Completion Report
Project Summary:
The stated deliverables for this project were:
D1. A replacement bookable rooms website which is maintained in line with golden copy room data.
D2. Changes to the golden copy data necessary to complete D1
D3. Definition and documentation of the processes necessary to populate and support the replacement site.
D4. Mechanism to display the replacement site through the existing Timetabling Unit page.
The above have all been delivered, and the replacement website can be viewed here: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/student-administration/timetabling/bookable-rooms
There were no stated objectives in the project brief.
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 50 days
Staff Usage Actual: 52 days
Staff Usage Variance: 4%
Other Resource Estimate: 0 days
Other Resource Actual: 0 days
Other Resource Variance: 0%
Explanation for variance:
Effort
The original estimated effort for this project was 50 days. This figure was based on 40 days effort for Service Management and 10 days effort across the remainder of IS Applications. However, this was first modified in June 2013 (issue 4) when it was decided to move away from a solution that used SOA architecture to one that was to be developed in ColdFusion. This increased the IS Applications (non-Service Management) time to 20 days, and reduced the Service Management estimate to 30 days. There was another change to the budget in October 2013 (issue 11) with a share of the 'split' being assigned, mainly, to Development Services to build the ColdFusion data feed. One final amendment to the budget was made via a request for extra effort at the beginning of April 2014 (issue 22) for three extra days that were needed to complete the project. The estimates and actual effort across the different teams can be seen in the following table:
| Team | Original Estimate | Revision 1 (June 2013) | Revision 2 (Oct 2013) | Revision 3 (Apr 2014) | Actual |
| Project Services | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| Software Development | 4 | 10 | 15 | 16 | 16 |
| Development Technology | 2 | 2 | 3 | 6 | |
| Applications Management | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Technology Management | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Sub-total | 10 | 20 | 25 | 28 | 28 |
| Service Management | 40 | 30 | 25 | 25 | 24 |
| Total | 50 | 50 | 50 | 53 | 52 |
The final figure for effort used was, overall, an increase of 2 days or 4% above the figure that was proposed at the beginning of the project, albeit with a bit of 'shifting around' as the solution was modified and a proportion of the planned effort assigned to Development Services instead of Service Management. However, the project has completed with the effort used fairly close to its original budget.
The Timetabling Unit have raised the question of effort from the budget as a total of 5 days (for Service Management) were earmarked for any post-deployment fixes or enhancements that might be identified. However, this effort has ended up being used across the latter stages of the project (Acceptance; Deployment; some Unplanned Activity) totalling 4 days of the 5. The extra effort was necessary as the project duration was extended and the actual effort used, across testing and addressing the post-build problems, was stretched beyond the estimated figures.
Milestones
While the effort used on this project did not show any great overall increase, the final duration went on beyond the original projection . The project brief was started in January 2013, and has delivered 15 months later; ten months after its original deployment date. It is fair to say that our business partners have been very frustrated by this pace, especially given the scale of the project and their understanding that the work being done was relatively straightforward. The project issue log lists the various issues that have bedevilled the project and caused the delays to its final delivery. These can be boiled down to the build of the data feed being pushed back because of the change in approach (from SOA to ColdFusion; noted above) and the build of the replacement website being put off because of resource conflicts with higher priority work (Wiki upgrade; ECA website) for our colleagues in the Web Integration Team. Once the feed and the website were both available for testing in early 2014, there were further hold-ups because of problems with the Timetabling TEST infrastructure, and with the XML output from the feed.
Key Learning Points:
This project was classified as small because of the anticipated effort but is an example of such a project being 'lost' among higher priority work, and, in this case, its duration being extended until our business partners have become exasperated by the interruptions to the progress of the project. The original project manager (up to January 2014) highlighted the delays, and concerns about these, via the issue log, and the project priority was modified in September 2013, but none of this resulted in the project being able to receive more attention. There is perhaps a lesson to be learnt about when to identify projects that are at risk of 'drifting' and ensuring that they are addressed.
Feedback from one of the project stakeholders suggests that it is inevitable that a project with a low priority will be treated as such, especially when larger projects that have a much higher priority come along, and that such a scenario would benefit from having someone (other than the project manager?) chasing things to get them done. Another point was made about including everyone involved in a project to meet up regularly so that all participants are aware of what is going on.
The Timetabling Unit made the point that while awaiting delivery of the new website they were unable to update information on bookable rooms for a lengthy period, and this created a risk to their reputation as the providers of primary information on rooms available to users of their booking service.
Outstanding issues:
There are no outstanding issues.