Closure Report
Project Summary
The eTime application was created, under projects FIN072 and FIN085, to meet two distinct needs:
- to meet legislative compliance requirements for researchers working on EU funded research grants
- to replace an existing, labour-intensive, paper-based process for submitting and approving timeshets for Guaranteed Hours staff
A number of changes were needed, in order to meet the changing governance and regulatory requirements from Research Sponsors and the HMRC.
It was agreed that the eTime Proposal would be delivered as two separate projects, one each in 2016-17 and 2017-18. The scope for both projects was limited to compliance requirements.
Scope
| No | Description | Project stayed within scope? (Yes/No); Reason if not. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Improve formatting and printing styles in the FP7 & H2020 timesheet reports | Yes |
| 2 |
eTime universe:
|
No - During prioritisation it was identified at the start of the project that no changes were required to the eTime universe that were of a high enough priority to undertake at this stage |
| 3 |
Complete the Business Analysis only, for Access to inactive users:
|
|
| 4 |
Add a reminder message / alert for GH Visa users. * Was included in scope because HR funded the work. |
Yes |
| 5 | After the completion of items 1 through 3 above, if the project's remaining budget allows, then the Design and possibly the Build work for the Access to inactive users requirement will proceed. | Yes - with the exception of point 2 - as described above |
| 6 |
Complete the remaining tasks to deliver Access to inactive users - it was also discovered that decomissioned users needed to be updated in the system as well |
Yes |
| 7 | Business and Technical analysis on the delivery of electronic PI Sign Offs (eSignature) was completed | Yes |
Out of Scope items:
1 Add new functionality to manage and report on optional Electronic PI sign-offs for FP7 and H2020 Research timesheets
2. Apply, to the eTime universe, any database changes delivered by the follow-on project's in-scope items - Decided was not required (see #2 Scope above)
3. Make the eTime application intuitive for PIs
* It is possible that the delivery of Electronic PI sign-offs may meet this requirement
* Before the start of the second project, Finance will consult with PIs, to confirm whether additional system changes are required
4. Add salary data and costing calculations to eTime
5. Enhanced reporting of eTime data - either through BI or through WebFirst
Objectives
| No | Description | Objective Met? (Yes/No); Reason if not. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | To provide clear and accurate sign-off and reporting functionality, to enable Research PIs to comply with sponsors' sign-off requirements | Yes |
| 2 |
To provide a robust and reliable BI reporting universe |
No (see #2 Scope above) |
| 3 |
To enable administrators to ensure the data quality of leavers' timesheets |
Yes |
| 4 |
If funded, to provide a reminder alert, to GH Visa users, to record time on a weekly basis |
Yes |
Deliverables
| No | Description | Deliverable Met? (Yes/No); Reason if not. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prioritised list of urgent compliance requirements (Finance) (Delivered - see Scope, above) | Yes |
| 2 |
Fully defined business requirements for the following Scope items:
|
|
| 3 |
Complete the Business Analysis only, for Access to inactive users:
|
|
| 4 |
A schedule for the development, acceptance testing, and delivery, taking resource availability in Finance and IS Apps into account (IS) |
Yes |
| 5 |
Developed / deployed solutions, delivered to the Dev and Test environments, for the following Scope items:
|
|
| 6 |
Updated technical documentation, as agreed between the development and production teams (IS) |
Yes |
| 7 |
Acceptance and regression test plans, with testing outcomes, for the following Scope items:
|
|
| 8 |
Approved solutions, delivered to the Live environment, for the following Scope items:
|
|
Benefits
| No | Description | Benefit Met? (Yes/No); Reason if not. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Compliance with sponsor requirements | Yes |
| 2 |
Greater productivity |
Yes |
| 3 |
Improved quality |
Yes |
| 4 |
Removal of bottleneck |
Yes |
| 5 | Better staff experience | Yes |
| 6 | Inactive Users - ability to search / amend time sheets | Yes |
Success Criteria
| No | Description | Success Criteria Met? (Yes/No); Reason if not. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | PIs are able to print and physically sign the Research timesheets for their projects | Yes |
| 2 | PIs can clearly identify which section of the Research timesheet they are expected to sign | Yes |
| 3 |
Finance are satisfied that the eTime universe is accurate, and can be used with confidence |
No (see #2 Scope above) |
| 4 |
If funded, then GH Visa users will receive an on-screen reminder to record their time on a weekly basis |
Yes |
| 5 | Signed off business requirements for Access to inactive users are ready to take forward for delivery in 2017-18 and solution implemented | Yes |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: Original (Proposal) Budget 83 days, End budget, re-agreed through PICCL process: 138 days
Staff Usage Actual: 138 days
Staff Usage Variance: The variance is 0% based on the agreed end budget. The variance from the original proposal identified at the start of the 16/17 Project is 66%
Outcome
The project was successfully delivered within the tolerances and expectations of the Project Sponsor / Team and Programme Manager.
