STFC is playing a key role in the creation of the new Shared Services Centre; Following the merger, STFC recognises that significant cultural differences remain within the organisation. While major changes have already been made in the STFC’s governance and decision-making processes, it will take time to create a new organisation with its own culture, a shared understanding of a coherent strategy, its delivery and integrated ways of working, and processes; In order to manage this process, an ongoing programme specifically designed to deliver change and a project framework is being put in place, to produce a ‘Blueprint’ for the organisation going forward. The Blueprint programme with its inclusive and structured approach will provide a critical means to managing change effectively. The objectives are to : Implement a long term business model for STFC aligned to: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Its Vision and strategy Priorities Funding
•
•
•
•
• •
•
Implement organisational changes Core processes Support infrastructure
Develop World Class management capability Culture and team spirit Skills – (based on awareness of commercial, cost and motivational drivers) Processes
Incorporate: ? ? “Quick wins” identified by “theme teams” Actions agreed from the Organisational Review
Engage and motivate all managers and staff in the process.
Evidence
• • • • • • • • • • 10-year plan Statements of Interest process Programmatic review Schemes for enabling/incentivising technology development and transfer IIP report BLUEPRINT programme – objectives, timescales, methodology. SSC Project management documentation for STFC implementation project SRS Closure project documentation Merger Implementation project documentation, including NAO report New Light Source development project
Planned Improvements
• • • A Formal Change Management programme overseen by the Operations Board Category 2 Formal project management standards, including communications plan, applied to Blueprint programme Category 2 Executive Board assurance framework receiving progress report on agreed actions Category 2
For further information contact: Mr Gordon Stewart Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX UK Tel: +44 (0) 1235 445000 (general number) Email: [email protected]
doc_326771513.pdf