Risk - ncl.ac.uk€¦ · Web viewNewcastle rank joint 9th for overall satisfaction ... Head of...

Newcastle University - Strategic Risk Register (October 2013)

Risk, Description and Owner Controls Required

Control In Place and Working

Evidence of Control in Place

Control Owner

Overall Control Status & Proposed additional control

measuresSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1: TOP 20 IN THE UK FOR RESEARCH

SR1A Failure to publish adequate research outputs

Risk owned by Nick Wright

Triggered by:1. Failure of PDR framework2. Resistance from staff3. Management inaction4. HEFCE QR funding removed

for 2* research

Consequences:1. Reduced funding after next

REF2. Loss of reputation

1. Monitoring of research outputs through MyImpact.

2. Comprehensive system of Performance & Development Review (PDR) in place and fully implemented.

In part

No

MyImpact IT System, Monitoring by URC and EB

SAP HR System

Deans of Research

C Day, S Homans, C Harvey

Overall Status:AMBER

1. Work towards the REF raises concerns given the removal of 2* funding.

2. Securing a much higher coverage of the PDR system is a key management objective.

KPI: Research Output - Impact Relative to World 2003 – 2012

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Cited Year

NEWCASTLE UNIV

--UK TOTALS

--UK: RUSSELL GROUP TOTALS

World Average

Impact relative to world is defined as “the percentage of documents that have been cited relative to the total number of documents cited in the

Progress over Time: Problematic/SATISFACTORY/Good

RISK SCORESIMPACT LIKELIHOOD TOTAL

GROSS 4 4 16

Risk, Description and Owner Controls RequiredControl In Place and Working


Control Owner


measuresworld (a value greater than 1 indicates the impact is better than the average for the world).”

NET 4 3 12

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1: TOP 20 IN THE UK FOR RESEARCH

SR1B Failure to obtain new research grants and contracts

Risk Owned by Nick Wright

Triggered by:1. Reduction in budgets for

research support2. Failure to develop research

initiatives3. Failure to respond to changes in

respective research markets

Consequences:1. Loss of revenue2. Underutilisation of resources

1. Monitoring and benchmarking of awards and income through University Research Committee and EB.

2. Continued monitoring of changes in priorities and delivery plans of major funder at Faculty and institutional level.

3. Faculty Plans.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Research Committee Papers

Research Committee Papers

Planning Process

D Hill




Status reflects national budgets being frozen and changing priorities of funders evidenced through delivery plans.

.

Newcastle University – Research Grants and Contract Income08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

RG&CI £84.5m £85.2m £88.5m £86.0m £93.4m



GROSS 4 4 16

Page 2 of 26



Control Owner


measures

70

75

80

85

90

95

08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

£mill

ions

Research Grants and Contract IncomeNET 4 2 8

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1: TOP 20 IN THE UK FOR RESEARCH

Page 3 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR1C Failure to recover sufficient research income

Risk owned by Chris Day, Steve Homans and Charles Harvey

Triggered by:1. Failure to secure sufficient

research contribution2. Failure to price funding

applications appropriately3. Failure to understand our cost

base4. Change in funder policies to

reduce contribution5. Overemphasis on income

sources where sponsors will not fund at approaching FEC

Consequences:1. Insufficient income generated

to support renewal of research infrastructure

2. Inability to contribute to general support

1. Clear understanding of the research cost base

2. Robust application costing and pricing system in place

3. Clear guidance to academic staff on the importance of contribution and margin on research income to their Unit/Faculty

4. Clear policy for using contribution and margin from research awards for the human and capital infrastructure in a way that incentivises staff and supports the strategic objectives of the Faculty as a whole

5. Planning and monitoring process in place to revise income portfolio to favour sponsors funding close to FEC

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

TRAC return to HEFCE

MyProjectssystem

Guidance on web, minutes of FEB (FMS)

Capital Capacity Fund in SAgE, Sustainability pot in FMS and HaSS

Faculty plans,KPIs set and monitored in Annual planning meetings (FMS and SAgE)


Director of RES




Overall Status:GREEN

KPI

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13Total University contribution £000 18,932 20,521 21,507 17,407 17,173Total University contribution 22% 24% 24% 20% 18%Charity QR £000 4,176 4,681 4,958 5,035 4,783



GROSS 3 4 12NET 3 3 9

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2: TOP 20 IN THE UK FOR STUDENT SATISFACTION

Page 4 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR2A Failure to recognise student expectations and to deliver on the student experience

Risk owned by Suzanne Cholerton

Triggered by:1. Lack of good quality teaching

and IT facilities2. Teaching that does not support

the student learning experience3. Staff not engaging with

students4. Failure to provide sufficient

good quality student accommodation

5. Failure to deliver value for money

Consequences:1. Poor performance in NSS, ISB,

PRES, PTES and League Tables

2. Failure to attract students in sufficient numbers and of sufficient quality

3. Reputational damage4. Poor continuation rates

1. Clear and owned Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Strategy. Revised Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Strategy to be approved in December 2013.

2. Implementation of Newcastle University offer for undergraduates across campuses. Development of Offer for postgraduate taught student experience

3. Local and University-wide systems for student engagement, consultation and feedback established

4. High quality services provided for students – sport, library, computing, student progress service, student wellbeing service.

5. Investment planned for student residential accommodation

6. Opportunities for employment related skills development open to all.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Strategy

Activities monitored by ULTSEC governance structure

Institutional Student Representation Policy. Implementation of student module evaluation system monitored by ULTSEC

Annual Plans published and delivery monitored by ULTSEC

Accommodation Strategy

Careers Service Annual Report monitored by ULTSEC

S Cholerton

S Cholerton

S Cholerton

L Braiden

M Hunter

M Lintern


KPI: National Student Survey Overall Satisfaction Scores

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Question 22. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course. 87% 87% 89% 89% 90%

Newcastle rank joint 9th for overall satisfaction for the comparator group of 35 institutions.Newcastle overall satisfaction target is 90%.



