University of Edinburgh Knowledge Strategy Committee. 8 June Use of the Project Governance Toolkit for Shared Academic Timetabling

Transcription

1 University of Edinburgh Knowledge Strategy Committee 8 June 2012 Use of the Project Governance Toolkit for Shared Academic Timetabling Brief description of the paper Shared Academic Timetabling has been trialing the Project Governance Toolkit developed for KSC by Nigel Paul and Jeff Haywood since October This paper provides feedback on the use of the Project Governance Toolkit by the project and offers recommendations on the use of the toolkit for future projects. Action requested KSC are requested to consider the recommendation in the Management Summary of the paper. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? Yes Adoption of the Project Governance Toolkit for major IT projects will introduce some additional costs, e.g. resources for external project review, but will result is more successful project delivery and benefits realisation. These topics are covered in both the management summary and the body of the paper. Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? No adoption of the Project Governance Toolkit will significantly reduce risk to delivery of major IT projects. Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No - The Shared Academic Timetabling project will itself be subject to an Equality Impact Assessment later in Any other relevant information This paper updates the committee on the use of the Project Governance Toolkit originally approved by KSC in Feb Originator of the paper Mark Ritchie Head of Project Services Information Services 31st May 2012 Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes

2 Use of the Project Governance Toolkit for Shared Academic Timetabling Management Summary and Recommendations for Knowledge Strategy Committee (KSC) Shared Academic Timetabling has been trialing the Project Governance Toolkit developed for KSC by Nigel Paul and Jeff Haywood since October This paper provides feedback on the use of the Project Governance Toolkit by the project and offers recommendations on the use of the toolkit for future projects. The project used the Project Governance Toolkit during initiation to establish an appropriate governance framework and has used the governance radar assessment tool twice with three further reviews scheduled between now and project closure in October The project has also been subject of an Independent Project Review in June 2011 and Internal Audit Review in Feb The success of project governance within Shared Academic Timetabling to date, as scored by the project team and Project Board, is illustrated by the following radar diagram showing how perceptions changed between Jan 2011 and Feb In comparison with many projects which quickly fall into a trough of disillusionment due to poor governance the project has risen in every key measure identified by the Project Governance Toolkit. The use of the toolkit for Shared Academic Timetabling has confirmed that it adds significant value to the governance process. The toolkit gives assurance for Project Boards of what is going well and where action may be required. The comparison of results between different project phases provides a clear indication of the direction of travel in terms of overall project governance. Page 1 of 13

3 Appropriate use of the Project Governance Toolkit addresses a long term concern that Project Boards and stakeholders have often founded it difficult to judge whether there are issues or not. Recommendations for KSC 1. The Project Governance Toolkit should be used for all major IT projects from 1st August (An enhanced version of the toolkit has been published as part of the IS Projects Methodology at: This version includes additional templates and guidance for use by project sponsors and project managers the underlying principles are unchanged from the version approved by KSC in Feb 2010.) 2. Establishing of an effective and representative Project Board backed up by wider stakeholder engagement, should be mandatory for all major and strategic IT projects 3. Independent external review, either via Project Board participation and/or formal review by external (to the project and/or University) experts should be considered highly desirable for major IT projects and mandatory for strategic IT projects. 4. KSC should consider establishing, with provision of funds for training, a pool of UoE project reviewers who can provide external review of major IT projects 5. To ensure greatest value is obtained from the Project Governance Toolkit it is essential that: a. Governance reviews are scheduled in advance as part of project planning b. Project sponsors set aside funds for external project reviews and/or external representation on the Project Board c. Project Board members are given training and support in the use of the radar assessment tool d. Outcomes of governance reviews are shared widely with Project Board members (and other key stakeholders) and used to direct and prioritise governance actions 6. The Project Governance Toolkit should remain under the ownership of KSC. The toolkit should be adopted and maintained by IS Applications who may make small changes based on experience on major IT projects. All significant changes to the toolkit, for example the weightings used to identify major projects, must be notified to KSC for formal approval. 7. IS should ensure that all IS project managers and IS project sponsors are trained and supported in the use of the Project Governance Toolkit. Mark Ritchie May 2012 Page 2 of 13

