Closure Report
Project Summary
Overview:
The remit of this project was to help to identify efficiencies in the PGT Deposit process for the College of Science and Engineering. The project undertook detailed analysis of the full end to end process, and engaged with key stakeholders from the Admissions Team, CSCE Finance, Cash Office, Income Section and Student System Partnership to produce a detailed set of 'as-is' process maps and accompanying notes.
The project analysed the existing processes and was able to provide a comprehensive list of recommendations which if implemented would see a transformation of the existing process. The 'to-be' process was documented and highlighted the key benefits of the proposed process, namely:
- Complete removal of the inefficient manual processing of PGT deposit payments through the introduction of a new payment portal and the proposed integration with Euclid
- The removal of the need for the CSCE Finance teams involvements in the entire process, thus saving Management Accountant time and removing inefficient process hand-offs
- The removal of the need for the Cash Office teams involvements in the entire process, thus saving Cash Office time and removing inefficient process hand-offs
- Complete removal of the need for the Admissions team to undertake the process of transferring deposit payments to fee accounts
- Much improved user journey for applicants as confusing payment options are removed and replaced with a much smoother process and allows for greater visibility of payment progress
- Possibility that the process can be used by all colleges in the university to manage PGT deposits if agreement is reached on the scope of the follow-on implementation project and how the project is to be funded.
The final recommendation report was presented to the key stakeholders at a very positive meeting on 10/07/18 and was agreed by all that it met with their expectations for the project.
Scope from Brief:
|
No. |
Description |
Status (Unchanged / Changed / New / Removed) |
Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
S1 |
Analysis of the processes and systems involved in the PGT deposit scheme within CSCE |
Unchanged |
Delivered |
|
S2 |
Provide efficiency recommendations to the CSCE |
Unchanged |
Delivered |
Objectives and Deliverable from Brief:
|
No. |
Description |
Priority |
Objective/Deliverable Met? (Yes / No) |
Comments |
|
O1 |
To identify the PGT Deposit process pain issues |
Must |
Yes |
Recommendations Report highlights main pain points on each of the as-is process maps |
|
D1.1 |
As-Is process maps/process description |
Must |
Yes |
Detailed As-is process maps created and accompanying notes |
|
O2 |
To present recommendations for achieving To-Be process |
Must |
Yes |
Presentation of recommendations and proposed to-be process held on 10/07/18 |
|
D2.1 |
Recommendations report of process improvements |
Must |
Yes |
Recommendations Report created which outlined the high level proposed changes and accompanying spread sheet of user stories with the more lower level details of the changes was shared with all key stakeholders |
|
D2.2 |
To-Be process maps/process description |
Should |
Yes |
To-be process maps created and presented |
|
D2.3 |
Requirements Specification (if system changes are recommended) |
Should |
Yes |
Requirements for changes to Euclid and Applicant Hub have been documented and broken down to field level and include where applicable:
|
Success Criteria from Brief:
|
Success criteria |
Criteria Met? (Yes / No) |
Comments |
|
As-Is process maps/process description signed off by CSE Recruitment and Admissions |
Yes |
Approved at presentation on 10/07/18 |
|
Requirements Specification signed off by CSE Recruitment and Admissions |
Yes |
Approved at presentation on 10/07/18 |
|
To-Be process maps/process description signed off by CSE Recruitment and Admissions |
Yes |
Approved at presentation on 10/07/18 |
| Recommendations report of process improvements signed off by Project Sponsor and Student Systems Partnership | Partial | No formal sign off from SSP but an SSP representative has been involved in the entire project and has reviewed the recommendations and is content that they are feasible. The implementation work will need to go through the formal SSP channels to be prioritised and resourced and may require further analysis. |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 36 days
Staff Usage Actual: 35 days
Staff Usage Variance: -3%
Outcome
All project deliverables have been fulfilled within budget and with only a delay of one week past the agreed tolerances.
Key Learning Points
Successes:
- Good cross team working has allowed for a future process to be defined and agreed and will provide benefits for all the teams involved
- The 'to-be' process that has been defined and the associated recommendations promise to make real efficiency savings within the Admissions team and if taken forward could provide efficiencies across colleges in the university
- The by-product from reshaping this process is that it will provide a much more intuitive experience for applicants during the PGT application/offer process
- All of the stakeholders involved in the project were very generous with their time and only too happy to answer questions which meant that good detailed analysis could be conducted.
Major Issues:
- Initial analysis work that was carried out was not in sufficient detail to be able to make recommendations for improvements so the project had to be extended by two weeks to allow further analysis work to be carried out.
Recommendations for future similar projects:
- The PM should be explicit with their quality expectations of products to be delivered by other team members to ensure that no rework is necessary
- During analysis it is important to follow every lead that is provided by stakeholders as there is every chance that someone is working on another efficiency based initiative which could overlap with your project.
Outstanding Issues
None
Follow-On Actions
This project has produced a new process that has the potential to be used by all schools in the university who process PGT deposits. Therefore it is recommended that the Programme Manager, Project Sponsor, Income Section Manager and SSP Manager meet to agree on how an implementation project could be taken forward.
Questions that need to be considered for the follow-on implementation project:
- Is the implementation solely focussed on the CSCE or will it be rolled-out for the wider university?
- The success of the new process relies on the Income Sections initiative to move from ePay to WPM for deposit payments. Therefore the implementation project will need to be a joint effort between the Income Section and Admissions Teams to support the roll-out of WPM also.
- As the project will be formed with a partial remit ro roll-out WPM and has the potential to be used by other colleges, a decision will need to be made as to how the project should be funded.
- SSP will need to be engaged early to understand how this work can be prioritised accordingly and added to their project backlog.
- It was agreed at the final project presentation that the ideal deadline for full implementation of the new process would be for October 2019. However it was also agreed that if possible some of the simpler recommendations (such as making fields reportable via BI) should be delivered by October 2018 so that the Admissions team can experience some benefits sooner.