GROSS 4 4 16NET 4 3 12


Page 5 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR2B Failure to maintain teaching quality and standards


Triggered by:1. Failure to commit to the

Newcastle Offer2. Poor performance of academic

staff3. Loss of key academic staff4. Loss of teaching facilities5. Poor teaching facilities6. Failure to meet external

accreditation standards7. Failure of quality assurance

processes8. Failure to implement November

2009 QAA Audit recommendations

Consequences:1. External accreditations

withdrawn2. Damage to reputation3. Difficult to attract students4. Poor NSS, ISB, PRES and PTES

scores

1. Clearly articulated and owned Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Strategy. Revised Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Strategy to be approved in December 2013.

2. Quality assurance mechanisms in place for internal and external validation.

3. Implementation of student module evaluation system

4. Comprehensive system of Performance and Development Review (PDR) and effective management of staff in place.

5. Implement Action Plan for QAA Institutional 2009 Audit recommendations.

6. Work with schools to improve NSS, ISB, PRES and PTES performance.

7. Investment in spaces and facilities, combined with high quality services provided for students – estates, sport, library, computing, student progress service, student wellbeing service.

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Learning, Teaching & Student Experience Strategy

ULTSEC minutes

Steering Group and Scorecard

SAP HR System

QAA comments.

NSS Scores on Planning Website. Action plans monitored by ULTSEC governance structure

Annual Plans published and delivery monitored by ULTSEC

S Cholerton

E Clewlow

L Braiden


E Clewlow

S CholertonC Day, S Homans, C Harvey

S Cholerton


Implementation of institution-wide student module evaluation system 13/14

5. QAA recognition that ‘the University appears to have made good progress in addressing the recommendations of the Institutional Audit’, April 2010.

KPI: National Student Survey – Overall School Satisfaction

Council Key Performance Indicator Target is for all schools to have a 90% minimum for Overall Satisfaction.

100% 90% - 99% 80% - 89% 70% - 79% 60% - 69%2011 NSS 3 17 15 6 02012 NSS 2 18 14 2 12013 NSS 1 26 11 2 0



GROSS 4 4 16NET 4 2 8


Page 6 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR2C Failure to achieve widening participation benchmarks and Access Agreement milestones


Triggered by:1. Decreasing numbers of

appropriate student applications2. Loss of or reduction in targeted

funding3. Change to fee regime4. Change to HEFCE number

controls

Consequences:1. Reputational damage2. Loss of W.P. income and some

threat to fee income3. Inability to charge higher fees

for Home Undergraduates

1. Widening Participation Strategy and Widening Participation Strategic Statement (WPSS) in place and updated annually.

2. Strong and well-established PARTNERS Programme and partnerships with 130 schools and colleges in target regions. Strong links with others in broad Northern region (through Graduate Ambassadors) and plans for significant growth.

3. Setting and agreeing WP targets for Schools in context of HEFCE number controls and Access Agreement targets

4. Admissions Policy reviewed and revised annually.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2014 Access Agreement; WPSA; Admission of students through schemes and WP progress

External moderator and evaluation reports; Number of partnerships, Student & Grad Ambassadors

Planning and delivery of annual Admissions Strategy (Agreed ABB+ strategy doc); faculty and School WP targets

UG Admissions Policy and Minutes of Fair Access Committee

L Braiden

L Braiden

L Braiden,S Homans,C Harvey,C Day

K Hind


LPN intake has been broadly in line with HESA benchmarks since 2005-06. Other WP benchmarks (state schools; NS-SEC 4-7) more challenging to meet.

All WP benchmarks significantly exceeded for regional intake. University strategy for recruitment from outside the region is to be a net importer of talent to the North East.Many of the factors that affect WP are outside University control and influence e.g. structural inequalities.

KPI: Young full-time first degree entrants from low participation neighbourhoods

07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13*Newcastle (%) 6.6 6.3 7.9 7.5 7.3 7.4

Benchmark (%) 7.4 6.8 7.0 7.0 6.8*provisional

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

Newcastle (%)

Benchmark (%)

Progress over Time: PROBLEMATIC/Satisfactory/Good


GROSS 4 4 16NET 4 4 16

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3: FOCUS ON THREE SOCIETAL CHALLENGE THEMES: AGEING; SOCIAL RENEWAL; SUSTAINABILITY

Page 7 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR3A Failure to develop Newcastle Science City in a manner consistent with the Strategic Overview


Triggered by:1. Disagreements with partner2. New national policies

Consequences:1. Reputational damage2. Unsustainable estate3. Significant financial losses

1. Formal partnership structure established with the City.

2. University Special Interest Group containing members of Council.

Yes

Yes

Two Page Document ‘Science City Formal Company Structure,’ 6 month reports to Council

Special Interest Group

N Wright

N Wright


The relationship with the City Council is strong.

Need to appoint a new CEO of Science City Co.

KPI: Research Income from Industry (£000s)

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

UK industry, commerce & public corporations 4,154 4,375 5,864 3,911 4,169

EU industry, commerce & public corporations 506 571 647 856 547

Non-EU industry, commerce & public corporations 1,468 1,088 992 1,583 1,963

TOTAL 6,128 6,034 7,503 6,350 6,679

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

UK

EU

Non-EU



GROSS 4 4 16NET 3 3 9


Page 8 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR3B Failure to gain institutional buy in to the societal challenge themes concept.