4 Project Governance and the Use of the Toolkit Overview The Shared Academic timetabling has aimed to follow project management best practice since its initiation in March The Project Board remit and membership was based on recommendations in the UK PRINCE2 methodology with adjustments recommended by Valuta and based on University experience on other major IT projects such as EUCLID. The Project Board has met every 6-8 weeks since May 2010 and a full log of Project Board meetings is maintained on the IS Projects Website and University Wiki. The project has been the independently reviewed by Valuta and by Internal Audit. The project has consistently focused on the wider cultural and business changes required for implementing a successful shared timetabling solution. This is demonstrated by a number of key elements of project governance including: Establishment and maintenance of a an effective Project Board led by the University academic community and supported by IS, Academic Registry and Estates Comprehensive consultation with all Schools and support units during Phase 1 and Phase 2 University approval of targeted funding for Schools and Registry to support the successful roll out of the system Sustained commitment and expertise of the Academic Champions Dr Nick Hulton and Dr David Laurenson Establishment of a fully resourced Timetabling Unit in Academic Registry led by a HE timetabling expert, Scott Rosie, recruited specifically to deliver the project and support the new service Reporting of School engagement, backed up by measurement and analysis, at each Project Board Community wide involvement in all aspects of the Phase 3 implementation including preparatory tasks, training and use of the new system Pre-Procurement Governance Review The first radar assessment of the project took place in January 2011 during Phase 2. As this was the first time that the tool had been used the review was carried out by the Project Team and Project Sponsor only rather than the full Project Board the timing of the timing of the review meant that it was too early for the Academic Champion (Dave Laurenson) to participate. The reviewers were: Professor Liz Bondi, Project Board Convenor (HSS) Sarah Gormley, Project Support Office (IS) Craig Middlemass, Business Analyst (IS) Dawn Nichols, Business Analyst (IS) Mark Ritchie, Senior Supplier (IS) Jamie Thin, Project Manager (IS) The review was based on the original Project Governance Toolkit approved by KSC in February Page 3 of 13

5 The governance review produced the following radar diagram (note due to the number of reviewers a single average score is presented for each governance element): Project Goverance Assessment - January 2011 Ongoing Improvements Measurement Learning Vision Business Case Sponsorship Buy-in Implementation Team Project Management Risk Management Governance Communication The results of the review are further summarised in the table below: Element Average Score Notes (from Jan 2011 Review Feedback) Vision 8 The end point vision with delivery over two years is complex and not yet fully detailed for stakeholders. Business Case 6 Business case exists and is of good quality. Not all costs are fully understood or articulated. There are gaps in Support Group provision and the 5 FTE support for Schools is still to be fully investigated. Sponsorship Buy In 6 High level support strong through the VP. School engagement is positive but relatively passive. Lack of leadership from the Support Group and academic side may only be addressed when the new Timetabling Manager and Academic Lead are in place. Team 6 IS team is in place but 50% of the team are new to the project. Wider team not yet in place. PM has organised regular team meetings but has not undertaken more active team building. Actions Agreed Engage stakeholders in detailing vision during Procurement phase. 1 Progress recruitment of new Timetabling Unit Manager 2 - Clarify how the Support for Schools and Registry will be managed. 1 Embed new Academic Champion 2 - Progress recruitment of new Timetabling Unit Manager 3 Workshops to increase buy-in over Feb/March Widen participation in project beyond IS 2 Engage new IS project team members Page 4 of 13

6 Element Average Score Notes (from Jan 2011 Review Feedback) Communication 5 Phase 2 communications strategy has not yet been agreed. Governance 6 Business leadership and user input not yet secured. Risk Management Project Management 5 External QA gateway not yet agreed for Phase 2. Success criteria for procurement, minimum change and extended implementation to be defined. 5 Outline rather than detailed project plan established Actions Agreed 1 - Detail communication strategy for Phase Set up User Groups 3 - Set up regular communication to stakeholders 1 Embed new Academic Champion 2 Progress recruitment of new Timetabling Unit Manager 1 Agree external review requirements 2 Set up new Phase 2 Risk Log by end Feb 2011 Project Manager to prepare detailed plan by end March 2011 Implementation 1 Learning 1 Measurement 2 1 Gather stats on rooms, events, staff and students as benchmark to measure impact of future changes by end of March 2011 Ongoing Improvements 2 Overall these were very good scores at this stage in the project lifecycle and reflected a high degree of confidence from the core project team in the University ability to deliver the project. The review was very helpful in focusing and prioritising project team governance actions at the outset of the Procurement Phase. The identified actions were subsequently implemented by the project team during Phase 2. The use of the Project Governance Toolkit therefore added significant value to the governance process. As this review had confirmed the need for a further external review of the project prior to finalising the procurement no further toolkit based reviews were scheduled for this phase of the project. This was the correct decision. In retrospect however the governance review process and outcomes should have been shared more widely with the Project Board members. This would have given wider visibility to the Project Governance Toolkit, which would have been helpful for future reviews, and given further assurance of the best practice approach adopted by the project. Page 5 of 13

