Closure Report
Project Summary
A previous piece of Business Analysis conducted by IS Apps (ISG012 Sept 2018) highlighted the inefficiencies in the overall Library digitisation process and the requirement to rationalise the processes, storage and provision of digitised content.
From the recommendations in ISG012 this project was to produce an options appraisal to consider what solutions might be available to support the end to end process from ordering of digitisation to provision of digitised items to students, academics and the public.
This project undertook the options appraisal to determine the best way forward, it identified and analysed possible/potential systems to fulfil the different processes and produced high level requirements for measurement of the systems.
The final report for the project was presented to the Digital Library Programme Board on 25 October
Objectives & Deliverables
The deliverables were prioritised using the MoSCoW prioritisation method
M=Must Have; S=Should Have; C=Could Have; W=Want
|
Ref |
Description |
|
Delivered? |
Reason for not delivering |
Output |
|
O1 |
To identify measurement to compare systems |
|
Yes |
|
|
|
O1D1 |
Produce requirements as measurement to compare system |
M |
Yes |
|
|
|
O1D2 |
Identify possible / potential systems to investigate
|
M |
Yes |
|
Initial DAMS investigation DLIB001-dams-investigation.docx Individual documents on products held in Completed system identification templates Comparison spreadsheet - compares the products demonstrated DLIB001-Report_Matrix.xlsx Supplier Contact details (for procurement) DLIB001 demonstration list.xlsx |
|
O2 |
To produce options appraisal |
|
Yes |
|
|
|
O2D1 |
Analysis and options appraisal conducted |
M |
Yes |
|
Final report DLIB001 Final report.docx This report was signed off by the Digital Library Programme Board on 25 Oct 19 |
|
O2D2 |
Recommendations from the options appraisal |
M |
Yes |
|
Success Criteria
|
Success Criteria as in Project Brief |
Delivered |
How delivered |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
An options appraisal and recommendations to support a decision for an improved digitisation solution |
Yes |
|
Benefits
The project will identify the systems that will improve the digitisation processes in the Library. If the recommendations are implemented in future projects the improvements would:
|
Benefit as stated in project brief |
Delivered |
|---|---|
|
Improve the speed of delivery from image capture to online availability |
These benefits will be realised when new systems are in place |
|
Allow monitoring of the workflows and enable managers to identify what tasks have been completed and are still to be completed |
|
|
Dashboard providing overview of progress |
|
|
Help bottlenecks/issues be identified |
|
|
Assist with the delivery of management information to allow for estimation of future digitisation projects |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 50 days
Staff Usage Actual: 49days
Staff Usage Variance:-2%
Explanation for variance
Cost
|
Project Brief cost |
50d |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Changes to costs |
No changes |
|
|
Actual Cost |
49d |
|
LUC Business lead time = 17.5d
Time
|
Major Milestones |
Project Brief date |
Actual Date |
Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Planning |
25-Jan-19 |
24-Jan-19 |
|
|
Delivery - Options Appraisal |
01-Apr-19 |
19-Aug-19 |
See PIN notice explanation below |
|
Delivery review |
26-Apr-19 |
15-Oct-19 |
See PIN notice explanation below. Plus additional sign off brought in on 21/08 delaying the review by another 3 weeks to accommodate them. This was revised to 4 September 19. Then a confusion over processes delayed the report further plus changes to the report had to be accommodated |
|
Programme board approval |
14-May-19 |
25-Oct-19 |
Due to delays missed the May Board. Next available Board for submitting document was 25 Oct greed project could be closed without this milestone – Project sponsor to take to programme board outside of project |
|
Close |
21-May-19 |
31-Oct-19 |
Due to delays noted above |
Issues
PIN process
The project team did market and document analyses of systems that were available but felt they needed more information and asked for demonstrations of the system. We contacted Procurement to see what was possible and they instigated a PIN (Prior Information notice) process (under Procurements Market Engagement strategy) for us which brought in 19 notes of interest. We supplied high level requirements to the interested parties and this reduced the number who wanted to demo to 7. Along with the 6 suppliers identified by project team during market analysis we had 13 demonstrations from 3-29 July 2019 (plus one supplier we were interested in demo’ed separately in September)
The project was extended to take into account the PIN process but we had to wait until replies to the PIN notice were received before we could plan the demonstrations. With the extra time on the PIN process and the physical demos the project was extended by 4 months.
Key Learning Points
- The PIN process was completely unknown to the project team so was not factored into timescales or costs in planning. Business lead setup and executed the supplier demonstrations taking the cost outside of the project. Project manager and business lead should investigate if there are any training opportunities here regarding the procurement process.
Outstanding issues
- No outstanding issues
Next Steps
- The final report was approved by the Digital Library Board on 25 Oct 19.
- From this approval Carla Arton, L&UC Digitisation and Projects Manager, will be considering the outcomes of the project and will be reviewing what services the Library should be offering in relation to digitisation and thereafter will discuss with the Library’s senior management team as to what their service model should be.