1.  University of Aberdeen
     Neil Hamilton

2.  University of Edinburgh (JCMB)
     Gwen Bayne                                   Jean Ritchie
     Martin Morrey                                Kim Underwood

3.  Napier University, Sighthill
     Judy Goldfinch                                Carol Higgison

4.  University of Paisley 
     Iain MacLaren                                 Neil Pitcher

5.  University of St Andrews 
     Colin Allison

6.  University of Strathclyde 
     Lorna Campbell                                Ralph Weedon
     Dave McNicol                                  Dave  Whittington

1) Attendees as above

2) Report from Jean Ritchie
2.1) UMI2 projects will have another opportunity to present to SHEFC, probably in December. 2.2) JR’s post has been continued for a further 3 years.  She will be called the SHEFC C&IT Development Coordinator and will coordinate the initiatives currently being planned by SHEFC.
2.3) The meeting of SMVCN to look at projection facilities agreed that projectors rather than monitors were needed in studios.  A proposal will shortly be sent to SHEFC asking for funding.
2.4) The Remote Sensing project are planning a series of teaching events which will need different studio layouts, specifically a further camera to allow the presenter to face the audience. They have discussed requirements with the SMVCN.
2.5) The CTI / TLTSN review (Atkins report) will be published shortly.  Funding for both will cease at the end of July 99. A consultation document from SHEFC, HEFCE, HEFCW, DENI will be sent to HEIs and interested parties this week outlining their plans for C&IT support and development activities and asking for responses from HEIs. When I get a URL I will point people to it.
2.6)  They propose to establish  23 or 25 subject based centres who will:
·  act as knowledge brokers, promoting ideas of good practice based on evaluation and research in their subject areas.  Include pedagogy and instructional design. C&IT only part of their remit.
· Facilitate the sharing of practical experience in implementation
· Manage a network of departmental users
· Disseminate outcomes of other subject-based initiatives
2.7) In addition they propose a single generic technology centre for whole of the UK. The technology centre and network of subject centres would all be managed by a single Central Unit under a Director.  Various models are under discussion, ie how distributed can it be.
2.8) HEFCE, HEFCW, SHEFC, DENI, JISC, DfEE, FEFC, CVCP, and SCOP have published a specification for a study to audit the range of existing activity in the use of C&IT in L&T in both HE and FE.  As a result of the study, the members will take a view on the need for a single vehicle to coordinate and promote existing and new C&IT related activity in T&L.  They may then fund a scoping study to advise on how to establish such a vehicle.
<http://www.hefce.ac.uk/docs/new/CandIT.htm>
Tenders received by Fri 9 Oct.  Interviews Tues 10 Nov.  Final report March 1999.

3)  Discussion
3.1) DW was concerned about time scales for the next round of SHEFC bids since, as things stand  at the moment, it seems the next lot of funding won’t be allocated until mid 1999.
3.2)  It was agreed that more than two weeks would be needed to submit outline bids to SHEFC; a month would be feasible.

4) Infrastructure Group
4.1) JR mentioned SHEFC’s proposal to set up a Teaching and Learning server on which T&L materials, including those developed by UMI, could be made available. NH pointed out that more than one server would be needed, to provide backup and resilience. DMcN suggested it was desirable to have a web cache and file server in the same room.
4.2)  MM said if the proposed server was connected directly to the MAN, it would be an advantage because of improved speed of access. DW said that in CVU’s experience, access bottlenecks were not related to the server and its connectivity, but were more likely to be found in local LANs. CVU were willing to offer their experience to help to build the proposed new server. The server would have to be distributed, and content and organisation of the server would be complex, eg. who will manage email lists, assessment, discussion groups etc. JR suggested that each individual institution would do that on their own systems; NH pointed out that support is still needed.
4.4) JR asked projects whether they thought people would use this service. NH said Child Health would welcome such a service and would definitely use it, as did IMacL for Remote Sensing. DW said CVU would not use such a service. DW also suggested that other materials would be needed in addition to UMI materials, eg. JAVA tutorials from SUN etc, to build a sufficiently interesting amount of content.
4.5) DW suggested that the materials needed to be held on a single machine as material changes all the time - most materials are not just static web pages.
4.6) JR suggested that this discussion continue via email <umi-info@ mailbase.ac.uk>
                                                                                                                    Action All
4.7) NH said he would circulate problems Child Health have been having as they will probably be similar to problems other people will, or have experienced. DW offered to help NH with the storing of Child Health’s materials if required.
                                                                                                                    Action NH
4.8) CH mentioned a TaLiSMAN workshop which is being held on 28th October, and told projects to register if they were planning to attend.
4.9)  JR mentioned the Knowledge Elicitation Engine that had been discussed at the ALT-C 98 conference. It is being promulgated by Peter Twining of the OU.  Information on OU activities can be found at <http://mathetics.open.ac.uk/source/>.  No web source of information about the Elicitation Engine is yet available.  JR would ask PT to talk to the group.
                                                                                                                     Action JR

5) Web Tools proposal
5.1) JR asked for input for SHEFC’s plans for web tools development; these might include, eg. assessment engines, instructional management systems, re-usable shells.
5.2) MM said Remote Sensing would like to develop their tools to make them reusable by others.  Others had similar wishes.

6)  AOB
6.1) CH mentioned a TaLiSMAN/ HEIDS one day workshop on intranets to be held on 20 October. HEIDS contacts have each been asked to nominate up to two attendees. The workshop will be held at Heriot-Watt University; it will focus on the technical side of intranets. The agenda is geared quite heavily towards the IT Service provider.
6.2)  The next UMI meeting will be held on 12th October at 1530. CH requested that the Heriot-Watt Videoconference studio be included in the conference.
                                                                                                                    Action KU