7 Independent Project Review (Valuta) Overview An independent project review commissioned by KSC and carried out by Valuta took place in June The review was timed to take place just ahead of the release of the Invitation to Tender (ITT) for the supply of a timetabling solution. The stated aim of the review was: to understand the status of the project by seeking input from key stakeholders and reviewing project documentation, then making practical recommendations for action The review team from Valuta interviewed a range of stakeholders including the IS and Academic leads and Project Board members. Valuta presented their findings as report for the Project Sponsor and Project Board. The main findings were the following summary statement and recommendations: At the time of this review, the Academic Timetabling project was progressing through a welldefined procurement process. This review has, however, identified a number of major opportunities for improvement and risk reduction. The project is facing significant risks around the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the project team and Project Board, project objectives, planning and communications. Without an appropriate response to the findings and recommendations set out below, there is a high risk of failing to deliver the project objectives. Independent Project Review, Valuta June 2011 Area Recommendation Priority 1 Policy / Objectives The University should complete the Timetabling Policy and communicate it to all stakeholders along with the objectives of the Academic Timetabling project. 2 Policy / Objectives The project should demonstrate that it has recognised and learnt the lessons from the student record experience. 3 Policy / Objectives The project should develop a set of business logic models for current and future timetabling processes. 4 Organisation The project must demonstrate their independence when communicating with the stakeholder community. Immediate Required Desired Required 5 Organisation Project roles should be clearly delineated. Immediate 6 Governance All members of the project board must define, discuss and agree its remit. 7 Governance The project board should include an independent technical (IT and scheduling) assurance role. 8 Communication The project should consider how to increase stakeholder use of the wiki. Immediate Immediate Required Page 6 of 13

8 Area Recommendation Priority 9 Communication The project should consider how to increase their awareness of individual School requirements possibly through the appointment of School champions. 10 Planning The project should consider developing the detail of Extended Implementation as a separate project. 11 Planning In developing contingency plans, the project should explore the requirement to adhere to the annual academic timetable. 12 Planning The project now needs to develop an understanding of the time and resource, both centrally and at School level, required to complete data preparation. Desired Desired Required Required Independent Project Review, Valuta June 2011 Project Response The review findings were presented to the Project Board at the Project Board Meeting on 23 rd August This review included both the Valuta report and a formal response from the Project Team on each of the key recommendations. The review was positively received by the Project Board and the project has taken on board all of the recommendations made. The most difficult of the recommendations to implement were: Recommendation 2 - The project should demonstrate that it has recognised and learnt the lessons from the student record experience This does not yield to a single action that demonstrates compliance but instead requires concerted and consistent effort from the project right through the lifecycle. The author believes strongly however that a body of evidence is building up that this lesson has been learnt well in the project work completed to date. Recommendation 4 - All members of the project board must define, discuss and agree its remit This recommendation was discussed in some detail by the Project Board. It was recognised action was required for new members of the Project Board who had joined after the completion of Phase 1 and who were less familiar with both the overall aims of the project and the role of the Project Board. The Project Board requested that specific actions, including the re-publication of the key Phase 1 outputs, be taken to address the needs of new board members and reinforce the project vision. There was also recognition of the relative immaturity of project governance at the University. The Project Board emphasised the need to secure an independent technical expert to provide additional assurance (Recommendation 7) and underpin the efforts of the Project Board. (Following extended discussion with University Court members in the search for a suitably qualified candidate Dr Peter Kemp ex IS Director at Glasgow and Stirling University, joined the Project Board in December 2011) Page 7 of 13

