Closure Report
Project Summary
This project was established to procure a supplier to partner with Website and Communications on building a new Web Publishing Platform. The original scope was to:
- Gather and document the high-level requirements for a new Website Publishing Platform and for our partnership with the eventual successful bidder.
- Decide on the best procurement strategy and follow this approach through to conclusion of a signed contract ready for implementation.
- Plan high-level activities for product development, deployment and content transition from EdWeb to the new platform before November 2021, to be delivered by a separate implementation project.
The project delivered on the above scope. The deadline of November 2021 was extended to November 2022, because Drupal 7 end-of-life was pushed back to that date.
Objectives and Deliverables Achieved
All necessary objectives and deliverables were achieved.
| Code | Task | Priority | Primary owner(s) | Met? | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O1 |
Gather high-level requirements for the new web publishing platform |
Must | Yes | We produced a bespoke question set focused on procuring a supplier, rather than a product. | |
| D1.1 |
Document high-level requirements for use in the ITT covering these categories:
|
WAC | Yes | In the end, we combined the Implementation and training and Company categories into one, and added a Cost Efficiencies category, per Procurement. We also developed a set of 14 use cases that each bidder addressed in their presentation. | |
| D1.2 |
Technical investigation on best approach to moving the current EdWeb (Drupal 7) to the new cloud hosting platform (no changes to front end or CMS) |
WAC / IS Apps |
No | We determined that the winning bidder is generally capable of hosting a Drupal 7 instance, but decided that discussing this level of detail was not practical or feasible during the bidding process. We will achieve this deliverable during Phase 1 of the implementation project. | |
| D1.3 | Technical investigation on best approach to transitioning current EdWeb content (Drupal 7) to the new CMS (Drupal 8/9) | WAC | No | We discussed our content migration needs with the bidders, but decided that discussing this level of detail was not practical or feasible during the bidding process. We will achieve this deliverable during Phase 1 of the implementation project. | |
| O2 |
Procure a supplier to help ISG provide a University-wide web publishing platform that meets the business requirements |
Must | Yes | ||
| D2.1 |
Prepare and publish relevant procurement documents (PIN, ESPD, ITT) in appropriate channels |
Procurement |
Yes | ||
| D2.2 |
Complete tender and evaluation process |
Procurement |
Yes | ||
| D2.3 |
Choose a supplier, award the contract and complete contract negotiations |
Procurement |
Yes | ||
| O3 | Create a high-level plan for product development, migration and content transition | Must | Yes | The implementation project will be approached in phases, with Phase 1 running from April - July 2021 and Phase 2 from August 2021 - November 2022. The high-level Phase 1 plan was approved by the Project Board on 15 March 2021; the Phase 2 plan is dependent on securing additional budget for next academic year. | |
| D3.1 |
General timeline for implementation project |
WAC | Yes | ||
| D3.2 |
Major requirements (physical, technical and process) and dependencies relevant to commencing the implementation project |
WAC | Yes |
Analysis of Resource Usage
IS Apps staff
IS Apps Staff Usage Estimate: 56 days
IS Apps Staff Usage Actual: 36 days
Staff outside of IS Apps (these were not estimated at the outset)
WAC Staff: 385 days
Other Staff: 109 days (includes Procurement, Legal and representatives from around the University)
Explanation for Variance
n/a
Outcome
We signed a contract with the winning bidder, Manifesto, on Thursday 6th May, 2021. This was several months later than planned, as many stages of the procurement process took longer than anticipated (see key learning points below). The process of writing the supplier question set and evaluating the bids went very smoothly and we successfully collaborated with many teams around the University on these aspects of the project, setting up a partnership approach that will continue into the implementation project.
Relevant documents:
- Contract sign-off checklist
- Platform as a Service Terms and Conditions
- Outline of Project Plan for Phase 1 (for implementation project)
- Project Brief (for implementation project)
Key Learning Points
| Issue | Key Learning Point |
|---|---|
| Procurement regulations were extremely complex and not well-understood. Procurement colleagues made assumptions about the team's knowledge of the regulations and processes, which led to confusion, misalignment and surprises throughout the process, causing delays. | Spend time with senior procurement colleagues at the outset and throughout the project to ensure understanding of the entire procedure and the impact of the chosen procurement approach. |
| Needed to write a question set from scratch, focused on procuring a supplier, rather than a product. | The time was well-spent and future supplier procurement projects can benefit from the question set we developed. |
| Procurement rules prohibited us from specifying the University's preferred technology (Drupal), which required an oblique approach to writing requirements, making a complex process even less straight-forward. This also meant non-Drupal suppliers could potentially score well, risking a shift away from Drupal to a new technology, which would have had significant resource/cost implications for the University. | Discuss options with senior management, digital strategy teams and others that the University needs to commit to strategic technologies to make the most of its investments. |
| Needed to write Platform as a Service Terms and Conditions from scratch; took nearly five months to draft and approve, using an outside legal firm. | The time estimate for this activity was optimistic, but future PaaS projects can benefit from the T&Cs we developed. |
| Recommendation Report and contract clarification process took more than four months, because the winning bidder had many questions not raised during the bidding process. | Procurement could improve the communication with bidders to highlight things that are commonly misunderstood, e.g. that the T&Cs and fee schedule are binding upon bid submission. |
| Hosting infrastructure was difficult for bidders to price, because the requirements for the new system need to be more fully understood before the hosting specifications can be finalised (to be done during Phase 1 discovery). |
The contract allows for finalising the hosting environment during Phase 1, but confirming that our hosting budget would be sufficient stretched out the contract discussions even longer. In hindsight, this probably should have been two separate procurements, one for the supplier and one for the hosting platform. |
| Overall procurement timeline was more than 18 months, making the start of implementation approx. 10 months later than originally anticipated. This project included some unique aspects, as mentioned above, but the timeline is not feasible for future projects. If, for example, we wanted to replace the current solution after the initial 3-year contract term, we would need to begin another procurement within 18 months' time (so before we even finish the project), taking resources away from implementation to handle the new procurement. | Open discussions with Procurement about ways to reduce the time involved. |
Outstanding Issues
There are no outstanding issues.
This report was prepared by Sheri Harrison, who has since left the University. Questions should be directed to Stratos Filalithis and Zak Stark.