1. PROJECT CHARTER Welcome and Induction Phase 2 and 3 - INDUCTION
OBJECTIVES
DELIVERABLES/MILESTONES
SCOPE
Clearly define induction - timing and purpose/principles
Develop and roll out a framework for Manchester Induction that sets outcomes to be achieved through induction activities, illustrated by examples of good practice
Schools publish Welcome Timetable in advance of Welcome Week, online and with full details of venues
Identify needs and develop supporting toolkit for use by Schools in considering and repurposing their Induction activities, including briefing/training activities.
Ensure a sustainable approach to ongoing evaluation and adaptation
Monitor the implementation of the Manchester Induction framework
Evaluate its success (both staff and student perspective) in terms of a) consistency of implementation and b) effective delivery of purpose and principles
Project Charter Agreed
Project Plan Agreed
Phase Two
Engagement activities completed and framework published
Arrangements for governance agreed and published
Training/briefing sessions completed
Schools publish Welcome Week timetable online, by mid August, coordinated with Manchester Welcome timetable
Evidence of new approach to Manchester School Welcome for 2013, informed by timely publication of Manchester Welcome TT
Phase Three
Evidence of implementation of induction activities throughout the year
Evaluation of framework completed (including recommendations for change)
Transition to Business as Usual
In scope
Links with Manchester Welcome, including Residences (Pastoral)
All students (n.b. inc non-resident)
Unique needs of International students at School level
Focus on first year experience, including progression
Out of scope
Content of and planning for Institutional Welcome – covered in Phase 1
DEPENDENCIES
Buy in from Schools
Timely publication of a timetable of events for Institutional Welcome
Timely and effective communication with Schools of expectation that they will publish their Welcome Week timetable by X date, online, and what priorities are for Welcome Week versus rest of lifecycle
Appropriate resource allocation
SPONSOR
STAKEHOLDERS
Russell Ashworth, HoFA, Faculty of Humanities
STEERING GROUP
Active engagement with
PSS Student Experience Leads; Key Induction Teams (Academic and PSS) in Schools/Discipline Areas; Teaching and Learning Management Group; Students and UMSU – including Peer Mentors and PASS leaders.
Sign off/authority from
SEMG
Engaged Awareness
TLG/MDC; School Leadership Teams; DSE Staff; Student Support Staff; Key Academic Staff
General Awareness
Academic Staff; PSS Staff in Faculties, Schools and Central Directorates
SUCCESS CRITERIA
Secretary: Kelly Rowe (Project Officer); Project Manager Jenny Wragge ; PGR Helen Baker; Liaison with WSoYG Paul Govey; PGT: Lisa McAleese; UMSU; Martin Laws and Tommy Fish ; Humanities: Sarah Featherstone ; EPS Karen Charters (tbc); MHS: Siobhan Cartwright; FLS: Carol Rowlinson; TLSO Marcia Ody; UoM Library Sarah Rayner
100% of Schools meet the updated expectation of School Welcome, as described in Phase 1 report
Evaluation of Welcome Events shows that the have succeeded in their intended outcomes (specific measurables to be defined)
Evaluation at the end of year 1 induction activities shows that they have succeeded in their intended outcomes (specific measurables to be defined)
Ongoing evaluation and monitoring shows continued engagement and a continuous enhancement approach
Student satisfaction with Induction, as measured by the appropriate survey tool (PRES, PTES, SB) grows/maintained >85% year on year.
SB Nov 2011 – Satisfaction with Arrival : UG 93%, PGR 88%, PGT 87%
PROJECT TEAM
Jenny Wragge, Kelly Rowe, Adele Bartlett (Humanities); Mike Turner (EPS, tbc); Helen Franklin & Laura Jones (MHS); Joanne Jolley (FLS); Brendon Jones (Residences); tbc UoM Library; tbc TLSO; Sandra Davidson IT Services. PGR – one of the skills trainers or their team?
BENEFITS
Clarity of purpose about induction and distinction between Welcome and Induction
Students increasing feel that, despite the size of the Institution, they are personally known and belong to a community
Improvement in students’ understanding of academic expectations and standards – reduction in number of conduct and discipline cases involving academic malpractice; increase in student satisfaction with relevant elements of NSS/PTES/PRES/Barometer.
Coordinated approach – efficiency and clarity; improved ability to help
Integration and consistency of Experience across Schools.
Ongoing and sustainable community of practice
TIME FRAME
Phase two – Induction January – September 2013 Phase three - Monitor and Evaluate - September September 2014
RISKS
RESOURCES
Fail to achieve buy in from Schools
Lack of engagement with students, especially Reps, undermines credibility
Failure to publish Welcome TT in Feb will undermine efforts to get School TT published
0.3 FTE Project Manager FTE Project Officer + Project Team