SA&S-Fortnightly Status Report - Overview Period Ending 7 Feb ...

SA&S-Fortnightly Status Report - Overview Period Ending 7 Feb ...

SA&S-Fortnightly Status Report Overview Period Ending 05 April 2018 Current Status Deliverables this period Exam Timetabling ET Policy Tier 4 compliance A Planning A -Exam timetabling Testing the integration to O365 behind schedule but not a showstopper -SCEC system implementation is impacted by Blueprint approval, replanning work around -WSA No project sponsor for WSA Service implementation/ procurement A Resource A Phase 3 Service detailed design at risk. because of SA&S resources required to complete. Only PCIM work has started. A -Change Management resources being recruited to support WSA & Timetabling -SAS Core teamimplementation resources recruitment in progress -New PM for PCIM, WSA & SCEC have been recruited but not in place yet. A Engagement RAID A A MyEd Portal: Planning Contact Details roll out project. Immigration : project sponsor confirmed WSA: Communication sent to DoPS/College Registrars. Procurement project. SCEC: TOM Blueprint & Business Case completed ahead of Board. System build: new BA/implementation staff. Completing iteration1 incl all backlog of bug testing Timetabling Service: Business case and Blueprint completed Exam Timetabling: Scheduling exams on new Test system completed. Testing Integration to O365 calendars in progress. Build by Scientia delivered. Tier 4 : Biometric functionality post live issues beinf addressed, in test. Management and Control Delivery Previous Status G Costs & Benefits G Risks and Issues are now reported on the project website. A A Benefit realisation plan and costs for phase 2 addressed

in Business Cases. Benefit log to be updated. Stakeholders G Communications G Immigration communication sent and face to face meetings held. WSA communication sent to DoPS/Registrars. Timetabling comm being drafted Further engagements with users for SCEC (yammer) and planned workshop for timetabling & SCEC. G G Being done through projects/ workshops, programme lead 1:1 and SEP newsletter. Use of the SEP toolkit communication. 1 SAS Fortnightly Status Report Programme Risks -Period Ending 05 Apr 2018 Risk Consequences Inherent Impact Residual Impact Residual Probty/ Uncerty Risk Level Risk Mvt since last mth Current & Management Processes and Mitigating Activities and Future Developments Senior Managerial Responsibility There is risk the users do not engage This will impact on the planned in the next few months engagement with users for because of the impact of the strike -SCEC project: May workshop and the workload/contingency work required to review the decision required to be completed in schools. process- User testing from May It also unknown whether more strike onwards- high engagement will take place during peak period- -WSA: planning user exam board period. engagement to detail the processes for writing the standard operating procedures (June-Sep)-high engagement -Timetabling: process maps with MVM and CSE (lower engagement) 5 5 4 20 u Local project initiative , like using Yammer , to interact with user Neil McGillivray on SC system design is working. If users do not engage: should key activities pause and be replanned? There is a risk the HR activities are Delay the HR announcement not coordinated across SCEC, WSA & Timetabling services 5 4 3 12 q There is a risk the communication required to be sent for Timetabling, WSA, SCEC is being delayed because the SCEC Blueprint is not approved 4

4 3 12 Secure HR resources (PMO) to work closely with SAS project Heather Tracey teams (approved at SEP Board mid Jan). Update 1. New HR advisor to start beg April-DONE 2. Secured existing HR advisor from this week -1d a week to work- on WSA HR activities (week -5 activities) prior to new advisor being in place 3. Work with PMO to start identifying colleagues in schools, as required by HR to identify roles and job descriptions-DONE 4. Agree approach to communicate HR activities on all 3 projects in a coordinated approach, assess impact of possible delay/rework on SCEC 1. Depending on SCEC approval, agree common approach for Neil McGillivray all 3 projects with SEP Programme Lead For escalation SAS Fortnightly Status Report Programme Risks -Period Ending 05 Apr 2018 Risk For information SCEC- There is a risk that proposed changes to the Target Operating Model (TOM) decision processes for special circumstances and extensions would require system changes Consequences Inherent Impact Residual Impact Residual Probty/ Uncerty Risk Level Risk Mvt since last mth May lead to an increase in the cost of the development effort and impact the timescales for delivery. Options: Stop next iteration until there is clarity from the business Plan other work 4 4 5 20 u There is a risk that future projects This will impact on the start may not have access to student of the WSA implementation systems BA or Implementation expertise. The risk is higher as the Analysis of data and process business cases for WSA is articulating is not completed for PGR and the significant effort required rom Programme and Course both BA & Implementation to Information and publishing complete the standard operating procedures. 4 4 3 12 q SCEC- Risks have been raised in the business case re 1) implementation mid year, 2) academic buy in , 3) CSPC does not support TOM proposal 4 1- inconsistent treatment of student cases, additional work for staff and reputational damage for SEP 2-resistance during implementation 3--impact to timeline 4 3

