Closure Report
Summary
This project saw the successful upgrade of the FPM system. The updates to the code were deployed on the 16th December, 2019.
Over the duration of the project, we saw testing of four versions before going live: v.15, v.16, v.17 beta and v.17.
The Project Manager would like to acknowledge the role of others for their contribution to the successful delivery:
| Name | Business Area | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Anne Graham | Production Management | Application Services Manager |
| Douglas Stewart | Finance | Senior User/ Business Lead |
| Stephanie McHugh | Finance | Deputy Business Lead |
| John Bannaghan | Finance | Acceptance Tester, Finance |
| Mark Lang | Development Technology | Development Technology Manager |
| Gordon McKenna | Development Technology | Database and Systems Administrator |
| Paul Ranaldi | Production Management | Applications Support Analyst |
| Andrew Stanford | Advanced, 3rd Party | Relationship Manager |
Objectives and Deliverables
| Reference | Description | Priority | Owner | Achieved | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O1 |
To upgrade the current version of Finance Process Manager (FPM) to v2.4.0.17 so that Finance business processes using are aligned with other elements of the eFinancials upgrade (to v5.0) |
Yes | |||
| D1.1 | To perform an interface testing assessment for current systems impacted by FPM v2.4.0.17 | Must | Development Technology | Yes | |
| D1.2 | To perform initial installation of FPM v2.4.0.17 in Dev environment. | Must | Development Technology | Yes | |
|
D1.3 |
To perform initial acceptance testing of FPM v2.4.0.17 in Dev environment. | Must | Finance | Yes | |
| D1.4 | To complete installation of FPM v2.4.0.17 in all environments. | Must | Development Technology | Yes | |
| D1.5 | To develop a system testing report for FPM v.2.4.0.17 | Must | Development Technology | Yes | |
| D1.6 | To produce an integration test plan (interfaces) for FPM v.2.4.0.17 upgrade | Must | Applications Services/Development Technology | Yes | |
| D1.7 | To create a User Acceptance Testing (UAT) report for FPM v2.4.0.17 | Must | Finance | Yes | |
| D1.8 | To create updated application and database server build documents | Must | Development Technology | Yes | |
| D1.9 | To develop an agreed Deployment Checklist for FPM v2.4.0.17 (Applications, Infrastructure and Support) | Must | Applications Services/Technology Management | Yes | |
| D.1.10 | To deploy FPM v2.4.0.17 to Production | Must | Development Technology | Yes | |
| D1.11 | To perform post-deployment support from Deployment date until Project Closure | Must | Development Technology/Finance | Yes | |
| D1.12 | To create a Communications Plan for FPM Upgrade stakeholders | Should | Project Manager | Yes | |
| O2 | To confirm that all significant issues identified during FIN118 Penetration Testing in 2018, which could be mitigated by a FPM software upgrade, are now resolved | Yes | |||
| D2.1 | To perform internal testing of outstanding security issues for FPM that were identified originally in FIN118 Penetration Testing report | Must | Development Technology/Information Security | Yes | |
| D2.2 | To provide acceptance of internal security test assessment during FIN128 | Must | Information Security | Yes | |
| O3 |
To review current software bugs associated with FPM, which reflect post-deployment assessment of eFinancials v5.0 by Finance |
||||
| D3.1 |
To create a UAT acceptance report, which would provide a current status review of the FPM bugs pre-identified at the start of the project. |
Must | Finance | Yes | |
Scope
|
No. |
Description | Project stayed within scope? |
| 1 |
Migration and upgrade of the eFinancials FPM module from the current version v2.0.4.11 to v2.0.4.17 |
Yes |
| 2 | Initial installation and acceptance testing of FPM v2.0.4.17 so that any significant issues with earlier FPM releases can be identified, prior to installation of v2.0.4.17 | Yes |
| 3 | System Testing of all existing interfaces to the FPM module | Yes |
| 4 | User Acceptance Testing (UAT) of v2.0.4.17 changes and FPM-specific bugs identified during post Go-Live testing of eFinancials v5.0 | Yes |
| 5 | The resolution of any significant critical or high priority defects identified during testing | Yes |
| 6 | Re-pointing (where necessary) any FPM-specific module interfaces, based on the conclusions of test results | Yes |
| 7 | Deployment of FPM version v2.0.4.17 | Yes |
Benefits
| No. | Description | Achieved? |
| 1 |
Finance Process Manager (FPM) will be on an initial version (v2.4.0.15), that provides effective mitigation against several medium and low priority security issues identified during 3rd-party penetration testing of eFinancials v5.0 in 2018; |
Yes |
| 2 | Initial acceptance testing of FPM v2.4.0.15 should support early identification of software regression issues prior to installation of v2.4.0.17; | Yes |
| 3 | FPM v2.4.0.17 should address issues identified with v2.4.0.11 by the Finance team, since eFinancials Go-live in November 2018; | Yes |
| 4 | FPM users will use the latest version supported by the supplier (Advanced), so further large FPM upgrades are not anticipated during FY 2019/20; | Yes |
| 5 | v2.4.0.17 of FPM should also enable users to deal more effectively with supplier names which supplier names which contain unsupported characters, and | Yes |
| 6 | Support costs for the overarching eFinancials software suite should be reduced, as FPM (currently at v2.4.0.11) is not aligned fully with the latest version of eFinancials (v5.0) | Yes |
Success Criteria
| No. | Description | Achieved? |
| 1 | Users can access the FPM application using the managed desktop either via Java Webstart or another browser (IE, Firefox, Chrome) | Yes |
| 2 | The functionality and performance of FPM v2.4.0.17 is consistent with that of the earlier versions. | Yes |
| 3 | The FPM application and current system interfaces provide the same functionality as that found with earlier versions. | Yes |
| 4 | The FPM related reports from BI universes provide the same information as that found for earlier versions. | Yes |
| 5 | Any FIN128 project work performed by Advanced is delivered within budget | Yes |
| 6 | There is minimal down-time at go-live | Yes |
| 7 | Current production performance benchmarks for FPM are maintained after go-live | Yes |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 52 days
Staff Usage Actual: 55 days
Staff Usage Variance: 105%
Explanation for variance
The budget did change over the period to accommodate the extended window of User Acceptance Testing. Project delivery remained within the cost parameters for measuring success, albeit 5% over budget.
Eleven project risks were raised over the duration of the project and covered:
- Funding
- Staff availability
- User Acceptance Testing.
Ten change records were raised over the duration of the project, nine of which related to movement in the delivery milestone and associated with these, four budget changes.
Key Learning Points
| Description | Recommendations | Impact |
| Inconsistencies in the build of development, test and production environments. | Standardised documentation used in the build, if not already in place and followed. | The non-running of clear-down scripts meant that problems were encountered in the test environment after User Acceptance Testing which warranted investigation and understanding. This resulted in the reschedule of the go-live date until the problem was fully resolved. |
| Resource constraints within competing projects and those of higher prioritisation. | More forward planning, if possible. | Without wanting to detract from the success of the project, the project duration was greater than that originally anticipated. |
Outstanding Issues
None.