Board of Scrutiny’s 30th Report

The 21 Group has long argued that the University of Cambridge needs an independent Ombudsman to address serious abuses.

At present, the University does not have an Ombudsman. Instead, it relies on a Board of Scrutiny (BoS). Although the BoS does not possess the same authority or powers as an Ombudsman, it can nonetheless conduct limited investigations and identify some areas of concern. (Unfortunately, the University can then ignore the BoS).

The Thirtieth Report of the Board of Scrutiny has recently been published in the Reporter here. It addresses a wide range of issues, including finance, teaching, sustainability and people.

We reproduce the section on people below.

A discussion of the Report will be held in person at 2 p.m. on 4 November 2025 in the Senate-House. Any member of the University may attend and participate; wearing a gown is the only requirement for admission. Further details are available are here.

The Board notes that the University’s new Human Resources (HR) and payroll software system, “myHR”, was originally due to be operational in Summer 2024. However, on 24 January 2025, it was announced that the Change and Programme Management Board had postponed the introduction of myHR “for a period of around two to three years”. This represents a serious slippage against the original timetable. There is now no firm date for its implementation in the public domain.

The Board’s working group met with key individuals so as to understand the causes of delay. There were significant difficulties in integrating myHR with legacy software, necessitating accelerated  implementation of a new identity and access management system controlling user access to resources such as emails and data. It was unclear whether effective mechanisms were in place to ensure coordination between the University Information Services (UIS) and the Human Resources Division. The Board believes that these were foreseeable problems whose effect could and should have been incorporated into the planning and the original time/cost estimates. The extent of the delay shows that the scale of the challenge was seriously underestimated. 

Software projects that overrun and are over-budget can stem from inadequate risk management or planning. Planning can be made even more difficult when multiple software platforms are being reviewed or replaced concurrently. Increased costs due to delayed delivery can be substantial, which is concerning, given the financial position of the University. Accordingly, the causes of the delay of myHR should be the subject of independent review so that the appropriate lessons can be learned for future transformation programmes. The Board recommends that a new implementation date now be provided. This would give confidence that the structural foundations are in place and that the project management is on track. 

The Board welcomes the University’s undertaking of a Staff Culture Survey, which invited responses from academics, professional services staff, researchers and technical support staff on key issues, including work-life balance, bullying, harassment, discrimination, mental health, career progression and flexible working. This is an important initiative that can shed light on some persistent problems in the University’s culture. The survey closed on 7 February 2024.

The Board regrets that the detailed analysis of the complete report on the Staff Culture Survey has still not appeared on any University website or been circulated to staff, although basic data were shared in February 2025. Some, but not all, Departments did receive summaries of their own performance for discussion. Full analysis of the data in the Staff Culture Survey could assist the University in identifying and supporting poorly performing Departments or in tackling some persistent problems in the University. For example, frequency of bullying or work-related stress or racial discrimination across different disciplines and staff groupings could be usefully examined. The Board is concerned that the precious data in the Staff Culture Survey have not yet been fully analysed and exploited.

The Board continues to be made aware of a range of human resources issues by staff and students. While detailed examination of individual cases falls outside its remit, the matters raised with the Board may point to weaknesses in processes, procedures and timescales. The Board emphasises the importance of resolving grievances promptly to minimise stress and avoid unnecessary waste of time, money and resources. 

The Board commends the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals (OSCCA) for providing extensive data on the handling of student grievances in its Annual Reports. The equivalent data on staff grievances should also be provided with the same level of detail and presented with equal care in an annual report. This would provide a valuable check on the efficacy of HR processes and procedures. Major revisions to the Dignity at Work policies occur frequently (for example, on 20 June 2023), yet they do not appear to be guided by any available data. This raises questions about the overall effectiveness of the policy.

The Board believes that openness, transparency and accountability, supported by robust and fair processes, are essential to maintaining confidence and trust in our University. Reliable statistical data play a key role in promoting cultural improvement. The Board recommends that the University publish the entirety of the Staff Culture Survey data, alongside an accompanying analysis and any consequent recommendations, at the earliest opportunity. The University may also wish to comment on whether it considers the response levels sufficiently representative.  There is much to be gained from running such Staff Culture Surveys regularly, say every two to three years. This would enable changes to be tracked and improvements to be monitored and demonstrated. There is a need for annual statistical data on handling of staff grievances at the same level of detail as student grievances.

The People Strategy is an ambitious programme with five themes (talent attraction, reward and recognition, talent management, culture & community, organisational effectiveness). Although strongly supportive of the aims of the People Strategy, the Board is concerned at both its implementation and its effectiveness, noting that, in the high-level documentation published to date, the key performance indicators or metrics for the People Strategy are unclear, as is the delivery timeline. There is an absence of quantitative tracking to highlight progress and identify hold-ups. The delay in delivery of myHR has highlighted the challenges in accountability between stakeholders, given the federated nature of the University. The Board recommends that every part of the People Strategy have an accountable owner with numerical targets or goals set to ensure delivery in a timely manner. A new University-wide document should be provided with these details, as the current high-level presentation leaves the People Strategy’s key metrics and delivery timeline unclear.

The Board sees some common threads running through many “people” issues. The first is a lack of effective communication. This is not only a practical worry but a structural one, with signs that poor communication is becoming embedded in new governance and operational arrangements. One concern is the University’s drift away from traditional Discussions as a forum for open debate, in favour of more tightly managed “town halls”. This risks marginalising critical voices and weakening the culture of collegial governance that should underpin major institutional decisions. Another concern is that decision-making has become concentrated within small groups of senior management rather than being exercised through the University’s democratic structures.  

Similarly, staff grievances are best addressed swiftly, as a lack of effective communication often magnifies small concerns into protracted and costly disputes that disrupt both research and teaching. At a time of tightening budgets, improving communication and resolving grievances more effectively offers the University a valuable opportunity to save money, as well as time and energy.  For example, the useful flow chart on grievance procedures provided by the Human Resources Division could be annotated with the expected times for each stage to take place and the performance in relation to these standards of service should be monitored and reported.

The second commonality is the tendency of the University’s transformation programmes to be couched in vague terms. Ambition and vision are commendable, but mechanisms are needed to ensure measurable progress and accountability. The absence of clearly defined milestones, key performance indicators and regular assessments can undermine operational effectiveness.  It becomes impossible to determine whether a programme is on track or to identify areas requiring corrective action. This may be one of the causes of the postponement of myHR and the lack of concrete progress on the People Strategy.

The Board recognises that, in an organisation of this scale, some sense of disconnection is perhaps inevitable between those responsible for making decisions and those who experience the day-to-day realities and challenges that policies create. To address this, the Board recommends that the University consider additional measures to strengthen cohesion and improve channels of communication and enhance transparency. Possible initiatives might include: bookable surgeries or scheduled open office sessions enabling staff to meet directly with senior leaders to raise issues or concerns (an approach pioneered by Vice Chancellor Shearer West during her tenure at the University of Nottingham); and confidential digital feedback platforms with clear commitments to timely acknowledgement and response. Concepts such as shadowing or “day-in-the-life” could also enhance understanding of diverse roles across the University.

Last year, the Board recommended that the University should collect more and better EDI data relating to staff recruitment, including socio-economic background, to guide further development of strategy and policy in this area. The Council’s response, published in the Reporter on 5 February 2025, was that this functionality would be provided by myHR. This was an unfortunate reply, given that myHR was formally postponed only days earlier, on 24 January 2025. The Board nevertheless hopes that the University will make alternative plans to collect such data. [From The Reporter]