Completion Report
Project Summary
The WebPA (Web Peer Assessment) tool is used to generate peer moderated marks for group work. The WebPA tool was introduced at Edinburgh via 2 JISC funded projects that sought to prove LTI integration with the VLE. The number of courses using the tool was modest, though the tool has been important to those courses using it. Over the last 2 years usage of the tool has expanded, and it is now under consideration for use by the Undergraduate Medical programme.
This project has moved WebPA from its current hosting environment (CHOST) to a more managed LAMP environment, bringing it under the application management and change control processes provided by IS Apps Production Management, benefitting from improved monitoring, longer backups, and a larger pool of colleagues who can assist in supporting it.
WebPA is an open source tool developed by Loughborough University. It is a PHP application that relies on a MySQL database and is not EASE authenticated – the only access to the tool for users is via an LTI connection from the Learn or Moodle VLEs. No changes were required to this within this project.
Objectives & Deliverables
|
No |
Description |
Delivered? |
|
O1 |
Allow the WebPA service to grow, and remove the risk of reliance on a small number of individuals within IS LTW |
Yes |
|
D1 |
Migration of the live version of WebPA to a change controlled server infrastructure managed by IS Applications. |
Yes |
|
D2 |
Suitable Dev and Test environment set up |
Yes |
|
D3 |
Standard backup process in place to improve upon the current 3 day backup process available on CHOST |
Yes |
|
D4 |
OLA developed for the service outlining roles and responsibilities between IS Apps, IS LTW and IS USD. |
Yes |
|
D5 |
Current code-base put under source control for future change management. |
Yes |
|
D6 |
Test the integration with the migrated site through the Learn and Moodle VLE integrations |
Yes |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 40 days
Staff Usage Actual: 40 days
Staff Usage Variance: 0%
Explanation for variance
Cost
|
Project Brief cost |
40 days |
|
|
|
Changes to costs |
31 days |
taken back to programme |
|
|
Actual Cost |
40 days |
issues in deployment meant that we then went over the revised figure and need to claim back the contingency |
|
Time
|
Milestones |
Project Brief date |
Actual Date |
Reason |
|
Planning |
14 Jul 16 |
5 Aug 16 |
See note 1 below |
|
Build |
16 Aug 16 |
12 Sep 16 |
Delayed as brief required signoff which delayed ensuing milestones Also Dev Services did a code review on the product and there were some things that needed investigation and a fix in place before Build could be signed off. There were also issues with the connection to Moodle and because of this we therefore checked the connection to Learn as well
|
|
Acceptance |
19 Aug 16 |
19 Sep 16 |
Delayed due to previous milestone delays |
|
Deployment |
29 Aug 16 |
27 Oct 16 |
See note 2 below
|
|
DSOR |
12 Sep 16 |
10 Nov 16 |
Delayed due to previous milestone delays and at acceptance stage it was agreed to extend the DSOR period to two weeks from the original one week agreed to ensure the application was working properly. |
|
Closure |
19 Sep 16 |
17 Nov 16 |
Delayed due to previous milestone delays |
Issues
- There were delays to the project brief as it was unclear if this project was to proceed or not. There were concerns from Service Management that the application was moving from to IS Apps and not staying in Service Management as they believed that they could offer all the benefits (with adjustments) as per the IS Apps move. However it was believed by LTW that the move to CHOSTS within Service Management was a short term solution and that the long term solution was always to bring it under application management and change control processes. A meeting was held with all representatives to discuss the issues and to decide the best approach on how to move forward with the project which resulted in it moving to IS Apps but the Brief signoff was delayed while the decision was reached.
- Deployment delays:
- Deployment due 20 September: postponed until 27th as developer was unexpectedly unavailable on the 20th plus the team still wanted EDE to check over the system (unable to do for the 20th) plus communications still had to go out by LTW
- Deployment due 27 September: On 26th September a last minute discovery by LTW found that an assessment was taking place on the existing WebPA application between 27 September and 4 October which meant we would need to delay again - changed to 12 October.
- Deployment due 12 October: another issue with the LTI connector. Not the same issue as previously and it was acknowledged that it had been missed on Test. Business lead was on holiday until 18 October. Agreed on his return to deploy on 27 October as an assessment was running until 26 October but WebPA was free after that.
- Deployed 27 October
Key Learning Points:
- When a project is initiated that is different from the original proposal it is important that the aim of the project is made clear especially for multi project proposals. As a result WIS processes have been amended for projects that different from what was in the annual plan. In year proposals should be used.
- Even if there is significant pressure to bypass procedure this can cause issues and should not happen.
Feedback from TEL: Closure questionnaire
Outstanding issues:
None
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 tel039_closure_questionnairemf.doc | 74 KB |