Triggered by:1. Failure to communicate issues2. Staff resistance

Consequences:1. Failure to achieve strategic

objective2. Loss of partnership

opportunities3. Reputational damage

1. Strategic funds available to support initiatives.

2. Faculty management structure established for each theme from year 2 on.

Yes

Yes

Annual budget round

Institute structure in faculties

R Dale



Societal Challenge Themes

The identification and establishment of 3 themes;

Ageing– Featured the Changing Age campaign, which is now being sustained in the Faculty of Medical Sciences. Institute for Ageing and Health has been the driving force behind the vision for a unique Campus for Ageing and Vitality.

Sustainability – Led by SAgE Faculty. Newcastle Institute for Research on Sustainability (NIReS).

Social Renewal – Led by HaSS Faculty. Newcastle Institute for Social renewal created as a hub for research activity.



GROSS 3 4 12NET 3 2 6


Page 9 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR3C Failure to secure and exploit intellectual property assets


Triggered by:1. Loss of IP asset to third party2. No use made of IP asset

Consequences:1. Missed reputation enhancement

opportunities

1. Policies to protect patents approved and communicated.

2. Angel Alliance established with Durham.

3. Faculty Deans appointed to lead on the processes supported by Research and Enterprise Services.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Patents approved and communicated

Angel Alliance Web Page

Patents and Spin Offs

Director of RES

N Wright



KPI: Patents Filed/Granted and Company Spin Outs

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13Number of Patents Filed 21 22 20 23 17Number of Patents Granted 6 3 2 4 4

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2012/13

Number of new Spin Out companies created

5 3 5 5 1

2012/13 numbers are preliminary



GROSS 3 3 9NET 3 3 9

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4: A SIGNIFICANT INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROFILE AND REPUTATION

Page 10 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR4A Failure to develop a significant international profile

Risk owned by Ella Ritchie

Triggered by:1. Failure to leverage reputational

capital from our diverse international activity

2. Failure to provide sufficient governance and support services for international projects

3. Failure to capitalise on SIT initiative

4. Failure to develop NUMED Malaysia as a high quality international branch medical campus

Consequences:1. Loss of revenue.

1. Strategic framework for internationalisation agreed.

2. International Executive Group co-ordinating and tracking activity to ensure a “One University” approach.

3. Use membership of the Russell Group, UUK International and Europe Board and EUA to leverage international profile.

4. Business case procedures used for all international projects.

5. Ensure that SIT project delivers programmes and complies with QA. ULTSEC ensures QA compliance

6. Ensure NUMed Malaysia is developed within budget, meeting GMC and other regulatory requirements and with operational integration with the Faculty.

7. Business partnership with INTO.

8. Reputation and Ranking SIG recommendations including investment in overseas PR and THE supplement

9. Action plan for development of international profile, agreed by Executive Board and Council

10. Responsibility for international activity allocated to an EB member

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

In part

Yes

The international strategy and implementation plan

International Executive Group Minutes

Membership of these groups

FMBSG and EB Monitoring process

Minutes of the SIT Project Monitoring

Minutes of the Board meetings

Performance of the Joint Venture. EB/Council Reports.

PR Strategy and Action Plan

Action Plan

Responsibility with DVC.

E Ritchie

E Ritchie

E Ritchie

R Dale

E Ritchie, S Cholerton

R Jordan, E Ritchie

AC Stevenson

A Kelly

E Ritchie

E Ritchie


1. Fall in 2012 THE World League Table is disappointing

2. Need improved communications about international activities – linked to PR.

3. Research project planned to look at international membership groups and which we should join.

KPI: Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings Newcastle World Rank 2012-13: =180th. Overall score 2012/13: 48.6 Newcastle World Rank 2011-12: 146th. Overall score 2011/12: 47 Newcastle World Rank 2010-11: 152nd. Overall score 2010/11: 51.2

Newcastle World Ranking on International Outlook 2012 -13: 52nd Overall score 2012/13: 74.4 Newcastle World Ranking on International Outlook 2011 -12: 48th. Overall score 2011/12: 76.2 Newcastle World Ranking on International Outlook 2010-11: 37th. Overall score 2010/11: 80.5



GROSS 4 4 16NET 4 3 12


Page 11 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR4B Failure to maintain academic and financial viability of the NUMed Malaysia campus

Risk Owned by Chris Day

Triggered by:1. Failure to meet recruitment

targets and maintain financial viability

2. Failure to achieve GMC and MMC accreditation

3. Failure to provide student accommodation

4. Failure to recruit and retain appropriate academic staff including a failure of succession planning

Consequences:1. MBBS course in Newcastle

loses GMC accreditation2. Reduced fee income3. Inability to deliver courses4. Loss of reputation5. Poor student satisfaction

1. Agreement with GMC to accredit programme.

2. Devise appropriate HR policies to facilitate the appointment of academic staff to work in Malaysia.

3. Clear marketing strategy and timely student recruitment campaigns

4. Student accommodation – ensure it is fit-for-purpose and has capacity for student number growth.

5. Staff recruitment and succession planning needs identified and substantial succession planning achieved.

6. Development of additional courses (e.g. Masters programmes) at marginal cost and delivery of Biomedical Sciences programme from 2013

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Correspondence with GMC, Visit reports

HR policies for staff overseas

NUMed Steering Group documents and minutes

Accommodation now substantially complete – need to monitor capacity with increased student numbers

NUMed Advisory Group and Steering Group minutes

NUMed Steering Group minutes, FMBSG business cases

C Day, R Barton

Ex. Dir. Of HR

L Smith, R Jordan

E Ritchie, R Dale

C Day

B Hirst(PG); Jane Calvert (UG)


Accreditation risk is being managed proactively.

