SASFortnightly Status Report Overview Period Ending 28 th

SA&S-Fortnightly Status Report – Overview Period Ending 28 th June 2018 Current Status Deliverables this period R R -Risk of delay to HR activities: impact to WSA/ Timetabling implementation, HR data set required by early July -SCEC system implementation is impacted by Blueprint rework & question about scope, decision point delayed to Nov 18: delivery of reduced system scope (MVP) for Aug 19 A Resource R -Phase 3 TOM detailed design is replanned. Risk of SA&S resources required to complete not recruited yet. Implementation plan for review by sponsor. Activities (strawman) delayed -conceptual TOM/service catalogue reviewed, to be agreed by Board in July R Engagement Management and Control Planning R • TOM design: workshop with Board held and feedback sent for review • My. Ed Portal: Contact Details development in progress • Immigration : preparing workshops, HR matching activities in progress • WSA: HR announcement done, follow up with Do. PS, Head of service recruitment in progress. Strawmen process in progress • WSA Procurement: ITT consensus meeting held • SCEC: TOM rework 2 nd workshop held • Timetabling Service: workshops held with CMVM, SCE engagement in progress, System project initiated with IS • Exam Timetabling: Started scheduling exams following go live. • PCIM: detailed design: process maps, engagement with VLE, Academic Services SAS 005 Exam Timetabling (ET) SAS 013 Timetabling Service Implementation (TT) SAS 011 Student Portal- Contact Details SAS 004 Work and Study Away Service Implementation (WSA) SAS 003 - SCEC SAS 010 - Programme and Course Information Management (PCIM) SSAS 009 Student Immigration Service (SIS) SAS 013 Timetabling Service TOM detailed Design Delivery Previous Status R RAID R -SAS Core teamresources recruitment in progress. Increased risk with programme lead, design lead & 2 coordinators to leave in July. G Costs & Benefits G Risks and Issues are reported on the project website. A A Benefit realisation plan and costs for phase 2 addressed in Business Cases. Benefit log to be updated. Stakeholders G Communications G -Leadership meetings completed in June -Timetabling workshops with MVM completed. -WSA exchange coordinators meeting held. -SCEC TOM policy rework 2 nd meeting held. -WSA procurement user group final consultation held -TOM: engagement from Board to review service catalogue and conceptual TOM A A -Being done through projects/workshops, programme lead 1: 1 and SEP newsletter. -Use of the SEP toolkit communication. -WSA and Timetabling leadership comm shared at the leadership meetings, to be cascaded by leaders. -Exam timetabling: comm of go 1 live to schools’ exam operation group, and SEP newsletter

SAS – Programme Risks - Period Ending 28 th June 2018 Risk Consequences Inherent Impact Residual Prob’ty/ Uncert’y Risk Level Risk Mvt since last mth Current & Management Processes and Mitigating Activities and Future Developments Senior Managerial Responsibility FOR ESCALATION SA&S Programme There is a risk relating to current capacity within the team to develop and deliver the next phase of detailed design activity, due to changes within the core team and demand for BA support. Delivery timescales for the next phase of detailed design work could be negatively impacted. 4 Special Circumstances (SCEC) There is a risk the CSPC decision on progressing discussions around the interface between the proposed Special Circumstances and Coursework Extensions Service and Board of Examiners is delayed beyond the next CSPC meeting in November 2018. Delivery of the minimum viable product (MVP) is dependent on a positive decision in November and would be delayed beyond the current go-live date of Aug 2019, given the required development time, should this not be the case. 4 TOM Detailed Design Staff within The workshop approach involves a Schools/Colleges/Support limited numbers of colleagues (15 Groups, and perhaps Board per workshop) and this may not be members, may feel the level viewed as an appropriate level of of engagement/consultation representation across the University. was not sufficient to ensure full representation and validation of the workshop outputs, which will inform the final Blueprint/Business Case. 4 4 4 16 u Interviews and targeting of key staff across the University to ensure the core Barry Neilson team is sufficiently staffed. Review of implementation plan and variation methodology underway to look at options that will ensure quality and timely delivery. Go-live of the WSA Service in January 2019 at risk. 4 4 16 u Ongoing conversation with SSP regarding supplier role and BA resource requirements. Follow up to Resource meeting with Programme Sponsor. Workshop with Board members completed in June. Additional support from Gavin Douglas Programme Sponsor/ Board Members in socialising the direction of travel, to gain support from College L&T Committees. To be followed: pre-meetings with the key stakeholders (including members from CSPC committee) to talk through the interface between the Service and the Board of Examiners, and to address any immediate concerns ahead of the November meeting. 4 3 12 u Clarify the governance relationship between SA&S and CSPC given that progress of the proposal is currently dependent on approval by CSPC. Allow sufficient time post-workshops for colleagues to feed in views via wiki Gavin Douglas (2 weeks minimum), actively update Board Members and colleagues when workshop outputs are available, with feedback deadlines highlighted. Coordinate stakeholders for workshops and share list of workshop attendees in advance to encourage active consultation. For the overall workshop approach, the Board needs to agree this will provide adequate opportunity for consultation and is achievable within the planned timescales before workshops commence.

