Closure Report

Project Summary

Estates Computer-Aided Facilities Management Systems (CAFM)Optimisation project sought to optimise the CAFM solution in line with University of Edinburgh Estates and IS business goals.

Following delivery of an Options Appraisal (EST121) this project planned to undertake a detailed analysis of the agreed (3) short listed options and deliver:

  • A Business Requirements Document (BRD) covering present and future requirements across the Estates department and not just those departments currently using or associated with CAFM (actual extent to be agreed and detailed int he Project Brief);
  • A total review of the current CAFM solution (People; Process; Technical; Content) to complete a detailed current Operating Model (COM);
  • A Prior Information Notice (PIN) and/or a Request for Information (RFI), supported by UoE Procurement, to deliver an open market CAFM solutions review, to drive a cost-effective solution for a long-term stable, flexible and supported CAFM solution;
  • A high level CAFM Target Operating Model (TOM) based on the considered PIN/RFI response

Objectives and Deliverables Achieved

Objectives

  1. Capture and understand the present CAFM operating model to ensure the starting point for a future CAFM-related transformation is baselined;
  2. Ensure existing/present and desired/future business requirements for a CAFM solution are documented and prioritised;
  3. Review the market and gain knowledge of the ‘best in class’ CAFM systems and supplier support partner capabilities, based upon verified and prioritised key high level business requirements;
  4. Present a Summary Report for CAFM optimisation, including a summary of the PIN/RFI responses, proposed options and procurement approach (next stage project) recommendations;
  5. Ensure the Estates Project Sponsor and Senior Users have all the information necessary to select a preferred option and provide approval, or otherwise to initiate a procurement project.

Deliverables

Ref.

Description

Priority (MoSCoW)

Deliverable met? (yes/no) Comments  

WP1

CAFM Current Operating Model (COM)

Must

Yes Delivery of the COM was made to Estates in March 2020 but format sign off was delayed due to lack of Estates staff availability (this was further impacted by the effect of Covid-19 on the Estates team as they worked to make the Estate secure during the first lockdown. Agreement was reached with Estates in August 2020 that this deliverable be transferred to EST128 for approval.Link to the change in the Milestones is here:  Milestones moved to EST128 | Project Management  

D1

Documented Current Operating Model (COM). COM to cover agreed in-scope areas and including details of People, Process, and Technology.

Must

Yes See above  

WP2

Business Requirements

Must

Yes Please see notes from WP1 above, WP 2 is also noted on the content of the link above.  

D2

Documented existing and desired business requirements. Requirements to include details of strategic and operational reports

Must

Yes

As above

Additional note:  So much time has passed since the initial requirements gathering that a secondary exercise was undertaken under EST128 and these requirements are now approved by Estates. 

 

D3

Requirements Prioritisation Matrix. Matrix covering present and future requirements and reporting, broken down by departmental area, with each requirement prioritised.

Should

Yes As above  

WP3

Prior Information Notice (PIN)/Request for Information (RFI)

Must

Yes WP 3 was delivered on the 26/03/2020, due to the lack of Estates staff availability to review, Approval was gained on the 11/8/2020. Link to the Milestone in here: WP3 - PIN / PIN Summary Report | Project Management (ed.ac.uk)  

D4

Authorised PIN/RFI. The PIN/RFI will be produced in line with procurement standards/direction and will have Estates sign off before being published to market.

Must

Yes As above  

D5

PIN/RFI Responses Analysis Matrix. PIN/RFI responses will be assessed against the PIN/RFI requirements and with consideration for IS and Estates Strategies and an analysis matrix produced.

Must

Yes As above  

D6

RFI/PIN Analysis and Procurement Options Paper. A summary report of the PIN/RFI analysis and recommendations to enable key stakeholders to make an informed decision of which procurement option to authorise.

Must

Yes As above  

WP4

CAFM Optimisation Programme Cost Estimate

Must

Yes

Link to the WP4 WP4 - CAFM Procurement and CAFM Implementation Project Cost Estimates | Project Management (ed.ac.uk) 

This work package has formed the foundation for the cost model for EST128.

 

D7

Cost estimate.  Estimate covering:

  • IS and Estates resource costs;
  • 3rd party costs, based on 3+2+2 years contract;
  • Systems and technology costs, including hosting;
  • Software licensing and support;
  • Implementation and transition management;
  • Ongoing BAU support costs;
  • Any other internal costs anticipated.

Must

Yes    

 

Points for PM to add:

  • Were the project goals met? 
  • Yes
  •  
  • Were the project deliverables fully or partially accomplished? If partial, what are the reasons for this? Were there additional deliverables added? 
  • There were no additional deliverables added. The partial deliverables mentioned above were due to lack of review and sign off from the Estates team, due to Estates staff availability. This situation was further compounded by the arrival of Covid -19 and the restrictions that followed in March 2020. This resulted in work packages sitting without review for some time. When staff became available the information that had been produced was then out of date and was the re-worked in project EST128.

 

  • Did the project deliver a solution to the problems being addressed? Have the desired operational results been achieved?
  • Yes, the business requirements have been gathered (albeit that they have been re-worked) and the market research has concluded that "off the shelf" solutions are available that would be able to meet the needs of the University.
  •  
  • Were additional results achieved besides the original success criteria? Were there any unforeseen benefits delivered by this project?
  • No additional results were achieved and there were no emergent benefits.
  •  
  • Does the Project Sponsor agree that this project can be closed at this time?
  • The Estates MIS Transformation Manager (Jane Cameron)has agreed that this project is now closed.

Analysis of Resource Usage:

ISG Staff Usage Estimate: 222 days

ISG Staff Usage Actual: 330 days

Other Resource Estimate: 54 days

Other Resource Actual: xxx

Other Resource Variance: xx%

Resource Area/Team Original Estimate (days) Actual (days) Difference
Senior Supplier 9.3 0 -100%
Programme Manager 9.3 8 -14%
Other IS Mgt Resources 4.6 0 -100%
Project Manager 94.9 122 +29%
Business Analyst 103.2 200 days +93%
Total 222 330 +49%

Explanation for Variance

Lack of access to Estates staff caused a delay to the project team, slowing down the progress and pace of the planned work. There were also changes to both the Project Manager and the Business Analyst while the project was in flight so the increase in actual days effort includes the handover period where the BA and PM effort was doubled. 

 

Key Learning Points

A lessons learned session was carried out on 29/09/2020. The outputs of this session will be written up before Christmas holidays 2020

Link to lessons learned log where these should be logged

Outstanding Issues

Both WP1 & WP2 have been transferred to EST128 for sign off.

Project Info

Project
Estates Facilities Management Optimisation
Code
EST115
Programme
Estates Facilities Management Programme (ECAF)
Management Office
ISG PMO
Project Manager
Marjory Howarth
Project Sponsor
Grant Ferguson
Current Stage
Close
Status
Closed
Project Classification
Transform
Start Date
01-Jun-2018
Planning Date
11-Oct-2019
Delivery Date
29-May-2020
Close Date
03-Dec-2020
Programme Priority
2
Overall Priority
Higher
Category
Discretionary

Documentation

Close