Good recruitment in September 2012 – 118 and good anticipated recruitment 2013

First additional courses being delivered in 2013

KPIs

1. Accreditation by GMC and MMC (5 years from start of course): in active dialogue with GMC and MMC, proceeding well.

2. Student intake:2009 target 2009 actual 2010 target 2010 actual 2011 target 2011 actual 2012 target 2012 actual40 24 40 40 100 57 100 118

Note: GMC cannot confirm accreditation until the degree is actually awarded.



GROSS 3 5 15NET 3 3 9


Page 12 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR4C Failure to maintain the academic and financial viability of the Singapore campusRisk owned by Steve HomansTriggered by:1. Failure to recruit/retain staff of

sufficient quality2. Failure to recruit students3. Failure to deliver parity of

experience for staff and students4. Failure to establish effective

governance structure5. Inconsistent approach across

various subject areas6. Failure to maintain a positive

working relationship with SIT7. Failure to exercise proper financial

control

Consequences:1. Potential reduction of income

from Singapore and possible jeopardy of the overall Faculty surplus position

2. Significant impact on reputation and international visibility

1. HR polices have been devised and are reviewed and revised on a regular basis in order to facilitate the appointment of experienced staff to deliver the programmes in Singapore.

2. Development of and effective induction and acclimatisation programme, PDR process and effective staff development programme in place

3. New governance structure has been developed and being implemented with 2 new senior appointments to support local management and consistent operation.

4. Delivery of Singapore based NSS type survey on an annual basis and production of actin plans to address weaknesses.

5. Develop satisfactory financial controls on expenditure.

6. Development of a coherent Health & Safety Policy across all sites

7. Lead person identified from each Service with responsibility for supporting NUIS with appropriate attendance at the Operational Group

8. Production of a Research Strategy and operational plan for NUIS

9. Close working with SIT on future plans and feedback to the NUIS Board and Steering Group

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

HR policies for staff overseas; Staff Committee minutes

PDR records, SAP training records, induction programmes

Steering Group, UEB, Senate minutes

Survey results, Steering Group minutes

Financial protocol, audit reports

Faculty Safety Committee minutes; Steering Group mins

List of responsible staff; Operational group notes

Steering Group minutes; URC minutes

Steering Group minutes

V Johnston

HoS, SDU

S Homans

HoS

R Dale

S Homans

J Golightly

E Mesbahi

E Mesbahi


Major review of policies to take place in Summer 2013;

Head of Academic Operations and Chief Operating Officer posts to be recruited in summer 2013

KPI: Student Numbers

o Undergraduate numbers in Singapore – 527 registered as at 27.09.13, 610 expectedo Taught postgraduate numbers in Singapore – 35 registered as at 27.09.13, 45 expectedo Research postgraduate numbers Singapore – 12 registered, 16 expected



GROSS 4 3 12NET 4 2 8


Page 13 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR4D Failure to maintain effective relationships with key external stakeholders


Triggered by:1. Incidents involving students2. Failure to manage NHS

partnership3. Failure to manage PR

effectively4. Political pressures5. Adverse publicity caused by

business relationships

Consequences:1. Strained relationships with

Community stakeholders2. Problems with joint working or

approval processes

1. Information provided to students and student bodies on expected standards of behaviour.

2. Liaison mechanisms with Newcastle City Council and Northumberland County Council on MOU issues.

3. Close working relationships established with NHS partners with regular meetings and exchange of information.

4. Dean of Clinical Medicine and Dean of Translational Research posts established specifically to facilitate the ongoing relationship with the NHS.

5. Proactive PR arrangements.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

The number of Student Disciplinary Cases

Monthly University/City Council Meetings subgroup meetings with NCC

Newcastle Biomedicine joins the University with the Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Deans posts

Number of positivenews stories

L Braiden

E Ritchie

C Day

C Day

A Kelly


1. Increasingly good relationships over time with city and other stakeholders ie Northumberland County Council

KPI: Number of Monthly Media Stories (through Google News) for selected comparatorsOctober 2012 March 2013

Newcastle 2,740 1,370Durham 607 993Leeds 1,560 925Bristol 642 1,288

Warwick 1,345 977Nottingham 2,130 1,450

Sheffield 2, 570 1,750York 455 758

Progress over Time: Problematic/Satisfactory/GOOD


GROSS 3 3 9NET 3 2 6


Page 14 of 26

Negative stories can be filtered out of media coverage if known about.

The coverage may include items relating to overseas universities with the same name.

There may be some key word 'aggregating' - the search engine will sometimes collate a number of stories on one subject and only include one link, whilst at other times, each story will have a separate link. This appears to be random and will therefore randomly affect results.



Control Owner


measuresSR4E Failure to establish an effective engagement with our alumni.

Risk Owned by Ella Ritchie.

Triggered by:1. Poor information on the

whereabouts of the alumni.2. Failure to engage with the

alumni3. Lack of a strategy for the

development of alumni relations

Consequences:1. Failure to maximise marketing

opportunities and enhance reputation and brand

2. Reduced opportunities for student recruitment

3. Loss of income

1. Dedicated team to manage the alumni database and obtain information.

2. Strategy for alumni relations prepared after consultation with the Alumni Consultative Group.

3. Appropriate mechanism for communication with the alumni including web, newsletters, email and social media.

.

Yes

Yes

Yes

DARO database

Alumni strategy

DARO communications plan


Although the controls are in place, the departure of the Director of Development and the issue of joining up the work of DARO with other services justifies an amber rating.

