Completion Report

Background

MVM has identified the need for IS to host the Speedwell databases, and migrate existing data in consultation with Speedwell.

Objectives

To work with Speedwell, the software supplier to:

1.    set up Test and Live databases on IS shared server,

2.    migrate data from the existing Speedwell implementations,

3.    agree on-going support requirements for the service.

Were the project goals met?

Yes. Speedwell database is now hosted onto the IS shared server.

Were the project deliverables fully or partially accomplished?

Not all deliverables were achieved due to de-scope. 

Deliverables

1.     To create Test and Live MSSQL databases for each of the 3 MVM assessment organisations (Medicine, Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences) on IS shared server, so that Speedwell software can be used by MVM as per software specifications.

Delivered partially: Test and Live databases were only created for Medicine. The expected contribution from the other two assessment organisations (Veterinary and Biomedical) did not materialise. Veterinary wanted to continue using their local database, and Biomedical Sciences does not actually use a database for the software.

2.     Each database needs to be configured to have appropriate security, access controls, availability and recoverability.

Fully delivered for Medicine.

3.     IS-Apps, working with the supplier, to convert data from the Medical School into a MSSQL format and to migrate data (from Medicine and Vet only) into the new supported database service. Highly desirable requirement.

Not delivered as per de-scope agreed https://www.projects.ed.ac.uk/project/tel002/issues/3

4.     IS to provide testing guidance for the migration phase, but test plan and testing will be done by MVM users.

Fully delivered: Test plan was done as a joint effort by Project Services and MVM. This excluded migration as per agreed de-scope.

5.     Desktop deployment package: IS Apps and IS Desktop Services will package the client software for distribution via “supported desktop”, IS Desktop Services will deploy it.

Delivered partially:  deployment to Test was done by Desktop Services. But due to resource issues and smaller numbers of users in Medicine, the Live deployment was done manually.

6.     Documents to be written: TAD (Technical Architecture Doc, required for build), OD (Operational Doc: describes the common tasks needed to maintain and run the application and cover disaster recovery position).

Fully Delivered.

7.     Confirmation of on-going support position through provision of Service Level Agreement (SLA).

Fully delivered.

Did the project deliver a solution to the problems being addressed? Have the desired operational results been achieved?

 Yes. Medicine is now using the new Speedwell assessment software with the database hosted on IS shared server.

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/information-services/services/learning-technology/assessment/optical-mark-recognition/introduction

Neil McCormick's feedback 27/6: "We used to have some instructions for staff on our VLE but these are probably obsolete and will require updating - so, as David suspected, we don't really have anything for you to link to at present.  I'll put that on the list to do. 

However I can confirm we've now successfully used the new database and Cliniquest system for producing and marking our May OSCEs and all went very well."

Were additional results achieved besides the original success criteria? Were there any unforeseen benefits delivered by this project?

Yes.  The new version of the software was also installed.

Does the Project Sponsor agree that this project can be closed at this time? Yes

Cost Summary

Project Manager's Commentary on Reasons For Variance From Plans

The project came under budget due to the migration being de-scoped, and as a consequence fewer days were required from Dev Tech. However the project needed more involvement from the project manager due to the admin time to manage the delay of the new version release, and the issue met with trying to package and deploy the software via Desktop Services.

The long delay in the delivery date was caused by the delay by Speedwell to release the new software version. It was originally expected in October 12, but was only released in February 13.

Delays were managed by Project Issues Log: https://www.projects.ed.ac.uk/project/tel002/issues

Key Learning Points

1.     What went well?

The main objective to provide Medicine with a reliable and robust database was achieved.

Riky’’s database work was thorough and efficient. He kept the project team informed on all the progress in a timely manner.

2.     What didn't go so well?

Unfortunately there was a dependency on the release of the new version of one of the three softwares. The delay was caused by Speedwell the supplier in releasing the new version. This explains the variance in the delivery date.

3.     If you had a project like this again, what would you improve?

Factor the external risk caused by the software release delay book other provisional dates for testing/deployment.

Outstanding Issues

I130530-0149 UniDesk Call to test Speedwell access to the new database

Review Contributors

-       Closure questionnaire received from Riky Harris

-       Completion report sent to Neil McCormick, David Williamson, David Smyth- No comments received.