9 The Project Board valued the independent review and took on board the recommendations. There was however some concern expressed about the cost of the review - both in terms of staff time and the financial cost of the Valuta consultancy. Valuta recommended a further independent project review take place in November 2011 ahead of the Minimum Change Go Live. It was agreed however that independent reviews, at least for this phase of the project, would best be delivered by securing the services of an independent technical expert for the Project Board (Recommendation 7). It was also recognised that the delivery focus of the project, an aspect of several of the Valuta recommendations, would be further strengthened by the new Timetabling Manager who had joined the project team in July 2011 just after the independent project review had been completed. Pre-Implementation Governance Review A second review of project governance using the toolkit took place in February This used the updated Project Governance Toolkit published as part of the IS Projects Methodology at: This review was scheduled to coincide with the critical go/no go decision on the readiness of the timetabling solution to support the Minimum Change Implementation scheduled for end March Mark Ritchie presented the updated templates and guidance at the Project Board on 1 st February. Mark also offered to provide further guidance and 1-1 assistance with the completing the review. No Project Board members took up this option and all respondents completed the review paperwork independently. The reviewers were: Professor Liz Bondi, Project Board Convenor (HSS) Sarah Gormley, Project Support Office (IS) Dr Peter Kemp, Independent External Member of the Project Board (PK) Dr Dave Laurenson, Academic Champion (CSE) Craig Middlemass, Business Analyst (IS) Dawn Nichols, Business Analyst (IS) Mark Ritchie, Senior Supplier (IS) Jamie Thin, Project Manager (IS) Keith Wylde, Project Board (MVM) Rio Watt, Project Board (Academic Registry) Dr Claire Phillips, Project Board (MVM) Page 8 of 13

10 The governance review produced the following radar diagram (note due to the number of reviewers a single average score is presented for each governance element): The results of this review are further summarised in the table below: Element Average Notes (from Feb 2012 Review Feedback) Score (Feb 2012) Vision 8 Business Case 9 Sponsorship Buy In 8 9 for PSG/CMG 5 for HoC, HoS In this institution it is difficult to secure and maintain buy-in. Team 8 Focus on extended team during next phase Communication 7 Need to focus on potentially resistant users. Not sure to what extent communication has been formally assessed. Governance 8 Risk Management 7 Project 8 Management Implementation 7 Learning 5 Measurement 6 Ongoing Improvements 5 Page 9 of 13

11 Due to the timing of this review relative to the releases of the software it has not yet been possible to review and agree actions with the Project Board. This discussion has been scheduled for the June 2012 board meeting. Overall however these are very strong scores. The growing confidence in the underlying business case and the emerging belief in the implementation capability are particularly noteworthy. The success of project governance within Shared Academic Timetabling to date, or at least as perceived by the project team and Project Board (including the independent external member) is illustrated by the following radar diagram comparing the scores for Jan 2011 and Feb 2012: In comparison with many projects which quickly fall into a trough of disillusionment due to poor governance the project has risen in every key measure identified by the Project Governance Toolkit. Again the review was very helpful in focusing and prioritising governance actions. The review also provided assurance of what was going well and the comparison of data between different project phases indicated a clear and positive direction of travel in terms of overall project governance On the downside the majority of participants in the review were once again the core project team despite requests going out to the full Project Board. It is clear that further support will be required for Project Board members to enable them to fully engage with future reviews. Page 10 of 13

12 Further Project Governance Reviews Use of the Governance Toolkit has provided significant value for the Shared Academic Timetabling project. This has been a significant contributor is establishing effective governance for the project and a consistent and repeatable check on governance status. Whilst this could have been achieved without the toolkit it is clear that the methodology has given clear and useable directions for the Project Manager and IS staff. Further project reviews using the Governance Toolkit will now be scheduled as follows: August 2012 following completion of Minimum Change implementation just after the completion of more detailed planning for Extended Implementation and just prior to the start of term February 2013 just ahead of the main extended implementation for the 2013/14 academic year August 2013 following completion of the Extended Implementation and just ahead of the start of term To gain full value from these reviews it will be essential that the Project Board, and possibly the User Groups, are more fully engaged in the review process than has been achieved to date. To this end the IS Senior Supplier and Project Manager will provide more training and support to reviewers ahead of each of the scheduled reviews. This should result in greater participation and feedback whilst hopefully indicating continued confidence in the overall governance process. Development and Use of the Project Governance Toolkit As a result of the work done with Shared Academic Timetabling the toolkit has been enhanced and published as part of the IS Projects Methodology at: This version includes additional templates and guidance for use by project sponsors and project managers the underlying principles are unchanged from the version approved by KSC in Feb The Project Governance Toolkit will be used for all major IT projects managed by IS from 1st August The Assessment Tool for Identifying Major Projects will be used as part of project initiation and all major IT projects will be governed as in line with the full toolkit. The Project Governance will remain under the ownership of KSC. The toolkit should be adopted and maintained by IS Applications who may make small changes based on experience on major IT projects. All significant changes to the toolkit, for example the weightings used to identify major projects, will be notified to KSC for formal approval. IS will ensure that all IS project managers and IS project sponsors are trained and supported in the use of the Project Governance Toolkit. Page 11 of 13