KPI: Alumni for whom we have an electronic or postal address

Total Population Total Contactable % ContactableAlumni 161,419 108,228 67.0%

Graduate 159,974 106,955 66.9%Honorary Graduate 175 141 80.6%Retired Staff 1,252 1,115 89.1%Honorary Fellow 18 17 94.4%



GROSS 3 4 12NET 3 3 9

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 5: FINANCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Page 15 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR5A Failure to maintain a financially robust pensions provision

Risk owned by Richard Dale

Triggered by:1. Improving mortality trends2. Failure to manage schemes

effectively3. Sustained downturn in equity

markets4. Failure to manage pay trends

and/or promotional drift5. Failure to reform scheme rules6. Early retirements creating

unfunded pressure on schemes

Consequences:1. Significant and unaffordable

increase in the University’s cost base

2. Requirement for contingent assets and/or one off cash payments

3. Dispute with the Pensions Regulator

1. Regular actuarial valuations of both national (USS) and local (RBP) schemes.

2. Strong University covenant to RBP.

3. RBP funding recovery plan to be agreed with the Pensions Regulator

4. Regular review of RBP investment strategy and performance by Trustees and University

5. Changes in pension costs to be included as key sensitivity for financial planning and budget setting exercises.

6. Long term strategy reviews for RBP including impact of introduction of stakeholder pensions.

7. Work with Employers’ Pension Forum and Russell Group to influence management and development of USS scheme

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Actuarial Value

PWC Report

Funding Recovery Plan

Minutes of Investment Sub Committee

Annual Financial Planning Guidelines

n/a

USS structural changes

R Dale

R Dale

R Dale

R Dale,S Wilmot

A Bell

R Dale,V Johnston

C BrinkR Dale,V Johnston

Overall Status:RED

1. Next RBP valuation due 1 August 2013, next USS valuation due 31 March 2014. USS position known to be worsening –see KPI’s

2. Updated covenant report to be commissioned by Trustees for RBP during summer 2013 and being conducted by Ernst and Young for USS.

3. RBP recovery plan waiting for approval from the Pensions Regulator.

6. Auto enrolment introduced in May 2013. Lifetime allowances due to be reduced from £1.5m to £1.25m in April 2014

7. USS structural changes introduced October 2011.

KPI: RBP and USS Actuarial Valuations

RBP: 31 July 2010 £7.3m deficit (5% of liabilities)31 July 2012 £7.1m deficit (4% of liabilities)

USS: 31 March 2011 £2.9bn deficit (8% of liabilities)May 2013 ca £10bn deficit (20% of liabilities)

Progress over Time: PROBLEMATIC/Satisfactory/Good


GROSS 5 4 20NET 4 4 16


Page 16 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR5B Failure to maintain financial viability


Triggered by:1. Reduction in HEFCE funding2. Failure to manage cost base,

notably pay inflation3. Failure to meet student

recruitment targets (home and international).

4. Failure in financial management or internal controls

5. Loss of research grants or commercial income

6. Failure to manage risk on cash investments

Consequences:1. Cuts in services and activities2. Breach of banking covenants

1. Clearly articulated and owned financial strategy which maintains financial viability.

2. Clear budget ownership and accountability.

3. Monitoring of quarterly accounts by FMBSG and Finance Committee.

4. Robust investment management policy.

5. Robust capital planning and management processes.

6. Robust internal and external audit process.

7. Development of lead indicators to predict changes in environment.

8. Use of TRAC to drive financial sustainability.

9. Work with Russell Group, UUK and others to promote need for sector sustainability.

10. Work with UCEA to restrain pay increases.

11. Completion of efficiency programmes notably “One university” and “Procure to Pay”.

12. Controls to meet student recruitment targets (Home and Intl.)

13. Agreement of future fees strategy

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Financial Strategy

Annual Budget Approved by Council

Quarterly Accounts

Reports to Finance Committee

FMBSG

Internal and external audit reports

New HEFCE ASSUR report

Annual TRAC Reports

Russell Group and UUK publications

Regular consultation by UCEA with employers

Project Scorecards

see SR5I/SR5J

Approval by Senate and Council

R Dale

AC Stevenson

A TobinA Bell

A Tobin

R Dale

J SimpsonA Tobin

R Dale,S Frater

A Bell

C BrinkR Dale

V Johnston

J HoganR Dale

S Cholerton

AC Stevenson


2012-13 forecast results ahead of budget and markedly better than 2011-12 before exceptional items

7. Newcastle has been pilot University for HEFCE initiative on reporting financial sustainability.

10. Risk (and potential opportunity) of national pay bargaining arrangements ending under review by the University

KPI: Financial surplus as a percentage of income

Target: > 4% of income excluding exceptional items

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013-145.7% 6.1% 3.6% 5.3% 3.8%



GROSS 5 4 20NET 4 3 12


Page 17 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR5C Failure to have an appropriate information strategy and control of data

Risk owned by John Hogan

Triggered by:1. Failure to define, agree and

implement information strategy2. Failure to protect data3. Failure of primary data centre4. Inability to obtain management

data.

Consequences:1. Inadequate management

information2. Failure of support for Learning &

Teaching and Research3. Loss of data4. Reputation damage5. Poor Value for Money6. Failure to present data in an

appropriate manner that is used for newspaper league tables

1. University wide information strategy operating

2. Mechanism to review processes, to assess development needs and prioritise development resources.

3. Systems established to meet requirements of Freedom of Information Act.

4. Information Security policy in place.

5. Data backup protocols in place and tested across university.

6. Data assurance framework.

7. Off site machine room (DataBanx) available for critical IT systems.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Strategy approved by Council June 2013

Digital Campus Steering Group

Information Security Team

Information Security Policy

Data Backup Protocols

Formal signoff process (approved by Audit Committee)

Internal Audit Report

T Stevenson

S Williams

S Williams

S Williams

S Williams

S Frater

S Williams

Overall Status:Amber

4. But we realise that there are operational weaknesses and increasing national concerns about cyber crime. These are very difficult to address and the controls cannot fully guard against attacks.



