SuperJANET 4 and the MANs by liuqingyan

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 17

									MAN Questionnaire


  MANs Collected Views on
       RNOs Costs

           Ian Griffiths
         September 2002
MAN Questionnaire


              Response
15   Responses out of 18
 7   Company limited by guarantee
 3   Company limited by shares
 5   Consortium
MAN Questionnaire


           Confidentiality
     Share information with UKERNA

     8   Yes
     3   Yes if anonymised
     4   No
MAN Questionnaire


           Staffing (1)
13 provided information on spend
 4 limited spend to amount allocated
 9 spent between 21% and 102% over their
   allocation

  Allocation    Spend       % difference
   1187K        1604K          35%
MAN Questionnaire



          Staffing (2)
No fixed pattern for the number of staff
employed by ‘lead site’

Most common is 4 or 5
MAN Questionnaire

             Telecomms
        Spend = Allocation    3
        Spend Shortfall       4
        Underspend            6
        No figures            2

Allocation     Spend     % Difference
 5940K         5600K          6%
MAN Questionnaire
   Maintenance/Depreciation
Responses proved this was a confusing area
with no real pattern. Majority view was that
the money was not sufficient to provide a
replacement fund.
Best estimate from 11 MANs
Allocation     Spend    % Difference
 5940K         5600K         6%
 MAN Questionnaire

         Summary of Funding
              Allocation Spend   % Diffierence

Staffing       1187K    1064K         35%
Telecomms      5940K    5600K         -6%
Maintenance    1158K    1351K         17%

TOTAL          8285K     8555K         3%
MAN Questionnaire


              Finance

  Any shortfall funded by member (HE)
  contributions in all cases
         Finance
% of non-JISC work
8 had none
7 had some with percentages of
  5%, 10%, 10%, 10%, <20%,
  40% and 50%
           Funding Regime (1)
What changes would you like to the funding
regime?
•   Cover higher proportion of telecomms costs
•   Staff payment very tight
•   Full funding for reasonably incurred costs
•   Mechanism to receive payment in time to pay bills
•   Combine telecomms & maintenance into one budget
•   Remove ambiguities of equipment replacement costs
•   More money for staffing
• Planning and funding horizon of more than 3 years
• Resolution of depreciation fund
        Funding Regime (2)
• Additional periodic funding for procurement
• BACs transfer
• More sensible approach to handling of FE colleges
  (cost & procedures)
• Paperwork required for payment is inappropriate
  and leads to cash flow problems
• Simple allocation scheme
• No longer understand the depreciation scheme
• FE are not contributing members
• Current division of funding is artificial
            Funding Regime (3)
• Staffing deficit is caused by having to cover extended
  hours
• Align contract year with 31 July
• Payment for effort of getting quotes
• Additional funds for staffing
• Additional funding for the staff effort in upgrading MAN
• Meet real costs so not disadvantaged by geography
• No incentive to get best telecomms price
• Funding regime more customer/supplier orientated
• More staffing and replacement money
• Release of funds on order documentation
        Capital Replacement (1)
Capital Replacement Scheme
• Future replacement strategy unclear – fingers crossed
• National initiatives OK but need dates
• MANs must be able to PLAN for equipment
  replacement
• Funder works to a shorter timescale than our
  replacement cycle
• Periodic replacement capital needed
• Annual replacement payment
• Current scheme doesn’t allow for planning
       Capital Replacement (2)
• Use a scheme like the old Computer Board
• Difficult to separate capital and revenue
• HEFCE MAN Initiative are the most successful
• Need known and agreed scheme
• SHEFC and SFEFC work well
• Funding needed to evolve network
• Funding provided in a way that allows planning
• Funding needed when service requires it not when
  HEFCE has spare capital
• Major and minor upgrade structure
          Other Comments (1)
Other Comments
• Need to reduce financial shortfall – total counts
• Underestimated costs of becoming a legal entity
• Early days yet
• Formulae too obscure
• Improve payment scheme to aid cash flow
• UKERNA needs to let go of some of the controls
• MANs need to respond more as companies
• Piecemeal upgrades of FE don’t allow for bulk deals
         Major Concerns

•   Staffing payments
•   Release of funds (cash flow)
•   Depreciation fund
•   Planning for capital replacement
•   FE funding
•   Artificial division of funding

								
To top