Closure Report
Project Summary
CSG013 was original created to review the viability and feasibility of having an integrated system(s) to manage the Fire Safety Unit’s (FSU) core requirements. Particularly in relation to the fire safety procedures and related documentation.
Background
It was identified that there was a requirement within the University to secure an integrated system(s) that would facilitate the management of the FSU’s key activities along with ensuring that all reporting would be improved to provide better visibility, availability, reliability and accuracy of the data.
The key requirements were driven by the current fire safety legislation (such as: Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006 along with government statistics reporting (HESA)) in relation to:
- Fire Risk Assessments (FRA);
- Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) and Supported Evacuation Procedures;
- Fire Equipment;
- Fire Drills;
- Fire Alarm Tests;
- Fire, Incidents and Fire Alarm Activations;
- Fire Safety Training.
At present, the FSU are managing these requirements via a manual process which is both time consuming and lacks efficiency – using a combination of tools from the Microsoft Office Suite along with an in-house solution. As a result, all of the current data is at risk of being corrupted, lost or have unknown gaps due to current model used for managing these requirements.
Scope
The scope of this project was set out to deliver the following:
- To liaise with key stakeholders within the project (FSU and business partners) to review the current practices and processes in order to determine the core business requirements in relation to the identified tasks (FRA; PEEPs; Supported evacuation procedures; Fire Equipment; Fire Drills; Fire Alarm Testing; Fire Incidents and Fire Alarm Activations along with Fire Safety Training).
- To determine a possible solution(s) that will deliver upon the agreed business requirements by:
- Reviewing existing UoE applications;
- Reviewing potential market solutions;
- Reviewing the possibility of developing in ‘in house’ solution.
Objectives and Deliverables
| No | Description | Priority (MoSCoW) | Complete |
| O1 | Determine the means to enable the University to satisfy the statutory requirements associated with the current fire safety legislation and HESA reporting, whilst enabling continuous improvement to achieve best practice. | ||
| D1 | Document the business requirements associated with each of the specified key business activities |
|
|
| D1.1 | Document the current 'As-Is' workflow and associated data processes with regards to;
|
MUST | Yes |
| D1.2 | Document and prioritise the required business requirements going forward with regards to
|
MUST | Yes |
| D1.3 | Document the perceived business processes for the future with regards to D1.2 | SHOULD | No |
| D2 | Determine possible business solution(s) | ||
| D2.1 | Consult with current CAFM system supplier Archibus and supplier partner regarding use of potential Archibus modules, to deliver the specified business requirements | SHOULD | Yes |
| D2.2 | Complete a Gap Analysis against the CAFM system supplier Archibus modules against the specified business requirements | MUST | Yes |
| D2.3 | Identify potential market-based solutions to deliver the specified business requirements | MUST | Yes |
| D2.4 | Consult with other higher education establishments to determine how they are meeting their obligations | COULD | Yes |
| D2.5 | Undertake an early market engagement with potential market-based suppliers and complete a Gap Analysis against the specified business requirements | MUST | Yes |
| D2.6 | Arrange for a high-level estimate for a internally developed solution | MUST | Yes |
| D3 | Produce recommendations with regards possible business solution(s) | ||
| D3.1 | Prepare an outline business case and recommended integrated business driven systems solution(s) | MUST | Yes |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 50 days
Staff Usage Actual: 52 days
Staff Usage Variance: +4%
| Team | Estimate (Days) | Actual (Days) | Difference (Days) | Reason for Difference |
| Project Management | 12.5 | 20.5 | +8 |
> Project encountered delays due to a change of PM during the project along with the introduction of additional candidates to be included within the business analysis. > Change of PM during the project required additional unplanned time for a handover. > Additional time was assigned to the Programme Manager to review/govern the project. > Delay in Business Analysis Milestone due to current 3rd party supplier being unable to commit to an onsite demonstration within the original timescales along with A/L commitments of the business lead meant an additional session had to be facilitated which compounded the delay to the Milestone completion. > PM supported on desk based Business Analysis due to availability. |
| Business Analysis | 26 | 23 | -3 | > BA time reduced due to PM supporting on Desk based business analysis as a result of time constraints. |
| Development Technology | 3.8 | 1 | -2.8 | > Initial estimates provided by Dev Tech; however, not progressed due to recommendations to consider an external SaaS solution rather than the potential in house option. |
| Estates Programme | 8 | 8 | 0 | > Initial days spent on the projects within the Estates programme before being passed across to CSG to manage. |
| Total | 50.3 | 52.5 | +2.2 | Overall budget Increase approved by sponsor. |
Outcome
Final recommendations were made following the business analysis undertaken within CSG013 with a report provided to the project team to allow the FSU and Business Partners to review all recommendations and made an informed decision on how to progress.
Recommendations were as follows:
-
Implementation of a phased approach to allow the requirements to be delivered by priority and to prevent the risk of introducing too much change at once:
- Phase 1: FRA
- Phase 2: Fire Alarm Drills and Testing
- Phase 3: Fire Equipment and Servicing
- Look to procure a SaaS solution to support with the FRA within Phase 1.
- Analyse gaps within the Fire Safety Equipment and capture any required data;
- Review Phase 1 for lessons learned before reviewing whether current CAFM system supplier Archibus (Current internal solution used within Estates) could facilitate Phase 2 and 3. Create implementation plan
Explanation for variance
Due to the detailed Business Analysis undertaken, a few key challenges were encountered which caused the total number of days required to complete the project to increase slightly:
- Requirement of a demonstration to be held by 3rd party supplier directly rather than their re-sellers to allow for a detailed overview of the potential that 3rd party supplier could offer the FSU then a subsequent Webinar for the FSU due to A/L within the team on the original date of the Webinar;
- Late submission from the FSU to undertake Business Analysis on an additional 2 potential solutions:
- Bespoke Solution based on University requirements;
- Saas solution currently in use on the market.
Key Learning Points
As a result of the late submission of 2 potential solutions, the overall project slipped by 3 weeks which saw an increase in budget being required. Going forward, a more detailed requirements gathering workshop should be undertaken to ensure that all potential solutions were identified in advanced with a greater co-ordination/management from IS (where possible).
Outstanding Issues
Due to the nature of the potential solutions identified, not all of the ‘Must’ have (mandatory) requirements were met which has meant, if the business would like to progress with a procurement exercise, some of the requirements would need to be downgraded in priority.
Risk Log
All risks have been closed off as part of this project.