SAS – Programme Risks - Period Ending 28 th June 2018 Risk Consequences Inherent Impact Residual Prob’ty/ Uncert’y Risk Level Risk Mvt since last mth Current & Management Processes and Mitigating Activities and Future Developments Senior Managerial Responsibility FOR ESCALATION TOM Detailed Design Expectations about the The outputs from the next phase of nature of the blueprint and detailed design (Blueprint/Business business case to be provided Case), covering all remaining SA&S may not be aligned with the services, will not have the granularityexpected output. of the previous reports presented to the Board where a single service was reviewed/reported on. 4 4 3 12 q Agree approach with the Board so they know what to expect and what is being developed (plan to be shared at next Aug Board, request Board support) Provide regular updates around progress so the Board are aware of the findings/outputs as they are being developed. Share the HR Blueprint and Business Case so the Board are aware of the level of detail that will be provided during this next phase. Gavin Douglas

SAS – Programme Risks - Period Ending 28 th June 2018 Risk Consequences FOR INFORMATION HR People Transition There has been a delay in The HR activities required for starting the necessary HR Timetabling and WSA projects are processes and therefore delayed. They are dependent on planned communication to the staff data required end June. Thisformally start the transition delay could affect the timing of process of identifying which expected benefits realisation for staff across the University are WSA, less likely for Timetabling. affected/involved in the planned change. SA&S need data set by early July in order to proceed with established Should this not be resolved in implementation timelines. June, it is likely to impact the go-live date of the new WSA team being in place by Jan 2019. Student Immigration Service There is a risk of increased staff turnover during the transition phase of the project. Staff may look for alternative employment, leading to loss of knowledge and continuity of service (potentially during a peak period). This could impact the ability of the team to deal with business-asusual activity, and impact the ability of the new service to launch successfully. Inherent Impact 4 Residual Prob’ty/ Uncert’y 4 Risk Level 16 Risk Mvt since last mth u Current & Management Processes and Mitigating Activities and Future Developments Senior Managerial Responsibility HR Advisor has liaised with Uo. E HR to seek guidance on staff Lesley Weir (PMO/HR) information gathering process following the leadership sessions Agreed to delay data collection deadline by one week. Project team is liaising with Do. PS to offer support. Project team is meeting with HR advisers to agree analysis of the data set and prepare HR for next phase: matching/recruitment. 4 4 3 12 u Project Sponsor to continue to work closely with team members Lisa Dawson to identify and address concerns (including review of new post to ensure suitability); actively engage staff in implementation activity to gain buy-in and ownership. Set up a comms focus group in next few weeks and arrange a session with the team to work out the comms plan for communicating details around agreed name, vision and mission on Service Sponsor to agree on proposed date for moving the team into their new location at Old College at the start of new session (Sep 2018). And also to agree the plan around Head of Service recruitment (immigration) in place with recent team leader resignation Document key processes to ensure suitable knowledge base, to support succession planning and remove single points of failure.

