Draft project plan b westminster mace

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

JISC Project Plan
Project Information
Project Identifier To be completed by JISC
Project Title Making Assessment Count Evaluation
Project Hashtag
Start Date 1 September 2011 End Date 31 August 2013
Lead Institution University of Westminster
Project Director Professor Gunter Saunders
Project Manager Professor Gunter Saunders
Contact email G.Saunders@westminster.ac.uk
Partner Institutions University of Bedfordshire, City University London, University of
Greenwich, University of Reading, University of Wales Institute Cardiff
Project Webpage URL https://sites.google.com/a/staff.westminster.ac.uk/mace/
Programme Name Assessment and Feedback
Programme Manager Lisa Gray

Document Information
Author(s) Gunter Saunders and Peter Chatterton
Project Role(s) Project Director and External Evaluator
Date 1/10/2011 Filename MAC Detailed Project Plan V1
URL If this report is on your project web site
Access This report is for general dissemination

Document History
Version Date Comments
V1 1/10/11 Draft for comment

Page 1 of 19
Document title: JISC Project Plan Template
Last updated: Feb 2011 v2.0

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

Table of Contents
NB : This table of contents ‘auto-populates’ - to update the table of contents – place cursor in the table
of contents, right-click your mouse, click ’update field’, select appropriate option

1. Project Overview .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes ........................................................................................ 3
1.4 Overall Approach .................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Anticipated Impact ................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................................................................... 5
1.7 Related Projects ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.8 Constraints .............................................................................................................................. 6
1.9 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.10 Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 7
1.11 Technical Development........................................................................................................... 8
1.12 Standards ................................................................................................................................ 8
1.13 Intellectual Property Rights ..................................................................................................... 8
2 Project Resources ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Project Partners....................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Project Management ............................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Project Roles ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Programme Support .............................................................................................................. 10
3 Detailed Project Planning .............................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Evaluation Plan ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Dissemination Plan ............................................................................................................... 14
3.4 Exit and Embedding Plans .................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Sustainability Plans ............................................................................................................... 16
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix A. Project Budget............................................................................................................... 17
Appendix B. Workpackages .............................................................................................................. 18

Page 2 of 19
Last updated: Feb 2011 – v2.0

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

1. Project Overview
1.1 Project Summary
Each of the 6 participating institutions taking part in this project have either current or
planned implementations (for start of academic year 11/12) of a Making Assessment Count
(MAC) process. A MAC process can be described as a series of steps that students are
taken through to help them reflect either prior to or after completion of a piece of formative or
summative work. Central to most MAC processes is an online self-review questionnaire
which uses a system called e-Reflect. The work will assess the impact of MAC within the
institutions on student and staff experience, paying careful attention to the effects on student
performance and student and staff satisfaction in relation to quality enhancement, workloads
and efficiency. In evaluating across 6 institutions the intention is to generate a rich collection
of outputs that together will disseminate to the sector how MAC can work for different subject
areas and become embedded into institutional strategy.

1.2 Objectives
This project has 2 main objectives. These are:

1. To evaluate pilot implementations of Making Assessment Count (MAC) processes at 6
universities using an approach that will facilitate embedding and sustainability

2. To re-inforce the business case already made for MAC, expanding it to take into account
different subject areas, other institutional contexts and the developed variations of the MAC
model that have emerged to suit these different contexts

1.3 Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes
Output / Outcome Type Brief Description
(e.g. report, publication, software,
knowledge built)
Report A cross institutional evaluation report presenting a view of
the applicability and flexibility of MAC processes across
different subject and institutional contexts.
Process A self assessment procedure that institutions can follow in
formulating plans to address feedback through a MAC
approach; this will include a model for assessing
cost:benefit.
Case studies A minimum of 6 short (2 pages) case studies highlighting
the specific approaches and outcomes taken at each
participating institution. It is anticipated that each case
study would focus either on a different subject area or
different application of MAC
Multimedia assets A range of multimedia assets (video and audio clips of
stakeholders, academic staff, students, senior staff,
support staff) that are linked to and underpin the
evaluation report and case studies
Papers/conference The project will generate at least one paper and will aim for a
presentations minimum of 2 conference presentations

Page 3 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

1.4 Overall Approach
At each institution the planned pilot is being monitored by a senior member of staff with a
cross-institutional role in the development of e-learning based solutions for learning and
teaching. Each of these individuals will work with the academics locally and all have stated
intentions to evaluate what they do. The external evaluator and Project Director will plan the
evaluation of the pilots together with each of these individuals near the start of the project.
This will ensure that local evaluation plans integrate with and complement the work of the
external evaluator and project director.