12 Current & Management Processes and Mitigating Activities and Future Developments Senior Managerial Responsibility Replanning system design with users around new proposed Franck Bergeret decision point-On Hold Identify the elements of the system that are likely to be affected and ensure that work is not started on these until the requirements are finalised. This may mean modifying the iteration plan where required to achieve this. DONE Update: The system re decision process change estimated at 50d IS rework Workshops planned with SAS team/key stakeholders to review changes and articulate changes to requirements/detail the framework: on hold until Board approval decision Lisa Dawson SAS resource demand has been fed into the overall Student Systems resource planning for approval by Programme Sponsor. Recruitment is planned for. In the meantime short term contracts have been approved. Engaging with SRA and IS (end of life of degree finder) for the Programme/Course PCIM work. Franck Bergeret Review risks mitigations articulated in the business case post Board decision Franck Bergeret SA&S Fortnightly Status Report - Programme Issues-Period Ending 05 Apr 2018 Status: G Green - Low Not currently impacting the project A Amber - Medium R Resolution in hand and is being managed within the Programme Issue Description. There is an issue that Severity Red High Immediate escalation is required Issue resolution Senior Managerial Responsibility Score (RAG) For escalation issue 1, for information issues 2 & 3 WSA Project has no named Project Sponsor. Impact: no-one identified early enough to sign-off initial key deliverables of procurement work (ITT delayed): 1. Planning completed 2. Evaluation group confirmed (needs organisational buy-in) and 3. Requirements validated High Outstanding: being raised at next SAS Board. Could the business lead act as sponsor for now? Barry Neilson Timetabling- The scalability of the current system remains an underlying concern to support the proposed Timetabling service in 19/20 (Blueprint and business case in progress) in relation to the additional load being expected from CMVM. Low There are different manifestations and mitigations at play. Update Completed separate paper summarising the systems capability and cost to mitigate them, appended to business case, for approval by both LTW and SA&S Boards Scott Rosie Franck Bergeret Student Finance- There are overlaps of work between SA&S and Finance programme. The student finance process workshops held in November 2017 identified a number of points in which the SA&S finance-related functions interact with the Finance Office. Ideally, we need to dovetail into the Finance Transformation and Core Systems work, with SA&S influencing finance-related processes bringing the voice of the student and how they interact with the Universitys financial processes. Therefore it is the SAS programme lead's view that attempting to design new processes for an SA&S blueprint in isolation to and apart from the financial processes would be counter-productive.

Medium Neil McGillivray submit a list of requirements to the Finance Transformation and Core Systems team to request developments around the identified common themes. Ensure output takes the student focus into account Meeting scheduled to manage the overlaps and the ownership Workshops planned end April for Finance to be attended by SAS team member RAG Guidance Criteria Red Amber Green Delivery Key deliverables at risk Some risks around delivery On track for delivery Planning No detailed plan Detailed plan in place. Gaps around benefit/key deliverables. Not fully up to date. Covers less than 6 weeks. Detailed, current plan in place covering the next 6 weeks. Resource Significant skills or resource gaps Some gaps All resource in place and trained. RAID No documented risks and issues. Some gaps Defined process and roles. Clearly defined escalation routes. Risks and issues log actively maintained and reviewed by project team. Costs & benefits Very limited benefit identification/ limited understanding of costs Some gaps in information. Costs fully broken down and information accessible. Benefits documented and logged in register. Stakeholder engagement Very limited identification. No documented plan. Some ad hoc identification of stakeholders. Incomplete plan. Not approved by sponsor. Stakeholder, interest and needs systematically identified. Plan for engaging in place and approved by sponsor. Communications Little current information on website; stakeholders not informed of status Some ad hoc communication. Some information on website Website updated for last completed stage. Stakeholders informed and aware of nest stage plans. Key messages available for last stage. A programme will be assumed to be green initially. It may be red/amber status if 2/8 elements are red or amber. A project is likely to be red/amber if 3 or more elements are that colour. A project is red/amber if 4 or more elements are that colour.

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Collective Rights - Quia

    Collective Rights - Quia

    Collective rights are rights held by groups (peoples) in Canadian society that are recognized and protected by Canada's constitution. Collective rights are different than individual rights. Every Canadian citizen and permanent resident has individual rights under the Charter of Rights...
  • Context-aware Security from the Core 1 |  2017

    Context-aware Security from the Core 1 | 2017

    You've also got an email content filter and a web content filter, but your firewall does those as well. Now DNS threats have reached critical mass to where you have got to do more. You have got to look at...
  • GCSE ICT Course offered: GCSE ICT Length of

    GCSE ICT Course offered: GCSE ICT Length of

    - This is a practical unit. Students broaden and enhance their ICT skills and capability. They work with a range of digital tools and techniques to produce effective ICT solutions in a range of contexts. They learn to reflect critically...
  • Before Data Weighting: An ensemble model approach to

    Before Data Weighting: An ensemble model approach to

    MSE for southern bluefintuna. Define "operating models" to incorporate uncertainty about the stock, dynamics and sampling. Level of productivity (steepness of SR) Level of natural mortality. Interpretation of CPUE. Currently an ensemble of 320 "models" Use to test candidate HCR...
  • Greener Greener Airports Airports B0-APTA B0-APTA B1-APTA B1-APTA

    Greener Greener Airports Airports B0-APTA B0-APTA B1-APTA B1-APTA

    b0-65. b0-75. b0-80. b0-15. b0-70. b0-30. b0-35. b0-40. b0-10. b0-85. b0-05. b0-20. b0-25. b1-30. b1-31. b2-31. b1-35. b2-35. b1-65. b1-70. b2-70. b1-75. b2-75. b1-80 ...
  • Foundations in Microbiology Sixth Edition

    Foundations in Microbiology Sixth Edition

    Arial Times New Roman Arial Unicode MS Default Design Foundations in Microbiology Sixth Edition Survey of Microbial Disease Phenotypic Methods Genotypic Methods Immunological Methods Specimen Collection and Laboratory Methods Slide 7 Slide 8 Phenotypic Methods Slide 10 Slide 11 Genotypic...
  • Orderliness - Strathmore School

    Orderliness - Strathmore School

    Orderliness involves not only putting things in their proper place but also using them properly. We can hardly say that a child who deliberately breaks his toys is orderly, even if he tidies up after the event.
  • Science Fair Project

    Science Fair Project

    Science Fair Project Type your project title here Your name Your teacher's name Your school Statement of the Problem Type your question here. (This is the question that your experiment answers.)