Explanation for variance
The project was originally initiated as a single 200 day project, to complete within 16/17. However in September 2016 it was agreed to split the project into two, spanning the 16/17 and 17/18 financial years, see PICCL #2. The budget of 83 days for 16/17 was set thereafter.
The budget was then further expanded due to a number of issues with resourcing (both project manager and development related) and re-prioritisation of requirements. All of these were correctly handled through the PICCL process and were agreed at Project Sponsor / Team and Programme level. These are all clearly defined through the Project Issue Log, but a summary of the issues / outcomes is below:
| Ref | Date | Title / Short Description | Outcome (all agreed at WIS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| #3 | 24-Mar-2017 |
Change to scope & revised milestones due to past conflicts in Development and Project Services Conflict: Conflict had been experienced with the developer for the two priority estates projects (EST080 and EST092) The original project manager was on extended sick leave, new PM, Richard Bailey, was appointed and the development tasks were re-planned Budget: A number of the compliance tasks that had been calendared for the 17/18 year were brought forwards, an increase to budget was requested
|
Budget increased from 83 days by 35 to 118 days |
| #4 | 01-Jun-2017 |
Change to milestones due to Developer availability / reduction of key risks Conflict: Conflict was again experienced for the developer against tasks to complete the Estates project and the risk was reduced of planning to make changes / publish to live when the developer was due to go on annual leave |
No increase to budget Milestones were reset |
| #5 | 13-Jun-2017 |
Resource Conflict To Complete Project Development Conflict: Another conflict for the developer, this time against an APP004 Project - adequate resource coverage to develop / work on the specialist eTime application at that point in time was highlighted |
No increase to budget, or changes to milestones were were incurred |
| #7 | 12-Jul-2017 |
Budget: A number of bugs / issues were found during UAT, these were unforeseen to the original project / requirements as they were brought about by FIN115 - Financial Systems User De-Provisioning. Additional works were required to conduct these and additional Programme Management budget was also required to cover this extension. Conflict: The developer had annual leave booked at the end of the planned project delivery. Due to the bugs discovered during UAT additional works needed to be completed that needed specialist application knowledge, again adequate resource coverage to develop / work on the specialist eTime application at that point in time was highlighted |
Budget increased from 118 days by 20 to 138 days Milestones were also reset |
Key Learning Points
Successes:
- Teamwork - all members of the project group worked concisely and communicated well with each other
- The project early on adopted a 'semi' agile approach to the delivery of testing, which the Finance Team members particularly found conducive to allowing them to test efficiently, as they were able to dip into testing as and when required, rather than having to dedicate a large chuck of time towards the end of the project. Gordon / Bill pointed out that had this happened then as the project delivered towards year end, they simply would not have had the time to test
- The semi-agile approach also saw bugs picked and up and dealt with earlier and faster
- The semi-agile approach also allowed the Finance Team to involve other members of their Team in the testing process which helped strengthen application knowledge in Finance and allowed for some early training / exposure to the system and its changes to those Team Members
- At one point towards the end of testing the Finance Team members had a UAT session with the developer present. Both parties made comment to the fact that this proved particularly useful in both understanding process, how the system was designed to work and allowed quick resolution of bugs
- Extremely thorough testing / time spent on this project by the Finance Team
- It is live!
Areas for Improvement:
- Loss of the original Project Manager (PM) early on in the project (see the explanation for variance above). It was identified that appointing a new PM earlier when the original PM went off long term sick would have been beneficial
- Previous projects lessons learnt logs had correctly seen an increase from 1 to 3 Developers for eTime. However, within this project the potential benefit of this previous lesson were reduced due to the project conflict and prioritisation process. Whilst this is necessary to ensure appropriate resource deployment it did have a negative impact on this project (as it was a lower priority and Developers were required elsewhere). Whilst this is a known issue to Development, it is suggested that there is a lesson to take forward re managing the risks, demands and expectations around lower priority projects handling complex systems such as eTime particularly when planning / resourcing the required project
Recommendations going Forwards:
- If any future works / projects are undertaken it was the recommendation of Riky / Thalia that eTime should consider moving to Bamboo (automatic) deployment and to move to Puppet configuration management for the infrastructure
Outstanding Issues
-
Scope item number 2 eTime universe was not delivered and though while not deemed of high enough priority / compliance for this project, it would be potentially useful going forwards
-
Originally it was understood / expected that that works would span 16/17 (this project) and then further works would take place in 17/18. As such approximately 5 days were dedicated to the requirements gathering and analysis of the potential enhancement of the system by adding the capability to deliver electronic signatures (eSignature). The findings can be found documented here