The workplan is divided into 4 work packages (WP1-4 in appendix B). Work packages 1-3
will focus on ‘learning lessons’ from the pilots that have been or are to be conducted at the
participating institutions. These work packages will also be directly concerned with building
the business case for MAC across subject areas and institutional contexts and will generate
the case studies, institutional self-assessment procedure and final report (see deliverables
section section 2.4). The external evaluator will focus their time on these 3 work packages.

Work package 4 – ‘Dissemination through Stakeholder Communications and Engagement’
will be conducted by the university based members of the project team, although the work on
WP4 will obviously be closely linked to and informed by the work of the external evaluator on
WP1 and WP2 particularly. WP4 will focus on embedding MAC across the institution(s)
through internal mechanisms for strategic change. This will be achieved by working with
students, senior staff and committees, with a view to explicitly linking MAC to relevant
institutional strategies (e.g. learning, teaching and assessment strategy, IT strategy),
processes (e.g. course validation and review) and culture. We will draw heavily from the
JISC Good Practice Guide to Sustaining/Embedding Innovations for Work Package 4. Key
workplan milestones are in the table below.

Critical success factors will include the following:

• Obtaining effective stakeholder buy-in and engagement to contextualising, customising
and piloting MAC processes.

• Institutions developing and implementing effective sustainability and embedding plans for
their customised MAC processes that integrate/align with institutional processes,
strategies, culture and systems.

• Development of clear and understandable business cases that set workload analyses,
process efficiencies and cost-benefit analyses of MAC processes into a wider strategic
context of developments in (blended) teaching and learning.

Date Milestone Deliverable(s)
Jan ‘12 Emerging picture of lessons being Draft case studies; preliminary reports for
learned within and across the senior management/decision makers
institutions
Apr ‘12 Agreed approach to scale up and Communication/engagement plan; defined
embedding cognate group/departmental//institutional
self-assessment procedure
July ‘12 Embedding of completed pilots Local level plans for MAC pilots; institution
more widely across each level statements related to integration of
institution MAC into institutional processes
Sept ‘12 End of year one Project audit and review of progress
Jan’13 Additional rounds of MAC use at Report on wider usage; impact of wider use
Page 4 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

each institution in greater range of on institutional plans; updated case studies
departments completed
July ‘13 Strategic changes within Institutional strategic statement; final report;
institutions related to the wider updated case studies
integration of MAC processes into
learning and teaching

1.5 Anticipated Impact
Impact Area Anticipated Impact Description
Student and staff experience Students will be able to gain more from the feedback they
receive and/or access automated support for common
coursework tasks. This should lead to improved performance.
Staff will find ways to alter their learning and teaching approach
in order to use the information gathered through MAC to better
‘connect’ with the learning needs of individual students and
groups of students.
Be more effective/save money The use of MAC processes should enable staff to tailor the
advice and support that they provide to individual need making
the feedback potentially more effective. Coupled to changes in
overall learning and teaching approach this can be expected to
lead to lower drop out rates.
Be ready for future technology The use of MAC processes can be expected to help staff
needs engage in approaches that genuinely blend the use of online
tools to enhance the overall experience of a face to face
course.

1.6 Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Interest / stake Importance
(H/M/L)
Academic staff already involved in pilots Input into evaluation H
design/information about
their pilots/assistance in
engaging students in
evaluation/ideas for how to
take their pilots
forward/advocate role in
engaging other academics
Academic staff from other Schools Information on the M
affordances derived from
using MAC/understanding
how MAC can be used or
adapted to their context.
Staff from central learning and teaching Input to evaluation design; H
support working closely with
external evaluator to
arrange meetings, focus
groups; liaison with other
university functions over
deeper integration/take up
issues; advocacy for MAC
Page 5 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

processes
University and School Committees Information on progress H
and implications for
strategic planning of
systems (e.g. VLE
development) and
processes (e.g. QA).
Senior executive staff (e.g. PVC Learning Input into pilot evaluations; H
and Teaching) awareness of resources/
sustainability issues;
understanding of potential
for quality and efficiency
enhancements
Students Input to design and conduct H
of the evaluation; wider
understanding of the
advantages of a MAC
process to the student’s
learning experience
JISC Sharing of developing H
practices at subject and
institutional level;
understanding of cross-
institutional issues.
Wider academic community Information on MAC H
implementations; access to
successful approaches and
support.

