Completion Report
Project Summary:
Following on from the creation of the new University architecture by the ITS100 project , IS Applications planned to migrate applications databases the new University infrastructure. The old infrastructure is nearing the end of lifespan and the aim is move the application databases to ensure users enjoy the benefits of the new set-up in terms of speed, reliability and failover and to ensure continuity of service.
Success Criteria
| Success Criteria | Delivered y/n | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| A fully functioning APPSLIVE and NEWSLIVE on the new architecture with no degradation in service | Y | |
| The creation of a new APPS2 database as a repository for new applications if deemed required after assessment of the perceived performance issue of the current APPS database. | n/a | Delivered by SCE003 |
| Any functioning or required applications within MISLIVE moved to the new architecture as part of the APPS2 database . MISLIVE to be retired when there are no LIVE schemas. | Y | Descoped |
| Calum Maclean online Catalogue moved to the APPS2 database, and UCD retired. | N | Descoped |
The project did successfully deliver the migration of the NEWS database and the APPS database to the new infrastructure. Both migrations proceeded smoothly and the great majority of applications were released to business ownersd and users with no issues.
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 114 days
Staff Usage Actual: 200 days
Staff Usage Variance: 75%
Other Resource Estimate: 1 days
Other Resource Actual: 1 days
Other Resource Variance: 0%
Explanation for variance:
.
Estimate at TOR vs actual effort at closure,
| Team | Estimate | Actual Effort ( as of 23/7/14) |
|---|---|---|
| Project Services | 19 | 58 |
| Development Technology | 60 | 78 |
| Development | 2 | 5 |
| Applications Management | 33 | 46 |
| Technology Management | 1 | 3 |
| Director's Office | 0 | 2 |
All teams did not deliver within the estimate, in particular project services.
There are several reasons for this variance:
1. Change of project manager required replanning and familiarisation effort on behalf of new PM.
2. Extended duration of project required more reporting etc from PM
3. Late cancellation of project delivery on 9 June required replanning of project.
4. Large number of business owners increased effort required to communicate with business owners and sign off UAT.
5. Original estimate under-estimated effort required to migrate databases. In particular the estimate stated that the effort required to migrate and TEST NEWS and MIS would be less than that required to migrate APPS. It was clear the APPS was going to be the more complex migration because of the volume of differing applications, which is why it was given a higher estimate.
6. Testing has taken a lot of effort from Application Management; to test not just after the migration on Dev and Test but also before to ensure applications were working correctly before any work started.
Key Learning Points:
- Complexity: The complexity of the migration due to the large numbers of applications and scheme supported on the APPS and NEWS databases does not appear to have been grasped by the project team. This complexity led to increased effort required to communicate with business owners in order for UAT signoff and delivery date agreement to be achieved.
- Responsibility of business owners: The project relied on the business owners to communicate fully with their users and report any issues - in particular relating to suitable delivery dates - back to the project team. This resulted in an agreed delivery date for APPS being delayed by several weeks ( when an earlier date might have been achievable).
- Short window for delivery: Delaying delivery of the APPS migration until July meant that the risk to the migration was increased: It had to take place at the same time another project was deploying which affected some of the same applications and the morning after widespread patching had taken place, a suitable devtech resource was not available for the usual post-delivery period and there was a long gap between ASOR and delivery.
- TESTING
- ITS03-113 Online print credit coulsd still be accessed while database down - consider holding page next time
- ITS103-110 - Business owner did not test both parts of system
- ITS103-116 - Business owner did not fully test after MyEd upgrade
Feedback from Programme Manager.
ITS103 suffered from a collective failure by management to deal with a project that was obviously not progressing well against unrealistic planned dates and estimated effort. We hope that should a similar situation arise again, a more robust but supportive intervention would be applied by programme, line and senior management as appropriate.
Outstanding issues:
.