13 Appendix 1 - Overview of the Shared Academic Timetabling Project The Shared Academic Timetabling project was initiated in December Phase 1 of the project, to establish the business case and organisational requirements for the implementation of a shared academic timetabling service, was approved by PSG in Feb The Phase 1 project was led by the Academic Champion, Dr Nick Hulton, supported by Mark Ritchie and Simon Marsden from IS. Project resources for Phase 1 of the project were secured in March A Project Board, convened by Professor Liz Bondi, was established to support and direct the project team. The Project Board met for the first time in June In October 2010 Liz Bondi and the IS Project Manager, Mark Ritchie, were requested by KSC to trial the emerging Major Projects Governance Toolkit that had been developed by Professor Jeff Haywood and Nigel Paul to assist with the governance of major University IT projects. Phase 1 was successfully completed in October The business case for the project, which included a full implementation plan and financial case for establishing a shared academic timetabling service, was approved by CMG in December The project moved into Phase 2 in November The aims of this phase were: to confirm detailed requirement; prepare and release an ITT; evaluate tender responses; recommend a fully costed solution; and establish an organisational structure to support shared academic timetabling at the University. Dr Dave Laurenson replaced Dr Nick Hulton as the Academic Champion at the outset of this phase and the Project Board was extended to enable wider academic engagement. During this phase additional Business and Technical User Groups were established to support the project and a new Timetabling Unit was established within the Academic Registry. The project also led the development of a new University Timetabling Policy to provide a policy framework for the implementation. The project was reviewed by independent project delivery consultants Valuta in June Phase 2 of the project was completed in October 2011 with the Project Board approval of the recommendation to purchase and implement the Enterprise Timetabling solution from Scientia. The project moved into Phase 3 Minimum Change implementation in November Following the recommendation in the Valuta review an independent external expert, Dr Peter Kemp ex IS Director at Glasgow and Stirling University, joined the Project Board in December The Scientia Enterprise client software, enabling Schools/units to manage timetables and rooms, including data migrated from EBIS and course data supplied by Schools, was delivered to schedule in March Additional web based applications were delivered via MyEd to all staff in April The web applications support viewing of room and course timetables and enable ad-hoc room bookings for centrally bookable rooms and rooms within the requestors home School /unit. The implementation has been underpinned by extensive training and customer support led by the Timetabling Unit and the project team. The Project Board has also supported the implementation through the approval of additional temporary resources within Timetabling Unit and local funding for Schools to purchase equipment or services to ease the transition to the new service. Both of these measures have been approved from funds established in the original business case. Page 12 of 13

14 The remaining milestones for Minimum Change Implementation are: Student Study Space Room Booking Go Live 23 rd May this functionality will allow students to directly book study space rooms for the current and next week using the Web Room Booking (WRB) components implemented in April Outgoing Timetabling Interfaces Go Live 28 th May this capability publishes room timetable data to monitors in concourses and outside rooms across the University. There are 3 systems in use 2 are campus-wide (Onelan and igel) and the other is a local system used in the Business School (PADS). Decommissioning EBIS Room Booking 28 th May with the replacement of its functionality by the new solution EBIS Room Booking will be retired. Incoming Interfaces - Go Live 28 th June this work is to automate the interfaces from EBIS (Rooms) and Student Record (Programmes and Courses. On completion of this work this Phase will be closed. The final phase of the project, Phase 4 Extended Implementation started in May This phase will complete the roll out of the shared timetabling solution. The headline deliverable for this phase is personal timetables for students and academic staff. This phase will also deliver improved capabilities and tools for curriculum planning and space utilisation. Phase 4 will complete in October Mark Ritchie May 2012 Page 13 of 13