1.7 Related Projects
Making Assessment Count (JISC Curriculum Delivery Programme 2008-2010) -
http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/23495173/Making%20Assessment%20Count%2
0Project

Making Assessment Count Benefits Realisation Project (2010-2011) –
http://www.makingassessmentcount.ac.uk

Re-engineering Assessment Practices in Higher Education -
http://www.reap.ac.uk/Home.aspx

1.8 Constraints
Budget for travel and organisation of focus group meetings to evaluate from both staff and
student perspectives.

1.9 Assumptions
We are making the assumption that each participating institution will commit to the project
necessary additional resource not costed into the project. This would include for example the

Page 6 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

time of senior executive staff who would be involved in ensuring that any evaluation is
closely linked to the embedding and sustainability of pilot project outputs.

1.10 Risk Analysis
Risk Description Probability Severity Risk Detail of action to be taken
(P) (S) Score (mitigation / reduction / transfer
1–5 1–5 (PxS) / acceptance)
(1 = low (1 = low
5 = high) 5 = high)
Loss of key staff 1 4 4 There will be a number of
central to evaluation staff contributing (in addition
processes to the external evaluator) to
the evaluation from across
and within each institution.
In addition all of the staff
identified as working on the
project are part of a central
team so additional
support/cover is available.
Difficulty in gathering 2 4 8 We will work very closely
data on use with the academics heading
up the pilots and support
them in engaging the
students during the active
phase of MAC pilots. In
addition we will use a range
of data collection methods.
Evaluation suggests 1 5 5 As already done at
MAC is not practical or Westminster, UWIC and
sustainable City careful analysis will be
undertaken to ensure that
any MAC process to be
piloted suits the
subject/departmental
context
Difficulty in expanding 3 3 9 Development of key
pilots already ongoing communications/engageme
or planned, post nt plan; involvement of key
evaluation senior executive staff and
university committees at
significant points in the
academic year.

Page 7 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

Problems integrating 2 5 10 Work with central services,
MAC into current (primarily learning and
processes/environment teaching support and IT) to
explore best approaches to
linking any MAC processes
to institutional support
systems; development of
key
communications/engageme
nt plan; involvement of key
senior executive staff and
university committees at
significant points in the
academic year.
Students do not 2 5 10 Use student representatives
participate as advocates to engage
wider student body, clear
statement of advantages.
Work with the academic
staff to promote the value of
the MAC process.

1.11 Technical Development
We do not envisage any technical developments occurring as a direct consequence of the
project.

1.12 Standards
Name of standard or Version Notes
specification

1.13 Intellectual Property Rights
Each partner will own what they create but allow free access to the outputs across the higher
and further education sectors.

2 Project Resources
2.1 Project Partners
Dr. Mark Clements – University of Westminster
Dr. Mark Kerrigan – University of Greenwich
Mr. Mark Gamble – University of Bedfordshire
Page 8 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

Ms. Kate Reader – City University, London
Maria Papaefthimiou – University of Reading
Loretta Newman-Ford – University of Wales Institute Cardiff

All of the above will have the same main role. That is: Co-ordination of MAC pilots and local
evaluation in conjunction with the external evaluator and project director

2.2 Project Management
The project will be overseen by a Project Management Team, chaired by the project director.
The team will include as permanent members the external evaluator and staff from each
institution who will work on the project regularly (see details above). The team will meet
regularly (once per month), initially to contribute to and approve a more detailed workplan
and then subsequently to review progress and revise approaches and targets as necessary.
In so doing the team will oversee the risk analysis, will monitor the evaluation and
dissemination and will oversee the budget and expenditure.

