Universally of Salford: Spiralling Costs

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

Spiralling Costs

The most recent minutes of University Council reveal that the on-going "IT Transformation Programme" is running at a staggering £2.7m over the budget originally forecast by beancounters KPMG (who were hired as external consultants).

This was a point of considerable discussion at the meeting, but nevertheless Council gave the nod for the extra capital required to see the project through.

The blame has been primarily laid at KPMG's door, since apparently "£2 million of this sum was a result of items not originally specified by KPMG in their cost calculations."

The explanation continues: "it would have been difficult for KPMG to factor in the required additional expenditure into the original estimate; this was largely a result of an underestimate of the extent of institutional maturity and capability (both in terms of human and physical resources)."

If anybody can figure out what on earth this means - aside from sounding like yet another fantastic game of Bullshit Bingo - then please submit answers on a postcard.

There is light at the end of the tunnel though, for the minutes go on to explain:

"The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Registrar and Secretary advised that, as Chair of the Project Board, he would be commissioning a post project review and this would include a review of the use of consultants."

Praise the Lord!

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is 'Universally of Salford'?

The openness of any social structure can be validated by how it treats criticism. A democracy would never be described as open or liberal if it failed to encourage a climate in which criticism and opposition to the ideas of an executive body can flourish. A University is no different.

During our experiences with the University of Salford, there has never been an effective outlet for the sort of objections to executive policies and decisions raised in this blog. Almost every attempt we have ever made to investigate any controversial decisions, activities, spending or events has been met with threats, derision and concealment.

The Students' Union – the obvious forum in which to raise these issues – remains silent owing to virtually the entirety of its funding being conditional upon donations from the University.

It is our opinion that the University of Salford can never improve if it, as an institution, cannot distinguish between good and bad decision making. Achieving this is conditional upon both the student and staff bodies being kept informed about both the good and bad within the University.

Since the University have a monopoly over their internal publications (including, we would argue, the Student Newspaper), and since this 'monopolised' publicity is almost without exception propagandist, it is our opinion that a purely critical alternative ought be available to staff and students to balance out this inequity and assist in keeping both parties informed.