Closure Report
Project Summary
The current processes and workflows within the Library Digitisation area are convoluted, siloed and with delivery in certain circumstances failing to meet student, academics and external academics expectations and timescales.
The problems to be resolved are:
- Oversight of orders
- Tracking orders
- Integration of systems
- Validity of systems
This project conducted business analysis to allow the impacted Library & University Collections teams to improve digitised workflows and set foundations for future development and potential procurements via a planning proposal for Digital Library Infrastructure project. This involved a review of existing processes and workflows and a set of recommendations for improvements and efficiencies.
Objectives & Deliverables
The deliverables were prioritised using the MoSCoW prioritisation method
M=Must Have; S=Should Have; C=Could Have; W=Want
|
No |
Description |
|
Delivered? |
Reason for not delivering |
Output |
|
O1 |
To conduct business analysis to improve digitised workflows and set foundations for future development and potential procurements via a planning proposal for Digital Library Infrastructure project |
|
Yes |
|
All documentation is on the ISG012 SharePoint site |
|
O1D1 |
A review of the existing processes and workflows within Library & University Collections teams for digitisation |
M |
Yes |
|
|
|
O1D2 |
Create proposals and recommendations for improvements and efficiencies for digitisation workflows |
M |
Yes |
|
-
Recommendations and high level requirements presented to Kirsty Lingstadt, Joe Marshall, Norman Roger and Karen Stirling. All were happy with the report and are meeting to discuss how they can take the first 3 points forward and how they will disseminate to Library staff. Recommendations were:
- Point 1 was to Digitise your processes
- Point 2 was to Streamline your systems
- Point 3 was to Improve metadata and catalogues
- Point 4 Promote yourselves - this requires wider university website integration
- Point 5 Enhance the student experience – this is for the future – points 1-3 need to happen first
Success Criteria
|
Success Criteria as in Project Brief |
Delivered |
How delivered |
|
The AS-IS process is clearly documented with context diagrams and process diagrams |
Yes |
As-is interviews – interview write ups and Data flow diagrams Context document included in Recommendations
|
|
The To-Be process is clearly documented with context diagrams and process diagrams |
Yes |
To-Be workshop captures user stories Recommendations shows proposed process |
|
Proposals for improvements and efficiencies created and accepted by key L&UC Stakeholders |
Yes |
Recommendations document |
Benefits
|
Benefit as stated in project brief |
Delivered |
How delivered |
|
Under BAU |
These benefits will be realised within BAU as recommendations output will be taken forward into Library planning proposals |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 50 days
Staff Usage Actual: 50 days
Staff Usage Variance: 0%
Outcome
Explanation for variance
Cost
|
Project Brief cost |
50d |
|
|
Changes to costs |
|
|
|
Actual Cost |
50d |
no change |
Time
|
Major Milestones |
Project Brief date |
Actual Date |
Reason |
|
Planning |
16-Mar-18 |
|
|
|
Business Analysis signoff |
15-Jun-18 |
31-Aug-18 |
See issues |
|
Delivery |
29-Jun-18 |
31-Aug-18 |
Delivery was the analysis signoff |
|
Close |
27-Jul-18 |
7-Sep-18 |
Due to analysis signoff being delayed |
Issues
- 18 Jun: The original timelines were perhaps optimistic as the business analyst was unable to get the to-be workshop set up until mid June (plus a follow up meeting at the end of the month for those that couldn’t make the 12th). Plus the advice to speak to the curators at once didn’t work as it became obvious at the meeting they all had different processes so follow up as-is meetings so those meetings had to be factored in. Also for the write ups of the as-is there was a lot more work than anticipated. PM/analyst had been hoping to increase her days on this project but picking up another project and project brief will not allow this so timelines again have to be extended. Delivery was extended to 13 Jul and Close to 20 Jul 18
- 31 Jul: Higher priority work taking precedence meant that deadlines had to be extended again to delivery 31 Aug and Close 7 Sep
Key Learning Points
- This was an excellent project to work on as Library staff were very passionate about their work, very helpful and steered the business analyst to quickly understand their process.
- The business analyst however had underestimated the amount of information that would be supplied and the project was delayed to help catch up with the writes ups of the as-is process.
- Having fresh eyes on this project from an impartial analyst allowed project members to fully grasp and understand the issues they suspected.
Outstanding Issues
There are no outstanding issues.
It should be noted that the work carried out in this project will influence a new Library programme.