Project Evaluation

The Process

Following the end of AIMS in June 2001, an evaluation of the Project is being carried out by members of the University community. A broad selection of members of the academic and support staff have been asked to sit on evaluation panels and officers of the Academics' Association, the UCT Employees Union, NEHAWU and the Students' Representative Council have been requested to nominate members of their organisations to sit on these panels.

Seven evaluation panels were constituted during August-September 2001, with the portions of the project to be reviewed by each panel shown below:

1. Properties & Services (the outsourcing investigation, BPR workstreams on Project Realisation and Reactive Maintenance, and investigations of Classroom Facilities Unit, Postal Services and Educare)
2. BPR: Undergraduate Funding Office
3. BPR: Payroll and HR Administration
4. BPR: Receipting and Revenue Allocation
5. The Junior & Middle Management Training Programme
6. BPR: Purchasing
7. Organisational Design & Governance

These seven panels were aggregated into three groups as shown in Fig. 14A. The timeline for the overall evaluation process, for the preparation of the web-based final report (of which this page forms a part), and for the meetings of these three groups is shown in Fig. 14B.

Fig. 14A

Fig. 14B

It was not appropriate to evaluate all aspects of the project in August-September 2001, as several of the workstreams were at too early a stage of implementation to make such an evaluation worthwhile. These workstreams are shown as Group 4 in Fig. 14A and the plan is for them to be evaluated in mid-2002 with the evaluation process managed by the Systems & Procedures Office.

^ Top

Evaluation Methodology

The suggested guidelines for the evaluation process, as distributed to panel members in July 2001, were as follows:

• The recommendations of the various AIMS workstreams were made either to the AIMS Steering Structure (for most workstreams) or to Senate and Council (for the Organisational Design & Governance workstream) and were approved or adopted prior to implementation. It does not seem fruitful to re-examine these recommendations per se, but it would be entirely appropriate for the panel to indicate where a particular recommendation or intervention has not been effectively implemented or where its implementation is causing serious problems or is likely to do so.
• Many of the aspects of the project that will be reviewed by the evaluation panels have not yet been completely implemented. It would be most helpful if the panels were to comment on whether the implementation timescales originally proposed were realistic or not and what steps can be taken (and by whom) for implementation to be ensured and for this to happen as soon as possible. A particular evaluation panel may request that it be reconvened at some future date to evaluate and report on progress towards final implementation and the sustainability of the change.
• A major portion of the AIMS project budget was spent on advice, guidance and training provided by consultants. It is important that the performance of the consultants be assessed and that we learn from the AIMS experience the contexts in which it is necessary and appropriate for the University to use consultants in the future and where this is not the case. The panel could be most helpful in this respect.
• The AIMS Core Committee wants to ensure that the University benefits as much as possible from the AIMS Project and would particularly value any recommendations from an evaluation panel that will enhance the benefits.

It was envisaged that each panel would meet for two evaluation workshops and that panel members would be requested to have read the relevant material on this website prior to the first workshop.

At the first workshop (2 hours in duration) the panel was to be briefed by the UCT staff member who was the leader of the particular workstream (assisted by other workstream members or by the AIMS Project Manager if appropriate) on the objectives, findings, recommendations and implementation progress of the workstream. The Communications and HR/ER workstreams of AIMS were not evaluated separately, but their contributions were evaluated within the context of the other workstreams. The panel was to be able to ask any questions they wished. A key objective of the first workshop was to identify any additional information that the panel might require and the best means of obtaining or providing this.

At the second workshop (3 hours) this additional information was to be provided to the panel and there was to be an additional opportunity for questions. Thereafter the panel would have the opportunity to discuss and debate all the material provided and to reach its conclusions and recommendations, in part addressing the aspects noted in the guidelines above.

^ Top

Evaluation Reports

A report reflecting the findings, conclusions and recommendations of each evaluation panel is to be prepared and provided from this website. Links to these reports are given here as soon as the reports have been approved by the panel members and also appear on the web pages for the workstreams evaluated. Reports are listed in alphabetical order by workstream name.

^ Top

Links to Additional Material

File of printable Figures from this page (pdf 92kb)

To navigate to additional pages on the AIMS website please make use of the buttons in the navigation sidebar near the top of this page.

^ Top

Last updated: 2001-08-30