SAS – Programme Risks - Period Ending 28 th June 2018 Risk Consequences Inherent Impact Residual Prob’ty/ Uncert’y Risk Level Risk Mvt since last mth Current & Management Processes and Mitigating Activities and Future Developments Senior Managerial Responsibility FOR INFORMATION Timetabling Room booking system for Resource for System Analysis, to MVM will not be configured determine way forward with the appropriately and in time for Room Booking System (WRB, service go live. Resource Booker) in the context of Medicine and NHS access, will not be This would negatively impact available in IS Apps in the time benefits realisation within requested. current planned timescales. 4 4 3 12 u Work with IS supplier to start system analysis project as per business case. Work with MVM to find a phasing route for implementation of specific requirements by utilising the current central WRB system/Central Timetabling to bridge the gap. Options to be developed and presented to the Timetabling project Board for consideration. Note: even with such a solution, benefit realisation within planned timescales could still be affected. Franck Bergeret

SAS – Programme Issues - Period Ending 28 th June 2018 Status: G Green - Low Not currently impacting the project A Amber - Medium Resolution in hand is being managed within the Programme Issue Description. There is an issue that… Severity R Red – High Immediate escalation is required Issue resolution Senior Managerial Responsibility Discuss arrangements with key stakeholders (including the Head of International Student Advisory Service, Head of Edinburgh Global, Director of Student Wellbeing, and Chaplaincy) with a view to clarifying where this support should sit/who should have responsibility for this activity. Ensure that the activity is formally designated to a specific post-holder. Lisa Dawson (in hand) Continue to drive recruitment and secure colleagues who are experienced and recognised within the SA&S community. Neil Mc. Gillivray Score (RAG) FOR INFORMATION Immigration An issue has been identified in relation to the redistribution of responsibilities, as the coordination of ad-hoc welfare situations (e. g. crisis issues involving international students) does not fit neatly with either the new service or the remaining functions in Edinburgh Global. This activity is unpredictable in nature (and difficult to quantify) but coordination of activity can be time-consuming when a welfare situation arises. It had been proposed to redistribute this activity to Schools; however concerns have been expressed as to the suitability of this arrangement. Consequence- If a welfare situation arises relating to an international student which needs intervention requiring cultural sensitivity (e. g. dealing with consulates) it could be unclear who should coordinate the situation, leading to potential reputational damage. TOM Detailed Design Planned resources are not available to develop/deliver the workshops and to write up the outputs due to unsuccessful recruitment, new colleagues can not joining the team until August (assuming a 3 month notice period), and/or there are further changes within the core team. Timescales/deliverables within the plan will slip if the team is not at planned capacity. SME expertise could be lost, challenging the programme's ability to develop and deliver viable strawmen. Additional time will be needed to train the new team, allow it to embed (e. g. understand the programme, progress to date, issues/ challenges and to build relationships). Monitor and review delivery timeline in line with actual resource and capability/capacity within the team. Focus on handover in July with new colleagues. Secure more KPMG time. Engage with SME from schools/support groups to support SA&S team when there are knowledge gap. Update: additional recruitment following resignation of SAS programme lead, and end of secondment from lead design and two coordinators

RAG Guidance Criteria Red Amber Green Delivery Key deliverables at risk Some risks around delivery On track for delivery Planning No detailed plan Detailed plan in place. Gaps around benefit/key deliverables. Not fully up to date. Covers less than 6 weeks. Detailed, current plan in place covering the next 6 weeks. Resource Significant skills or resource gaps Some gaps All resource in place and trained. RAID No documented risks and issues. Some gaps Defined process and roles. Clearly defined escalation routes. Risks and issues log actively maintained and reviewed by project team. Costs & benefits Very limited benefit identification/ limited understanding of costs Some gaps in information. Costs fully broken down and information accessible. Benefits documented and logged in register. Stakeholder engagement Very limited identification. No documented plan. Some ad hoc identification of stakeholders. Incomplete plan. Not approved by sponsor. Stakeholder, interest and needs systematically identified. Plan for engaging in place and approved by sponsor. Communications Little current information on website; stakeholders not informed of status Some ad hoc communication. Some information on website Website updated for last completed stage. Stakeholders informed and aware of nest stage plans. Key messages available for last stage. A programme will be assumed to be green initially. It may be red/amber status if 2/8 elements are red or amber. A project is likely to be red/amber if 3 or more elements are that colour. A project is red/amber if 4 or more elements are that colour.