Closure Review
Project Summary:
Contributors/Reviewers
Role | Department | Name |
Project Manager (Owner) / Programme Manager | IS Applications - Project Services | Tim Gray |
Production Management Coordinator | IS Applications - Applications Management | Ana Heyn |
| Senior Developer | IS Applications - Software Development | Mairi Fraser |
Business Area Manager | University Website Programme | Miles MacCalman |
Project Sponsor | University Website Programme | Dawn Ellis |
Project Review
This was a successful project that delivered the mandatory requirements and all other requirements bar one.
Project planning was completed by mid-September. Due to the Drupal Proof of Concept work being brought forward to September, the milestones were moved to accommodate this other work within the programme. The revised milestones were then achieved with the text editor changes going LIVE on 05/02/13.
One concern at the outset was that existing functionality would possibly be impacted by the new features; this was successfully mitigated by thorough testing during peer and acceptance testing.
Objectives and Deliverables
No | Description | Priority | Success criteria | Delivered |
O1 | Enhance the current rich text editor with functionality to accommodate formatting three further content types. | - | ||
| D1.1 | Investigate how other website format citations other than in italics. | M | A format/style is recommended that's clear and understandable | YES |
| D1.2 | Develop the rich text editor (RTE) so that users can assign different styles to specific areas of content. (Citations and Footnotes) | M | Users can easily style their content | YES |
| D1.3 | Add Latin to the list of languages available via the language tag button | M | Users can tag Latin as a language | YES |
| D1.4 | Develop the rich text editor (RTE) so that users can assign different styles to specific areas of content (quotations) | HD | Users can easily style their content | YES |
| O2 | In addition to addressing the above points with the RTE, we are also looking to fix the following issues | - | ||
| D2.1 | Remove the additional character space that appears automatically when text is paste into the RTE field | HD | No space appears at the beginning of the text field when the text editor element appears | YES |
| D2.2 | Investigate if the 'pop up' window that appears when pasting, can be handled in a more gracefully manner reducing the number of click required and time on task. | HD | No pop up window is required when cutting and pasting content from any other source | This could not be fixed, however an improved work around was implemented. |
| D2.3 | Investigate the following issue: When a paragraph is styled as 'Introduction' and also contains words that are tagged, when the 'Introduction' style is turned off, not only do the tags themselves go away, but the words that were tagged completely disappear. | D | 'Introduction' style can be turned on and off without affecting existing tags or words associated | During build stage, this was no longer an issue and therefore not addressed. |
| D2.4 | Investigate the following issue: The final word in a paragraph element cannot be tagged. | D | All words within a paragraph element can be tagged individually or in groups. | During build stage, this was no longer an issue and therefore not addressed. |
Scope
In the project's terms of reference the deliverables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 were noted as mandatory with highly desirable deliverables 1.4, 2.1, 2.2 and desirable deliverables 2.3 and 2.4 to be addressed as time permitted. The project remained in scope throughout, successfully achieving all the deliverables with the exceptions as noted in the table above.
Schedule
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 53 days
Staff Usage Actual: 28.5 days
Staff Usage Variance: -46%
Other Resource Estimate: 0 days
Other Resource Actual: 0 days
Other Resource Variance: 0%
Explanation for variance:
The estimates were reviewed downwards after the acceptance review was completed. This was as due to the effort required for build and rework being lower than initially estimated.
Post project closure it has emerged that due to an error in ATSA where on 08/10/12 10 days 1 hour were assigned against Business Analysis when it was in fact 1 hour. This brings the total effort down to 28.5 days which is broken down as follows:
| Team | Effort |
|---|---|
| Project Services | 12.5 |
| Software Development | 12.6 |
| Development Technology | 0.4 |
| Applications Management | 1.5 |
| Technology Management | 1 |
| Directors Office | 0.5 |
| Total | 28.5 |
Key Learning Points:
There were no major lessons learned from this project more the confirmation that where Apps and UWP work closely together during all stages for the project life cycle, these projects are particularly effective.
Outstanding issues:
There are no outstanding issues.