Closure Review
Project Summary:
Project Review
The project was initially started as SRA stated that the LEAPS database resided on an older PC which was not automatically backed up. The initial analysis found that the data resided on a shared drive that was secure and backed up, so the question was raised on whether the project should continue. As the initial analysis also identified that the PC that FileMaker was installed on could only allow one person access at a time (following an upgrade), and this meant the web access and the sharing facility for administrators to access the LEAPS data did not work, it was concluded that the project should continue with an amended scope. The scope was changed to identify a more secure and appropriate method of allowing multiple Admissions Officers the ability to securely update the LEAPS data. A number of options were discussed, and the option agreed was to install FileMaker Server onto a virtual server that would host the LEAPS database, and use a combination of FileMaker Pro and WebDirect to access the data.
FileMaker is not a supported application within the University. The project and business therefore discussed the option of hiring a FileMaker consultant to undertake the work. Funding for this was not approved, so the project sponsor reviewed alternative funding options from other projects. However resource was found in ITI infrastructure from someone who had previous FileMaker experience, and it was agreed that ITI could build the virtual server, install a trial version FileMaker Server and complete the setup for SRA to run. SRA had indicated that a deployment date in June 2016 would be best for them, so the trial version was installed at the end of April 2016 and UAT began. However it was found that while FileMaker Server administration could be completed on the server, connecting to FileMaker Server from FileMaker Pro on the business user's PC did not work as the version of FileMaker was out of date. Annual leave, a busy period and a support call that took time to get FileMaker Pro upgraded meant the trial version expired before UAT could be completed.
After meeting with the project sponsor to discuss licence costs and getting FileMaker Pro upgraded, it was announced that the business lead went on secondment from December 2016 until July 2017. There was a window in February 2017 where they would return and carry out UAT, so resource was again sought to install a new trial version of FileMaker Server. This time ITI were not able to do this and it was picked up by Dev Tech. UAT found some issues which were reviewed by Service Management and identified as UI design with using the web client interface and could not be changed. Service Management advised using the Windows install of FileMaker Pro to get a non-compromised experience of FileMaker. FileMaker Server came with ten concurrent user licences, so all those that needed full functionality are able to install FileMaker Pro, but limited to ten connections at a time.
Completing the TAD proved harder than expected as ITI passed this task to Dev Tech, however Dev Tech were not keen to complete this as they did not build the infrastructure as they normally would.
Service Management agreed to take over the FileMaker set up and change-over as they had experience in this field - this was key as the project was stalling due to lack of FileMaker experience and support within the University. One of the key features now is, instead of using the same username and password, access is now managed using Active Directory. This negates the need for administering users on Filemaker Server, and enhances security from the original setup.
Further UAT of the completed set up was taken on by the original business user once she returned from secondment and annual leave on w/c 10/07/17, and this was signed off with no issues.
Objectives
| Objective | Achieved? | |
| O.1 | Data is held securely and backed up regularly | Y |
| O.2 | Data can be accessed by SRA securely by using WebDirect or FileMaker Pro to manipulate data on FileMaker Server | Y |
Deliverables
| Deliverable | Achieved? | |
| D.1 | Filemaker Server is installed on a suitable server along with the database. | Y |
| D.2 | Client machines will then use FileMaker WebDirect to access the data in a web browser and update the data | Y |
| D.3 |
Individual user accounts will be created to allow a more secure structure rather than having one username and password for all. * Note - The security set up has been enhanced to use Active Directory which is bound to Filemaker Server to manage access to the data instead of administering a list of users. |
Y * |
| D.4 | SLA in place | Y |
Scope
The original scope was to migrate the LEAPS database from a desktop to a location that would provide security and the backups that are required. The scope changed at the very start of the project when three options were proposed, and the one that was agreed was to install FileMaker Server as a central point to hold the database and have secure connections using WebDirect or FileMaker Pro Windows applications for accessing the data. The scope did not alter subsequently.
Schedule
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 57 days
Staff Usage Actual: 60 days
Staff Usage Variance: 5%
Explanation for variance:
The explanation for the overspend is purely due to the length of time the project has been running. Whilst no scope changes occurred mid project, and no issues occurred that required extra budget to resolve. The length of time this project has been running is down to three factors:
- FileMaker is an unsupported application: lack of FileMaker support and resource within the University to put this in place and to call on to fix any issues.
- As there was only one business lead that could oversee the changeover, testing, decision making, any annual leave or busy periods contributed to the length of time the project was running.
- Lead business user's secondment from December 2016 to July 2017, with no alternative empowered to test and sign off.
Key Learning Points:
Issue: It was known at the start that there was limited Filemaker experience within the University, and this was a non-supported product. whilst we were able to get resource to put things in place, any further updates or fixes along the route were more difficult to resource.
Learning point: It may have been prudent to employ the services of a Filemaker consultant to come in for a few days and work with the business during the set up and UAT. This would have completed and closed the project sooner.
Issue: Client machines were not running the latest version of FileMaker Pro to allow them to connect to FileMaker Server. The trial version of FileMaker server was installed, then we found that the FileMaker clients would not connect. This resulted in partial UAT and the trial version expiring before the clients could be updated.
Learning point: Check compatibility between applications before an upgrade, and put in place the necessary actions beforehand.
Issue: Completion of the TAD took significant time and effort to resolve, as ITI built the infrastructure but do not normally document it in a TAD. Dev Tech did complete the TAD, this was over 12 months after the initial discussions. (##note still not complete as of 19-Jul-17)
Learning point: For such projects where the application is unsupported by the University, and best efforts are being made to enable it to work with different people taking on tasks, the normal processes do not support speedy resolution due to questions of ownership and responsibility that must be resolved before the task can be completed.
Outstanding issues:
No outstanding issues, however the task remains with SRA to roll this out to the business. This will be carried out at a later stage as agreed with the business lead.