Closure Report

Project Summary

The stated objectives for this project were:

 

No.

Description

Objective Met? 

O1

 Decide on the most appropriate procurement strategy for this project

Yes

O2

Identifying all relevant stakeholders and consulting them about their business requirements.

Yes

O3 Collate all appropriate requirements into a correctly formatted set of documents Yes
O4 Prepare and issue an invitation to tender (ITT) Yes
O5 Evaluate the ITT responses that meet the acceptance criteria for consideration Yes
O6 Select/appoint the supplier who best meets our scoring criteria Yes
O7 Conduct contractual negotiations that permit delivery of the new service Yes

 

In the project brief, the following deliverables were identified:

 

No.

Description

Delivered? 

D1

A procurement strategy that will define the procurement journey and provide a suitable outline for the procurement

Yes

D2

A complete list of all relevant stakeholders to be consulted about their requirements

Yes

D3

A requirements definition that entabulates all appropriate functional and non-functional requirements for the new service    Yes

D4

An Invitation To Tender underpinned by the requirements definition and the procurement strategy listed above

Yes

D5 A summary report on the ITTs that have been scored and judged according to the procurement strategy Yes
D6 A recommendation on which solution offers the best value for the University and each of the stakeholder groups Yes
D7 A contract award to the successful supplier Yes
D8 Agreement on arrangements for delivery of chosen solution Yes
D9 Implementation plans for deploying the new service for the identified user community Yes
D10 All relevant support and maintenance arrangements Yes

 

All of the objectives and deliverables have been achieved. Some of the deliverables are available as part of the final contract/SaaS agreement that was signed in December, or through the project Sharepoint site, which is managed by our business partners on the project. Other parts of the documentation (relating to the above deliverables) is also available through our colleagues in Procurement Services.

 

Analysis of Resource Usage:

Staff Usage Estimate: 50 days

Staff Usage Actual: 39.5 days

Staff Usage Variance: -21%

Other Resource Estimate: n/a

Other Resource Actual: n/a

Other Resource Variance: n/a

 

 

Explanation for variance:

 

Duration

There have been two revisions to the Procurement milestone, with both attributable to the procurement/contract negotiations taking longer than expected. This milestone was first adjusted from the original date of 03/10/17 to 03/11/17 (see issue 2). Then, the procurement sign-off was pushed back again, for the same reason, from 03/11/17 to 27/11/17 (see issue 3). The contract was finally signed off in the first week of December.

These revisions also meant that the project closure sign-off was pushed back on these occasions, and this was also delayed from its last agreed date in mid-December because of the PM's workload and leave, meaning that the Closure is now being submitted for approval. This last delay is recorded in Issue 5.

Analysis of effort

Stage/Task Estimate (days) Actual       Difference     
Initiation 2.5 2.5 0
Planning 2 2 0
Project Management 13 10.5 (2.5)
QA 5.5 3 (2.5)
Business Analysis 10 3 (7)
Procurement 14 16.5 2.5
Closure 1 1 0
Unplanned 2 1 (1)
Total 50 39.5 (10.5)

 

The original estimate for the project was for 50 days, with 25 days in 2016-17 and 25 days in 2017-18. However, during the procurement phase it became obvious that not all of the estimated effort would be required, and so the estimate to complete was reduced by a total of 12 days to a new estimated total of 38 days. This was recorded via Issue 1 at the end of September. However, because the final agreement on the contract ended up taking several weeks longer than expected, some additional time has been used that has caused the eventual total to be 39.5 days. This extra effort is recorded in Issue 6.

 

Scope Changes:

There have been no scope changes

 

Key Learning Points

Particular risks, at the start of the project, were the lack of an example of a previous ITT (for this type of product) that might be used as a template, but nothing was available, so the project team had to develop a suitable solution. There was also a risk that, despite knowledge of the market, our requirements might contain something that no supplier could provide. This did not prove to be the case in the end.

Finally, there was a risk that the IS Apps project could grow beyond its original conception as a mirror project, providing support and guidance to our business partners: this proved unfounded and the partnership has worked well.

Particular comments from our partners on the project are listed here:

  • SaaS agreement template – it became apparent over the course of the negotiation that the version we had been given was not the most up to date or appropriate. It included errors which were highlighted both internally and externally; for example, questioning of wording and changes to clauses were being suggested by UoE staff that concerned the template itself.
  • The DPA – this was not included within the original documentation that was sent to the supplier for review. This resulted in unnecessary confusion and three weeks delay.
  • It was difficult to ensure adequate version control across Legal, Procurement, IS and project stakeholders, as each was required to maintain their own version of documentation in their separate locations.
  • We received excellent support from the legal team and from Joanne MacConnell in particular, who was perceptive, responsive and ever patient.
  • Staff and priority changes within procurement affected the project at different points and meant there was not as much continuity or capacity as we may have expected. As a result, there were times when the guidance we received lacked full understanding of the context.
  • Perhaps more unusual for a project like this to be led by the business rather than IS, and understandable therefore that there are times when it might seem disjointed. But thanks to colleagues on all sides for working through problematic moments and pulling together to deliver an effective solution.

Outstanding Issues

There are no outstanding issues.

 

Project Info

Project
Student Alumni Platform Procurement (USG005)
Code
USG005
Programme
USG Portfolio Projects (OTHUSG)
Management Office
ISG PMO
Project Manager
David Watters
Project Sponsor
Grant Spence
Current Stage
Close
Status
Closed
Start Date
27-Apr-2017
Planning Date
n/a
Delivery Date
n/a
Close Date
19-Jan-2018
Programme Priority
2
Overall Priority
Normal
Category
Discretionary