GROSS 4 4 16NET 4 4 16


Page 18 of 26

KPI: National Student Survey Q17. I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to.2013: 92%2012: 86%2011: 82%2010: 83%2009: 88%KPI: 2013 Employee Opinion Survey (2010 in parentheses) University computer systems are reliable 87% (90%) University computer systems are easy to use 84% (82%) Respondents can easily find help with the computer systems

when needed 84% (82%)

KPI: Number of FOI requests received and responded to in time

Total Received Responded in Time % in Time2008/09 78 74 95%2009/10 90 86 96%2010/11 142 135 95%2011/12 153 144 94%2012/13 196 182 93%TOTAL 659 621 94%



Control Owner


measuresSR5D Failure to respond to severe business disruption event


Triggered by:1. Major business disruption

event.2. Lack of prepared response

measures.3. Lack of full functioning

secondary data centre

Consequences:1. Inability to teach students2. Inability to conduct research3. Loss of other critical business

activity.4. Reputational damage

1. Health & Safety and Security staff and systems in place.

2. Local Incident Plans

3. Local Incident Business Continuity Plan

4. Major Incident and Business Continuity Plans.

5. Off site machine room (DataBanx) available for critical IT systems

6. Full range of insurance policies in place.

7. Communications plans to cover building PA systems, IT systems and Press plan.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Health & Safety Policy Approved by Council

The Plans

n/a

The Plans

Internal Audit Insurance Report

Report to Finance Committee

n/a

G Westwater, B McBride

G Westwater

G Westwater G Morton

G Westwater

S Williams

A Tobin

J Hogan


2. Local Incident Plans are in place. University Incident Room located at 10 Eldon Place is equipped and fully operational.

3. Local business continuity plans are in place for virtually all operational units.

4. Floods highlighted the need for improved prevention and response measures which are being implemented.

7. Systems now in place for phone and email coverage. But full review not yet conducted.

KPI: Number of serious incidences.

2012/13: 32011/12: 62010/11: 42009/10: 12008/09: 0



GROSS 5 3 15NET 4 3 12


Page 19 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR5E Failure of management of major projects


Triggered by:1. Major project undertaken without

approval or management plan in place.

2. Project management plan not suitable

3. Major cost overruns and/or delays

4. Failure to manage Regional European Funds in a way that is deemed acceptable to the Government Office.

Consequences:1. Poor results, increased costs,

funding claw back and delays.

1. Robust investment review and approval process.

2. Oversight of major projects by named senior officer.

3. Capital project methodology established in Estate Support Service.

4. Project scorecards completed monthly for all major projects with regular scrutiny.

5. Digital Campus Steering Group overseeing progress of IT projects

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

FMBSG Reports

Steering Group Reports

Project Methodology Guide

Scorecards

DCSG agenda and minutes

R Dale

AC Stevenson

C Rogers

R Dale

AC Stevenson


Regular reporting to FMBSG, EB and Finance Committee

KPI: Proportion of red risks from the summary scorecards that go to EB

July 2012: 0.7%July 2013: 1.3%



GROSS 3 4 12NET 2 3 6


Page 20 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR5F Failure to recruit, develop, retain and reward staff of an appropriate calibre

Risk owned by Veryan Johnston

Triggered by:1. High turnover of staff2. Difficulties in recruiting staff3. Significant pay differentials with

other sectors4. Lack of career development

opportunities

Consequences:1. Reduced performance levels2. Negative staff feedback3. High levels of absence4. Reduced quality of service

delivery

1. Recruitment, retention and succession planning needs identified by School/Institute/Service heads.

2. University level headcount planning.

3. Clearly articulated and owned strategy for HR.

4. Staff Development Unit well established as a support service.

5. Comprehensive system of Performance & Development Review (PDR) in place and fully implemented.

6. University level induction arrangements in place.

7. Annual pay review process in place.

8. National pay bargaining structures in place.

9. Annual HR Plan for academic units including targeted recruitment for academics.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Succession planning event chaired by VC, Annual Plans

Monthly Circulation of headcount

Strategy approved by Council

SDU, Employee Opinion Survey

SAP HR quarterly Monitoring System

Induction programme

As reported to Remuneration Committee

UCEA

To be implemented Autumn 2013 for 2013/14 year

C Day,S Homans,C Harvey,J Hogan

R Burrow

V Johnston

J Clark

C Day,S Homans,C Harvey,J Hogan

J Clark

G Coupland

V Johnston

C Day,S Homans,C Harvey


6. Local level induction is not as comprehensive. Working on improvements.

Employee Opinion Survey Results

In the 2013 survey by CAPITA, Newcastle University’s high scores meant they could be described as a ‘Employer of Choice,’ ranking in the top 10 for the benchmark group

92% interviewed said the university is a good place to work, compared to 93% in 2010 and 90% in 2007. 82% interviewed said they feel able to access the learning and development opportunities they require, compared to 79% in 2010 and 77% in 2007.

88% interviewed said they have had a PDR in the last 12 months, compared to 77% in 2010 and 73% in 2007.