Whilst the Project Management Team will not have permanent members who are senior
executive staff or students, we will include such representation as regularly as we can.
Where sensible this will be linked (in the case of senior staff) to the need for strategic actions
timed to occur logically within the cycle of decision making specific to each institution.

All members of the team, other than the Project Director and External Evaluator will average
1 day per month on the project. Collectively the project team will in addition spend a
minimum of 8 days in each year of the project on JISC Programme Co-ordination activities.

2.3 Project Roles
Team Member Role Contact Details Days per week to
Name be spent on the
project
Dr. Mark Co-ordination of M.O.Clement@westminster.ac.uk Average 1 day per
Clements – MAC pilots and month
University of local evaluation in
Westminster conjunction with
the external
evaluator and
project director
Dr. Mark Kerrigan Co-ordination of M.J.P.Kerrigan@greenwich.ac.uk Average 1 day per
– University of MAC pilots and month
Greenwich local evaluation in
conjunction with
the external
evaluator and
project director
Mr. Mark Gamble Co-ordination of Mark.Gamble@beds.ac.uk Average 1 day per
– University of MAC pilots and month
Bedfordshire local evaluation in
conjunction with
the external
evaluator and
project director
Page 9 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

Ms. Kate Reader Co-ordination of Kate.Reader.2@city.ac.uk Average 1 day per
– City University, MAC pilots and month
London local evaluation in
conjunction with
the external
evaluator and
project director
Maria Co-ordination of m.c.papaefthimiou@reading.ac.uk Average 1 day per
Papaefthimiou – MAC pilots and month
University of local evaluation in
Reading conjunction with
the external
evaluator and
project director
Loretta Newman- Co-ordination of lnewman-ford@uwic.ac.uk> Average 1 day per
Ford – University MAC pilots and month
of Wales Institute local evaluation in
Cardiff conjunction with
the external
evaluator and
project director
Prof Peter Lead on evaluation peter.chatterton@daedalus-e- 20 days over the
Chatterton – approach world.com course of the
Daedalus e- project
learning
Prof Gunter Project G.Saunders@westminster.ac.uk 32 days over the
Saunders – Director/Manager course of the
University of project
Westminster

2.4 Programme Support
The areas where we are interested to receive support from the programme are in the
dissemination area through existing JISC networks and activities. In addition we would
welcome any ‘connections’ that the programme manager can make between our work and
the work of other projects.

We would appreciate some consultation with David Nicol particularly in the early stages of
the project, in respect of our evaluation framework for assessment and feedback.

Page 10 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

3 Detailed Project Planning
3.1 Evaluation Plan
Timing Factor to Evaluate Questions to Address Method(s) Measure of Success
At a The impact/benefits Has the project • Interviews. • A high degree of
number of of MAC within each effectively evaluated the • Focus participation by all
points in institution impact and benefits of groups. stakeholders in the
the 2 year customised MAC • Inspection evaluation
period processes in each of feedback processes.
dependent institution (with input and • Clear messages (&
upon from all relevant learning evidence) arising on
when stakeholders), focusing journals. the impact of MAC
pilots run on e.g.: within each
or if a pilot • the degree of student institution – relating
has understanding of the to different
already importance of and institutional contexts
run. Also satisfaction with (e.g. subject area,
will occur assessment, feedback institutional culture)
in follow and acting on and presenting a
up uses of feedback? view of the
MAC • the degree to which applicability and
beyond students adopt self- flexibility of MAC
pilot reflection practices processes across
phase in and make effective different subject
some use of feedback, as areas and
cases assessed by both staff institutional contexts.
and students.
• the degree to which
the MAC processes
encourage student-
staff dialogue.
• the degree of staff
understanding and
satisfaction with the
MAC process.
• the affordances
offered by
technologies.
• the impact on
retention in the
longer-term.
• the impact on National
Student Survey
results in each
institution in the
longer term.
Stakeholder buy-in Has there been Interviews. Clear evidence of the
and engagement effective stakeholder Desk degree of stakeholder
with using MAC buy-in and engagement research. buy-in to customising
with customising and and piloting MAC
using MAC processes processes.
within each institution,
relating to e.g.:
• successful
customisation of MAC
Page 11 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

processes to each
institutional contexts
and needs
• raising of the profile of
assessment &
feedback in each
institution and its
relative
importance/role
compared with other
staff-student teaching
and learning activities

Has an effective
stakeholder
communications and
engagement plan been
developed which
includes a full
stakeholder analysis?

