Closure Review
Project Summary:
Objective and deliverables
Were the project goals met? Yes -The scope of this project was to deliver a Path service to 3 schools.
Were the project deliverables fully or partially accomplished? Fully
The agreed objectives/deliverables were all met:
| Description | Completion/comments |
| Rollout a PATH service in the three Schools of Physics, Engineering and Mathematics to be ready for the start of Sept 13 freshers week | Delivered end August 2013 |
| Deliver training and support to Academic and Administrator roles, and ensure adequate support arrangements are in place for the three Schools. | Delivered end August 2013 |
| The PATH system is EASE authenticated, and the data feed comes from EUCLID. | Delivered end Nov 2013 |
| Move the service onto IS infrastructure, with appropriate changes to make it robust in a multi school setting. | Delivered end Nov 2013. Due to budget constraints, it was agreed to deliver the Path Service to the IS web hosting for this research project. |
| Develop new features according to a prioritised product backlog | Delivered early Dec 2013 |
| Provide on going support once delivered as a service | Delivered. Support is being done by both developers, and handover completed with Apps Management |
| Produce a report highlighting the value of the PATH service to the University, and the future costing | Not delivered. It was agreed to remove it as a deliverable. |
| Agree long term plan for Path Service | Delivered. Agreed Path would fit in with PCIM and that a new in year project for further enhancements for 13/14 would start
|
Did the project deliver a solution to the problems being addressed? Yes- - Students in the three Schools started using the Path service to choose courses at the start of each semester, with a much more flexible tool,. The tighter integration to the DRPS guidelines allowed them to make valid choices. They were able to feedback on courses at the end of semester 1. - Lecturing staff/Personal Tutors use Path to add additional course information. They have access to a more granular feedback to allow them to better analyse how they are doing and what aspects of their course delivery they need to improve. - Administrator can easily update the system with course information when required. - Path software is running on a supported IS Applications infrastructure. - Schools/Colleges are willing to get the Path service can be rolled out to a wider audience. Does the Project Sponsor agree that this project can be closed at this time? Yes
| ||||||||||||
Cost Summary
Project Manager's Commentary on Reasons For Variance From Plans Budget exceeded due to extra effort required after go live for
This was managed by issue https://www.projects.ed.ac.uk/project/sce001/issues/5 Details of the enhancements are in https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/Path/Enhancement+ideas | ||||||||||||
Key Learning PointsConsider in particular: 1. What went well? All objectives were addressed. Following the launch of PATH we've had some great feedback from staff and student. Some of the staff feedback:
Some students feedback :
-We were unable to get more feedback from students. The meetings we had planned with students to get their feedback had to be cancelled as we had to delay the go live by one week, meaning we passed the end of the term. The survey we had also planned in January conflicted with the national student survey. 3. If you had a project like this again, what would you improve? n/a Outstanding Issuesn/a Review ContributorsPaul Horrocks Greg Giltrow-Tyller Greg Carter Simon Marsden Suran Perera |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 200 days
Staff Usage Actual: 217 days
Staff Usage Variance: 9%
Other Resource Estimate: 0 days
Other Resource Actual: 0 days
Other Resource Variance: 0%
Explanation for variance:
.
Key Learning Points:
.
Outstanding issues:
.