GROSS 4 4 16NET 3 3 9


Page 21 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR5G Failure to maintain estate as functionally suitable


Triggered by:1. Lack of investment funding.2. Lack of agreed strategy and

competing priorities.3. Poor cost controls and poor

Value for Money.4. Insolvency of contractor.5. Major asset failure or damage

Consequences:1. Difficulties for core functions

(e.g. staff and student recruitment, delivery of teaching and research).

2. Reputational damage.3. Non compliance with

legislation and possible prosecution.

4. Escalating cost and difficulty of repairs/refurbishment if not dealt with.

1. Up to date Estate development plan.

2. 3 year Major Projects financial plan approved by Council annually (includes Long Term Maintenance).

3. ESS operational and monitoring procedures in place e.g. functional suitability assessment process.

4. Long Term Maintenance programme drawn up, based on condition surveys and agreed prioritisation methodology, integrated with major projects.

5. Cost effective space utilisation being encouraged through space cost allocation, space reduction plans in place.

6. Performance indicators reported to EB quarterly and monitored by ESS against annual targets.

7. Vetting of all contractors for solvency and competency for major projects.

8. Major project steering groups in place.

9. Controls in place to manage risk of severe business disruption through major estate incident

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

UK Development Options Report

Major Projects plan

EMS Statistics

Approved by LTM steering group and FMBSG.

Cost Driver Model Faculty estate plan

Quarterly Reports

Vetting Reports

Scorecard Reports to EBThe Plans

C Rogers

R Dale

C Rogers

C Rogers

C Rogers

C Rogers

C Rogers

C Rogers

G Westwater


1. UK Development Options Report approved by Council. Flexible plan subject to business case.

5. Governance in place. Space Utilisation Committee chaired by PVC. Estate vision includes space reduction plans.

9. Local business continuity plans are in place for virtually all operational units.

KPI: EMS Statistics. Functional Suitability of the Estate.

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12Condition* 84% 86% 87% 89% 89%Peer Group Median Condition 80% 79% 81% 82% NAFunctional Suitability** 81% 77% 79% 82% 82%Peer Group Median Functional Suitability 86% 85% 88% 87% NA

* % of floor space in condition category A & B.** % of floor space in functional suitability Grade 1 & 2.

Our new targets for 2012/13 are 89% Condition and 84% Functional Suitability.



GROSS 4 4 16NET 4 2 8


Page 22 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR5H Improper conduct of business


Triggered by:1. Fraud2. Entering into unauthorised

contractual situations3. Failure to communicate policies

and procedures4. Failure of health and safety

working practices and procedures5. Conduct that brings the

University into dispute6. Failure to adhere to ethical

procedures

Consequences:1. Loss of income and exposure to

unknown liabilities2. Potential prosecution3. Claims against University and/or

individual officers4. Reputational damage5. Falling foul of the 2010 Bribery

Act

1. Anti-fraud policies in place, including policy on whistle-blowing.

2. Internal Audit team reporting to Audit Committee.

3. Financial regulations & purchasing policies in place and policed.

4. Policy on gifts and hospitality in place.

5. Full range of insurance policies in place.

6. Safety policies and practices in place and clearly articulated through local documents and the web.

7. Health & Safety Strategy approved.

8. Ethical approval systems in place with training provided and a new ethics toolkit launched.

9. Ethical Policy for the Acceptance of Corporate Gifts and Donations: Major Gifts

10. Appropriate HR policies in place.

11. Contracts with international agents amended to take account of the Bribery Act.

12. University code of ethics approved and in place

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Whistle Blowing Policy

Internal Audit Team

Financial Regulations

The Policy

Report to Finance Committee

Report to Safety Committee

Report to Safety Committee

System part of MyProjects

The Policy

Policies/Procedures listed on Web

Contracts

Code

J Hogan

J Simpson

R Dale

J Hogan

A Tobin

B McBride

B McBride

Director of RES

Director of Development

V Johnston

J Terry

J Hogan


.



GROSS 4 3 12NET 3 3 9


Page 23 of 26

KPI: Number of Whistle Blowing or similar accusations

2012/13: 12011/12: 12010/11: 02009/10: 02008/09: 0

KPI: Annual Assurance Returns to HEFCE ‘Material Adverse Changes’

2012/13: 02011/12: 12010/11: 02009/10: 02008/09: 2



Control Owner


measuresSR5I Failure to meet home student recruitment targets


Triggered by:1. Higher tuition fees2. Lack of understanding of the new

student support arrangements3. Over recruitment against core

quota and inadequate recruitment of high quality students

4. Poor performance in newspaper league tables

5. Portfolio of programmes that does not remain sufficiently attractive to potential students

Consequences:1. Reduced fee income2. Potential to fall out of contract

range with HEFCE3. Fines from HEFCE for over

recruitment of home students

1. Clear, approved and owned Student Recruitment Strategy

2. Coherent and robust marketing activity (supported by strong strategic positioning).

3. UG and PG Admissions performance regularly monitored.

4. Planning process for student number targets in place.

5. OFFA Access Agreement, permitted to charge over £6,000 for FT UG

6. Agreed recruitment and admissions strategy in light of HEFCE numbers controls.

7. Review of postgraduate taught provision to identify opportunities for more flexible portfolio of PGT programmes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

The strategy

Annual Service Strategic Plan/ operational plans

Quarterly Reports to EB; Minutes of UG Admissions Monitoring Group (monthly);PG Admissions Stakeholders’ Group.

Student Planning Annual Round (Faculty spreadsheets).

2014 AA approved

Strategy is being delivered (‘ABB+’ strategy document and faculty quota and WP targets)

Monitored by ULTSEC

S Cholerton

L Braiden

L Braiden,

A C Stevenson

L Braiden

L Braiden,S Homans,C Harvey,C Day

S Cholerton


This is the major focus of the University’s senior management at the present time.