Has there been a high
degree of participation
in and engagement with
the evaluation process?
Sustainability and What is the degree of Interviews. • Clear evidence of
embedding of MAC sustainability and Online plans/pilot roll-outs
across each embedding of survey. for adoption of
institution customised MAC Desk customised MAC
processes across each research. processes in
institution, relating to different
e.g.: programmes within
• sustainability & each institution.
embedding plans. • Clear evidence of
• extended roll-out of strategic changes
pilots within each within each
institution. institution relating to
• the degree of (plans the wider integration
for) adoption by of MAC processes
different programme into teaching and
teams across different learning.
faculties and schools
in each institution.
• strategic changes
within institutions
relating to the wider
integration of MAC
processes into
teaching and learning.
• methods for
embedding MAC
processes in
institutional strategies,
processes and
culture.
Sustainability and What is the degree of Interviews. • Clear evidence of
embedding of MAC sustainability and Online plans/pilots for
Page 12 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

across the sector embedding of MAC survey. adoption of
across the sector, customised MAC
focusing on e.g.: processes in
• the degree of interest different institutions
in and, ultimately, in the sector.
(plans for) adoption by
other institutions.
Business cases for • Do the business Interviews. • Clear evidence
adoption of MAC cases provide clear Desk relating to business
processes and understandable research. cases for customised
business rationales Online MAC processes
for institutions to surveys. incorporating
adopt MAC in different process efficiencies,
contexts and provide workloads,
sufficient information costs/benefits.
for other institutions to • Business cases
make judgements as provide useful
to whether to adopt support for potential
MAC processes within adopters.
their own contexts?
• Have process
efficiencies been
effectively assessed?
• Has the impact on
workloads for
students and staff
been fully assessed?
• Is there satisfaction
with the business
cases by potential
adopters.
Case studies and • Do the case studies Desk • High quality case
multimedia assets. and multi-media research. studies and
assets present a Online multimedia assets
coherent case for surveys. that provide valuable
adopting MAC in information for
different contexts? potential adopters of
• Do the case studies MAC processes.
provide clear info and
signposting to help
other institutions
adopt MAC?
with the case studies
by potential adopters?

Page 13 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

Reports and guides • Do the reports and Desk • High quality reports
guides provide clear research. and guides that
information and Online provide valuable
signposting to support surveys. information for
institutions in adopting potential adopters of
MAC. MAC processes.
• Do institutions find the
self-assessment
procedure for
formulating plans to
address feedback
through a MAC
process useful?
with the reports and
guides by potential
adopters?

3.2 Quality Assurance
Output / Outcome Report(s)
Name
When will QA be Who will carry out the QA What QA methods / measures will be used?
carried out? work?
At a number of The project team and JISC Feedback on perceived clarity and utility of
drafting stages programme report from project team members, senior
manager/support team institutional staff and JISC

Output / Outcome Institutional self-assessment procedure
Name
When will QA be What QA methods / measures will be used?
carried out?
After the first Selected groups of staff at Feedback from the institutions on clarity, utility
iteration of the each participating and likely use of the process/linkages it key
process is institution; institutional institutional processes
produced in committees and sub-
portable format committees

Output / Outcome Case studies and Multimedia assets
Name
When will QA be Who will carry out the QA What QA methods / measures will be used?
carried out? work?
During planning of The project team and Feedback from staff and JISC on the clarity and
the case studies subsequently selected utility of the case studies
and after drafts are groups of staff at each
produced participating institution and
the wider sector; JISC
programme manager and
support team

3.3 Dissemination Plan
Within partner institutions, dissemination will include existing newsletters, seminars,
workshops, planned Departmental “awaydays” and internal symposia. The project team’s
Page 14 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

own reflection on the project processes and outcomes will be presented to the wider HE
community, with advice and help from the Higher Education Academy and JISC External
mechanisms for dissemination will include: Newsletters (e.g. ALT-N); contributions to
specialist groups, e.g. SEDA.; presentations at conferences, national and international;
publications in professional journals and refereed academic journals; liaison with JISC, HEA
and other relevant projects so as to ensure synergy in terms of outputs and dissemination;

The project will build on the use of JISC online systems for dissemination to and support for
the wider community (specifically using the Design Studio and Cloudworks). In addition the
project team will contribute to all prescribed programme meetings and will actively seek to
present work at relevant national and international meetings. The project will hold at least 2
elluminate seminars for the wider community during the course of the project.

