Jisc case studies wiki Case studies / FOI Edinburgh full report
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

FOI Edinburgh full report

FOI research project

 

University of Edinburgh

 

Background

 

The University of Edinburgh is a world-leading, research led university, offering one of the most diverse ranges of subjects in the UK.  This is reflected in the quantity and range of freedom of information (FOI) requests it receives.  In 2011 it received 301 FOI requests, probably the second highest number received in the Scottish HE sector[1]

 

The University has a highly devolved organisational structure, consisting of three academic colleges and three support groups, further broken down into 22 academic schools and over 70 individual support services.  Decision making authority and responsibility reside at the lowest possible level of the hierarchy.  This means that records and information are distributed throughout the University, and compiling the response to a freedom of information request can involve obtaining information from several parts of the University.

 

The purpose of this project was to develop an accurate measure of the time taken by universities to respond to freedom of information requests, broken down by type of activity and accompanied by the salary grades of the members of staff involved.  This will enable JISC to assess the resource implications of freedom of information requests.

 

The project carries benefits for the HE sector and beyond, as it will contribute to a more informed debate on freedom of information issues, such as the proposed Freedom of Information (Scotland) Amendment Act, the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the Post Legislative Scrutiny of the existing Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution Unit’s evaluation of the impact of FOI on higher education (HE).

 

The University is conducting a LEAN review of its request handling processes, and another aim of the project was to use the external benchmarking data generated by this project to inform this review and identify areas where more efficient processes can be introduced.  This is in a context where the volume of FOI requests received by the University has increased by 176% over the last 5 years.  The graph below shows the increase in the number of freedom of information requests received by the University since the legislation came into force in 2005.

 

 

JISC funded this university and six others to keep track of the time taken to respond to the first, third and fifth requests received in 2012, along with the first two round robin requests received by a significant number of project participants.  JISC asked that the time be broken down into 10 categories.

 

The University routinely gathers information about the time it spends answering FOI requests, and approximately 50% of the total time taken comes from the University’s Records Management Section, which is responsible for information legislation and records management best practice throughout the University. 

 

When collecting information about the time taken to respond to requests, the University normally asks staff for estimates once the request has been sent out.  While the resulting figures give an indication of the resources consumed by freedom of information requests, they are not completely accurate, and we believe that staff may underestimate the time they have spent on this work, or overlook time spent on short activities, such as filing the request and the response. 

 

To increase the accuracy of its figures for this project, the Records Management Section installed and trialled the use of Grindstone 2, a free time monitoring tool for Windows PCs, available online from Epiforge (http://epiforge.com/Grindstone/).  A review and description of this tool is available from PC World: http://www.pcworld.com/article/205403/track_your_workand_do_it_fasterwith_grindstone.html.

 

Grindstone can be used to keep track of the time a computer user working on specified tasks and activities, even those not involving a computer, from the moment a PC is booted up.  It also has a reporting functionality, permitting analysis of the resulting data.

 

As we could not predict which other parts of the University would be affected by the project, it was not feasible to install Grindstone and train staff outside the Records Management Section.  Instead, the Records Management Section explained about the project when we first contacted staff about a relevant request, and liaised regularly with affected staff to collect detailed on-going figures.

 


[1] This was the case according to the Scottish Higher Education Information Practitioners Group statistics to August 2011; sectoral statistics to 31 December 2011 are not yet available. 

 

Outcomes

 

The sample was also unusual in the straightforward nature of a number of the requests.  Of the requests, four could be answered by a single area in the University.  In 2011, our experience was that only half the requests received by the University could be answered by a single area.

 

All the requests were answered within the 20 working day period prescribed by freedom of information legislation.

 

All requests were answered within the twenty working days prescribed by the legislation.  At the time of writing we are still within the period when an applicant might request a review of the response, but it seems unlikely this will occur given that the University fully answered most of the questions.  In 2011, 10% of the requests received by the University were the subject of internal reviews, with a further seven appeals to the Scottish Information Commissioner.  The resources consumed by an internal review or appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner will not be reflected in this project.

 

The University also completed the JISC records management maturity self-assessment questionnaire. 

 

Key lessons learned

 

As highlighted in the preceding section, the requests monitored for this project are not typical of this University’s freedom of information experience.  This is perhaps inevitable with a research methodology using systematic sampling at a particular time of year.  There is scope for a broader project using other sampling methodologies or a different time of year to obtain more comprehensive data.

 

The project showed a wide variation on the time taken to respond to FOI requests,.  Closer examination showed that this was directly related to the complexity of the requests concerned.  Although the project monitored only a few “requests”, between them these requests asked 44 questions relating to 33 years. 

 

There is a discrepancy between what this University counts as a request (a written communication asking one or more questions) and the definition employed under freedom of information legislation for cost calculation purposes.  Well-established case law under both the UK and Scottish FOI regimes shows that for the purposes of cost calculations each standalone question must be treated as a separate freedom of information request.  In practice, this means that only a small number of requests can be refused on the grounds of excessive cost, as most requests are made up of more than one question. 

 

This also suggests that the impact of the legislation on the sector is masked by the focus on requests.  This case study suggests that the “requests” received by the University actually contained what could be defined as at least 44 requests under freedom of information legislation.  It might be useful to give further thought to this issue when it comes to compiling sectoral statistics.  The Scottish Higher Education Information Practitioners Group survey already provides an option to count individual questions, as well as “requests”; perhaps it would be beneficial for institutions to give more consideration to adopting this approach.  For example, the University of Edinburgh does not currently count individual questions, but will now give serious consideration to doing so.

 

Although the activity headings provided by JISC seemed straightforward, in practice we found that staff interpreted the categories differently.  This led to the same activity being recorded under different headings when performed by different individuals or areas, and casts doubts on the cross-institutional comparability of the detailed activity data. Some activities did not seem to fit easily into the given categories.  For example, we were not sure where to allocate the time spent on compiling data for a cost calculation.  Others could be classified under more than one heading.  For example, should revising a draft response in the light of feedback come under “preparing response”, “reviewing information” or “obtaining sign off”?

 

Notwithstanding these differences in interpretation, it is clear that the majority of this University’s activities fall within the categories of identifying, locating and preparing the requested information.  Although comparator information from the other participating institutions is not yet available, we would expect that the University’s devolved structure would lead to this university spending more time on identifying and locating the requested information because, in the case of more complex requests, it has to come from more than one source. 

 

The University is optimistic that when the data from other participating institutions becomes available, it will be able to use that data to focus its LEAN activities and to generate efficiency gains.  The data collected to date has already highlighted that the University should re-examine its processes for handling large requests involving cost calculations.

 

The Records Management Section successfully used the Grindstone software to keep track of its time spent on FOI requests.  The software was easy to download and use with very little staff training.  The Section can see scope for using it for other projects.  However, as the software was installed on individual PCs, it was not possible to use it when staff worked at home.  Thus, a networked solution would be a more viable long-term option if the University were to decide that it wishes to increase the accuracy of its FOI time taken figures. 

 

Summary & reflection

 

This project provided the University of Edinburgh with a valuable opportunity to reflect upon the resources consumed by FOI requests.  A small scale project such as this will inevitably deliver limited initial results, highlighting opportunities for further development and reflection. 

 

The University’s experience of this project has flagged that the sector may be underestimating the impact of freedom of information by compiling statistics relating to individual “requests” rather than “questions”, and has shown that there would be benefits from conducting further studies into the resources expended on FOI, perhaps at a different time of year or using a different sampling basis.

 

The University is positive that participation in this project will assist with its LEAN review of its own freedom of information processes, providing data to identify areas for efficiency savings.