KPI: Number of Home New Entrant Students (from registration reports as at November 26 th ) 2013/14 registration numbers not yet available.

Actual 2011/12

Target 2012/13

Registered 2012/13

Target Vs Registered

UG 3,883 4,294 3,698 -596PGT - FT 871 827 765 -62PGT - PT 340 426 333 -93PGR - FT 336 404 343 -61PGR - PT 42 56 36 -20Total 5,472 6,007 5,175 - 832



GROSS 5 4 20NET 4 3 12


Page 24 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR5J Failure to meet international student recruitment targets


Triggered by:1. Lack of University strategy2. Failure of INTO project3. Failure to issue CAS

(Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies) promptly

4. Loss of UK Border Agency licence

5. Significantly higher than target international recruitment

6. Poor performance in newspaper league tables

7. Changing pattern of international student markets

Consequences:1. Reduced fee income

1. Clear, approved and owned Student Recruitment Strategy

2. Coherent and robust marketing activity and strategic positioning.

3. Development of new pipeline programmes delivered both in Newcastle and internationally.

4. Review academic performance of INTO, conversion of students and integration of INTO staff and students.

5. Procedures in place and creation of International Student Management Group to ensure compliance with UKBA licence, including attendance monitoring for Home Office purposes.

6. Effective structure and operation of the International Office.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partly

Student Recruitment Strategy

Annual Service Plan & monthly reports to EB

Number of New Pipeline Programmes, (e.g. SIT)

Regular reports to EB. Annual Report to Council.

UKBA Assessment

Restructuring proposals

S Cholerton

L Braiden

S Cholerton, E Ritchie

A C Stevenson

L Braiden

L Braiden


Strong international application trends. But huge growth in China masks falls in other markets.

4. Successful UKBA Audit.Better understanding of Home Office requirements on attendance monitoring

This risk is likely to increase if the Government’s policies on reducing migrants are implemented in line with current discussions.

INTO cumulative performance is ahead of its original business plan.

Restructuring of International Office under way but concerns about level of resourcing to meet business needs.

KPI: International New Entrant Student Numbers (from registration reports as at November 26 th ) 2013/14 registration numbers not yet available.

Actual 2011/12

Target 2012/13

Registered 2012/13

Target Vs Registered

UG 588 632 724 + 92PGT 1,761 1,902 1,687 - 215PGR 168 221 176 - 45Total 2,517 2,755 2,587 - 168

2012/13 International New Entrants Numbers – Top 5 Domiciles(1)China 1,215 (2)India 147 (3)Malaysia 118 (4)USA 116 (5) Greece 94



GROSS 4 3 12NET 4 3 12


Page 25 of 26



Control Owner


measuresSR5K Failure to manage the University in keeping with the ethos of environmental sustainability

Risk owned by Tony StevensonGovernance and progress against the Sustainability Strategy Action Plan is monitored by Environment and Sustainability Committee (ESC), chaired by Professor Tony Stevenson (PVC P & R).

Triggered by:1. Failure to achieve the objectives

set out in our Operational Sustainability Strategy

Consequences:1. Financial penalties2. Reputational damage

1. Deliver Sustainability Strategy targets for ESS in the Non-Residential Estate including achieving external accreditation to a recognised Environmental Management System (EMS) covering aspects including energy & carbon, water, waste & recycling, transport & travel, and biodiversity.

2. Establish and deliver Sustainability Strategy targets, action plan, milestones and programme for Accommodation & Hospitality Services in the Residential Estate including energy & carbon, water, and waste & recycling.

3. Establish and deliver action plan, milestones and programme for IT across the University, including developing an IT carbon reduction plan.

4. Establish and deliver Sustainability Strategy targets, action plan, milestones and programme for Purchasing Services including establishing a baseline for scope 3 CO2 emissions.

Academic Sustainability is covered by the Sustainability Societal Challenge Theme.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EcoCampus Platinum, ISO14001, acheived July 2012; Reaccreditation due July 2013

Action Plan submitted to ESC and underway

Action plan created

Baseline Established. Target to be agreed by ESC.

C Rogers

M Hunter

S Williams

N Addison


3. Green IT procurement policy introduced; new energy management software rolled out across the campus

KPI’s: Environmental Sustainability1. Target: Achieve Platinum EcoCampus award / ISO 14001. Achieved July2012. Re- accreditation Audit due July ‘132. Achieve a ‘First Class Honours’ award in the annual P&P Green League of Universities. Achieved 2012 and 2013.3. Absolute reduction of 43% in scope 1&2 CO2 emissions by 2020 (2005/06 baseline). Emissions have increased from 40,687 tonnes CO2e

to 45,697 tonnes.4. Reduction in scope 1&2 CO2 emissions per m2 GIA from 92kg/m2 to 52kg/m2 by 2020. Emissions have increased from 92kg/m2 to

103kg/m2.5. Reduce water consumption per staff and student FTE. Target: 15m3 per staff and student FTE by July 2015. 2011/12 = 15.72m3 – a 27%

reduction since 2005/06.6. Maintain a general waste recycling rate above 90%. 2011/12 = 93%7. Reduce proportion of staff driving to work to 22% by 2014. 20.5% in 20128. Achieve level 2 of the Flexible Framework for Procurement by July 2014. Currently level 1.

Progress over Time:Problematic/SATISFACTORY/Good


GROSS 4 4 16NET 3 1 3

Page 26 of 26

Date post:	26-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngothuan
View:	214 times
Download:	2 times

Risk - ncl.ac.uk€¦ · Web viewNewcastle rank joint 9th for overall satisfaction ... Head of...

Documents