Closure Report
Project Summary
Overview
As a result of the increase in requests for information made under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Freedom of Information (FOI) and Environmental Information Requests (EIR) the present Request Handling Tool is no longer fit for purpose. The team is currently using a number workarounds to continue to monitor and manage requests but this is inefficient and is leading to an increased burden on staff.
It is estimated that the number of incoming requests for the present year will increase to over 700 with this expected to rise by 50% over the next 5 years. The purpose of the project was to analyse and document Records Managements requirements for a replacement request planning and management tool. These requirements were then used to provide the basis for investigating available options, both internal and external, and provide a recommendation for the most appropriate approach to the replacement of the existing request management process.
The project analysed the present process and in conjunction with Records Management drew up an extensive list of requirements for a replacement system. The requirements were prioritised using the MoSCoW prioritisation process. Due to the number of requirements identified it was agreed that possible solutions should only be estimated against those requirements identified as either Must or Should have.
Estimates regarding indicative costs, timescales and resource were requested from subject matter experts for the following internal options:
- SharePoint.
- UniDesk.
- CRM (Customer Relationship Management Tool).
- In-house purpose built solution using Django with a MySQL database.
Provisional costs and timescales were also investigated with regards suitable 3rd party solutions provided via the Government G-Cloud Digital Marketplace.
The responses to these requests were collated in the STU263 Options Appraisal Paper, along with a recommendation regarding the most suitable course of action. This paper was reviewed by Records Management and project stakeholders prior to an options appraisal meeting held on 14/02/2019. This meeting was attended by Records Management to assess the various options . At this meeting the various proposals were considered and their strengths and weaknesses discussed. The outcome of the appraisal meeting was that Records Management agreed with the report recommendation that the most suitable course of action was the procurement of a 3rd party solution purchased via the Government G-Cloud Digital Marketplace. This would provide the most economic solution and would avoid the risks associated with carrying out a large internal development project although this will require Records Management to revise their processes to be in step with the selected new product.
The work to evaluate the various G-Cloud FOI management tool offerings and the procurement and implementation of the preferred solution are out of scope of this project and instead will be handled by the newly initiated project STU265 - G-Cloud replacement of FOI Request planning tool .
Project Scope from Brief:
|
No. |
Description |
Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
S1 |
Business analysis to identify the as-is processes and document and prioritise the business requirements. |
Delivered |
|
S2 |
Appraisal of existing in-house solutions that may be suitable. |
Delivered |
| S3 | Market research to assist in considering potential procurement approaches. | Delivered |
| S4 | Production of options appraisal detailing: Costs, Timescales, Resource requirements and Requirements traceability matrix. | Delivered |
Objectives & Deliverables from Brief:
|
O1 |
To understand the compliance processes and requirements to enable the Records Management Team to effectively manage and monitor the University’s responses to information requests. |
Priority |
Comments |
|
D1.1 |
Agreed set of prioritised business requirements. |
MUST |
Delivered |
|
D1.2 |
Agreed set of security requirements |
MUST |
Delivered |
|
O2 |
To evaluate the options available that could meet the defined business requirements and make recommendation on way forward. |
|
|
|
D2.1 |
Options paper that considers both internal and external solutions and presents the findings in terms of requirements fitness, cost and timescales for implementation. |
MUST |
Delivered |
|
D2.2 |
Requirements Traceability Matrix |
SHOULD |
Delivered |
Success Criteria from Brief:
|
Deliverable Reference |
Description |
Achieved |
|
D1.1 |
Agreed set of prioritised business requirements |
Yes |
|
D1.2 |
Agreed set of technical, security and accessibility requirements |
Yes |
|
D2.1 |
Options paper that considers both internal and external solutions and presents the findings in terms of requirements fitness, cost and timescales for implementation. |
Yes |
|
D2.2 |
Requirements Traceability Matrix |
Partial - Matrix response provided for 2 of the 4 internal options. Remaining 2 providers not in a position to supply a response. |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 67 days
Staff Usage Actual: 116 days
Staff Usage Variance: 173%
Explanation for variance
Initial project estimates were based upon the expectation that there would be a relatively high level analysis of the existing system that would indicate the most appropriate course of action. As the project progressed it became clear that in order to ensure the internal subject matter experts (SMEs) would be able to provide an accurate estimate regarding their ability to develop a replacement product and the time this would take that a more in depth degree of analysis was required. It also became clear that in order to provide a complete replacement system the various workaround systems that had evolved over time to address related requests such as Complaints, Data Protection Breaches and Enquires would also need to be included in the Business Requirements Document (BRD). Not only did this mean that the initial BRD took longer than expected to complete but this had a significant impact on reviewing the requirements, SMEs ability to respond to the requirements and the creation and review of the options appraisal paper.
Key Learning Points
Scope of analysis phase was far greater than initially expected. Various workarounds used to manage Complaints, Data Protection Breaches and Enquires added to the scope of the analysis phase. These are fundamental components of a replacement system and had to be included in the analysis of requirements.
Working with the Records Management Team (RMT) has gone very smoothly. Key tasks with regards requirements capture, review and prioritisation were dependent upon considerable effort from the RMT. By providing sufficient lead time for the RMT to schedule their workload they were able to complete the required tasks in a timely fashion.
Procurement via the G-Cloud is a learning experience. Regular contact with Procurement has assisted in the initial process to engage with the Government G-Cloud and identify suitable approved FOI, SAR, EIR and GDPR request management products.
Outstanding Issues
There are no outstanding issues. All actions with regards the procurement and installation of the replacement of the information request planning monitor tool are within the scope of the follow on project STU265 - G-Cloud replacement of FOI Request planning tool .