Timing Dissemination Activity Audience Purpose Key Message
Throughout Project website and Wider university Provide Importance of the
Cloudworks space community information on project objectives
project and main findings
progress and
access to
outputs
Throughout JISC programme meetings Other Explore How MAC could be
Universities potential for used at other
involved in the further pilots at universities involved
programme other in the programme
institutions
Throughout Newsletters and seminars Wider groups of To raise wider How is MAC being
at each participating staff within each awareness of used and how can
institution participating the project and MAC help within
institution the pilots other academic
going on within areas
each
institution; to
update on
outputs
September Conference The wider Dissemination Importance of key
2012 and HE/FE of outputs and outputs to wider
2013 community potential HE/FE agenda for e-
transfer of learning/assessment
these;
feedback from
wider
audience on
utility of MAC
Oct 2013 Final Report to JISC and The HE/FE Critical How MAC can be
Case Studies community evaluation of adapted to different
the utility of purposes and
MAC in a contexts to benefit
range of the wider
contexts community.

Page 15 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

3.4 Exit and Embedding Plans
Project Action for Take-up & Embedding Action for Exit
Outputs/Outcomes
Project outputs will be Each institution within the project will The ongoing evaluation will help
made available via a develop their own sustainability and the project to reflect on original
project Wiki (using embedding plan as part of the project outcomes and actions for take-
PBWorks) and a milestones. up and exit – and these have
Cloudworks site will also been identified in the project
be made available for Activities within the project scope will evaluation plan (section 3.1)
continued asynchronous include roll-outs of pilots in different
discussions. subject areas within each institution. In the project wiki, clear
Links to resources in the guidance will be provided on
wiki will be created from IPR ownership and copyright.
the JISC Design Studio.

3.5 Sustainability Plans

There are a number of elements to the work proposed that will help ensure sustainability.
First there is already buy-in at each institution from central learning and teaching support
services. In addition in each institution more senior executive staff are very aware of the
pilots already ongoing and planned and some of these staff have already taken a very active
role in promoting the work. Second, all of the institutions are linking or plan to link
developments to relevant institutional strategy and individuals who lead committees charged
with the development of such strategy. No opportunity will be missed to incorporate the work
of the project into institutional mechanisms for bringing about and supporting sustainable
change. Throughout we will make use of the JISC’s Good Practice Guide to
Sustaining/Embedding Innovations

Project Outputs Why Sustainable Scenarios for Taking Issues to Address
Forward
Institutional Practical useful Include as part of Convincing senior
procedure for self-assessment institutional processes staff and key
assessing the utility process for for course validation and committees and
of MAC institutions to go review and for strategic groups to engage
through at planning with the process
institutional,
departmental or
course level
Embedded MAC If properly Ensure clear connection As above
processes embedded will be between outputs of pilot
self sustainable projects and the
activities of identified
key committees and
strategic planning
processes

Page 16 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

Appendices
Appendix A. Project Budget
Directly Incurred August 11– August 12– August 13– July TOTAL £
Staff July 12 July 13 14 (Strand A only)
Gunter Saunders, 240 Hours £5,966.98 £5,966.98 £0 £11,933.96
& 7.3% FTE
Mark Clements £3,583.35 £3,583.35 £0 £7,166.68
180 Hours & 5.5% FTE
Mark Kerrigan SL, 180 Hours £3,176.76 £3,176.76 £0 £6,353.52
& 5.5% FTE
Mark Gamble £3,139.56 £3,139.56 £0 £6,279.12
Maria Papaefthimiou 180 £3,597.00 £3,597.00 £0 £7,194.00
Hours & 5.5% FTE
Kate Reader £1,972.32 £1,972.32 £0 £3,944.64
Loretta Newman-Ford £1,756.44 £1,756.44 £0 £3,512.88
Total Directly Incurred Staff £23,192.41 £23,192.41 £0 £46,384.82
(A)

Non-Staff August 11– August 12– August 13– July TOTAL £
July 12 July 13 14 (Strand A only)
Travel and expenses £3,600 £3,600 £0 £7,200
Hardware/software £0 £0 £0 £0
Dissemination £0 £900 £0 £900
Evaluation £0 £0 £0 £0
Other £950 £950 £0 £1,900
(Printing/Research
Resources)
Total Directly Incurred Non- £4550 £5450 £0 £10,000
Staff (B)

Directly Incurred Total (C) £27,742.41 £28,642.41 £0 £56,384.82
(A+B=C)

Directly Allocated August 11– August 12– August 13– July TOTAL £
July 12 July 13 14 (Strand A only)
Staff - Consultant (20 days over £5,000 £5,000 £0 £10,000
2 years at £500 per day)
Estates £3,109.64 £3,109.64 £0 £6219.28
Other £0 £0 £0 £0
Directly Allocated Total (D) £8,109.64 £8,109.64 £0 £16,219.28

Page 17 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

Indirect Costs (E) £16,714.52 £16,714.52 £0 £33,429.04

Total Project Cost (C+D+E) £52,566.57 £53,466.57 £0 £106,033.14
Amount Requested from £10,000 £10,000 £0 £20,000
JISC
Institutional Contributions £42,566.57 £43,466.57 £0 £86,033.14

Percentage Contributions JISC Partners Total
over the life of the project 18.9% 81.1% 100%

No. FTEs used to calculate No 0.4 per year Which Staff
indirect and estates FTEs G. Saunders M. Clements,
charges, and staff included M.Kerrigan, M. Gamble, M.
Papaefthimiou, K. Reader,
L. Newman-Ford

Appendix B. Workpackages
Work Package 1 – What lessons have/are being learned?

Objectives - Define overall evaluation framework. Draw out lessons learned, focussing on
pedagogic improvements as well as issues of efficiency and workload, from key
stakeholders involved in the pilots at each institution including: academic staff, students,
central/local learning and teaching support IT services, senior managers and executives

Activities - Identify sources (including existing evaluation data specific to each institution),
methods, evidence, measures of success and plan; Define specific questions and topic
lists/guidance; Define technology tools to be used (e.g. online surveys, multimedia
capturing); Define responsibilities for data across the project team; Define schedules for data
collection suited to each institution’s piloting status and the timing of institutional strategic
decision making; Conduct data collection.
Work Package 2 – Reporting on lessons learned

Objectives - Report on the lessons learned to the project team and wider stakeholder group

Activities - Develop overall evaluation framework and agree how this will be applied within
each institution. Analyse data. Develop draft reports (case studies) highlighting key lessons
learned; options for enhancing, sustaining and embedding the outcomes of each pilot to
meet strategic goals (focusing on each institution as a whole, but in addition drawing out
cross-institutional lessons and themes). Conduct a workshop with the project team to:
consider cost:benefit analysis of different MAC approaches taken; Produce an online self
assessment procedure for cognate groups (from subject team to institutional level) to a) rate
current feedback practices and b) assess the impact of any MAC interventions;
Work Package 3 – Final report (including key deliverables, see below)/case studies

Objective - Produce final report/case studies

Activities - Produce draft final report/case studies; circulate to stakeholders for final
comments; produce final report and case studies.
Work Package 4 – Dissemination through Stakeholder communications and
Page 18 of 19

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:

engagement
Objective(s) – Develop/implement a stakeholder communications and engagement plan.

Activities – Draw on existing MAC implementation models and evidence of success to
design a plan which will aim to (a) gain stakeholder buy-in to the options and (b) support
them in selecting, enhancing and prioritising the options. Implement communications and
engagement plan which will include a series of workshops between different
stakeholder/stakeholder groups within and across institutions with the aim of: gaining their
contributions and buy-in to further embedding of MAC processes prioritising the options and
developing an agreed action plan with defined roles, responsibilities and measures of
success. Revise plan as further evidence from WP 1 and WP2 becomes available.

Page 19 of 19

Draft project plan b westminster mace

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Draft project plan b westminster mace

Ähnlich wie Draft project plan b westminster mace (20)

Mehr von balham

Mehr von balham (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Draft project plan b westminster mace