SA&S-Fortnightly Status Report – Overview Period Ending 31 May 2018 Deliverables this period MyEd Portal: Contact Details end of design, re-estimation to go live Oct 18 approved by sponsor. Resources secured. Immigration : preparing workshops, HR matching activities WSA: Exchange coordinators meeting held. Logistics in progress. Communication pack done WSA Procurement: final requirements sent to users prior to consensus meeting in June SCEC: TOM rework 1st workshop held. System build: suspended, Planning MVP in progress. Timetabling Service: 2 workshops held with CMVM, comm done, job description done Exam Timetabling: Deployment Exam Scheduler go live in progress, completing Calsync and BI testing . PCIM: PID sent for review to programme sponsor. PM started Current Status Previous Status R R Exam Timetabling ET Policy Tier 4 compliance SAS005 Exam Timetabling (ET) SAS013 Timetabling Service Implementation (TT) SAS004 Work and Study Away Service Implementation (WSA) SAS009 Student Immigration Service (SIS)       Management and Control Engagement Delivery Planning Resource RAID Costs & Benefits Stakeholders Communications R A G -Delay to HR activities: impact to WSA/ Timetabling implementation, HR data set required by mid July -WSA service: short of 1 BA, will impact service go live due Jan 19 -SCEC system implementation is impacted by Blueprint rework, decision point delayed to Nov 18: delivery of reduced system scope for Aug 19 -Phase 3 Service detailed design at risk, because of SA&S resources required to complete not recruited yet. Detailed design implementation plan not reviewed yet. Activities (strawman) to start now -conceptual TOM to be discussed at next Board -SAS Core team- implementation resources recruitment in progress Increased risk with programme lead/design lead to leave in July. -Capacity to support business analysis work. WSA requires decision on temporary contract BA Risks and Issues are now reported on the project website. Benefit realisation plan and costs for phase 2 addressed in Business Cases. Benefit log to be updated. -Leadership meetings planned in June -Timetabling workshops with MVM in progress. -WSA exchange coordinators meeting held. -SCEC TOM policy rework 1st meeting held. -WSA procurement user group consulted -Being done through projects/workshops, programme lead 1:1 and SEP newsletter. -Use of the SEP toolkit communication. -Completed WSA and Timetabling comm pack with supporting information about the HR processes: ready to be shared at the leadership meetings

SAS – Programme Risks - Period Ending 28th May 2018 Consequences Inherent Impact Residual 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. Go-live of the WSA Service in January 2019 at risk. 4 16 NEW Interviews and targeting of key staff across the University to ensure the core team is sufficiently staffed. Review of implementation plan and variation methodology underway to look at options that will ensure quality and timely delivery. Ongoing conversation with SSP regarding supplier role and BA resource requirements – meeting scheduled in w/b 4 June. Barry Neilson 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. Pre-meetings have been scheduled 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. Additional support from Programme Sponsor/ Board Members in socialising the direction of travel, to gain support from College L&T Committees. Clarify the governance relationship between SA&S and CSPC given that progress of the proposal is currently dependent on approval by CSPC. Gavin Douglas TOM Detailed Design The workshop approach involves a limited numbers of colleagues (15 per workshop) and this may not be viewed as an appropriate level of representation across the University. Staff within Schools/Colleges/Support Groups, and perhaps Board members, may feel the level of engagement/consultation was not sufficient to ensure full representation and validation of the workshop outputs, which will inform the final Blueprint/Business Case. 3 12 Allow sufficient time post-workshops for colleagues to feed in views via wiki (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 28th May 2018 Consequences Inherent Impact Residual 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 The outputs from the next phase of detailed design (Blueprint/Business Case), covering all remaining SA&S services, will not have the granularity of the previous reports presented to the Board where a single service was reviewed/reported on. Expectations about the nature of the blueprint and business case to be provided may not be aligned with the expected output. 4 3 12 NEW Agree approach with the Board so they know what to expect and what is being developed. 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 Other Change Activity There is a risk that there could be a perception that there is duplication of SEP and SSP change activity, timelines and messaging, as both teams seek to drive/improve SA&S services. Potential for colleagues across the University to feel overwhelmed with the amount of change emerging from SA&S and the wider Student Administration section; possible duplication of work. 9 Discussions planned for w/b 4th June to align priorities and ensure a single, complementary approach in delivery and messaging across the University. Joint communications plan to be developed and published post-meeting.

SAS – Programme Risks - Period Ending 28th May 2018 Consequences Inherent Impact Residual 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 HR People Transition The HR activities required for Timetabling and WSA projects are delayed. They are dependent on the      leadership sessions held in June. This delay could affect the timing of expected benefits realisation for WSA and Timetabling. SA&S need data set by early July in order to proceed with established implementation timelines. There has been a delay in starting the necessary HR processes and therefore planned communication to formally start the transition process of identifying which staff across the University are affected/involved in the planned change.  Should this not be resolved in June, it is likely to impact the go-live date of the new team being in place by Jan 2019. 4 16 u HR Advisor is liaising with UoE HR to seek guidance on staff information gathering process following the leadership sessions Further options and mitigation being managed by HR Advisor and PMO. Lesley Weir (PMO/HR) 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-as-usual activity, and impact the ability of the new service to launch successfully. 3 12  NEW Project Sponsor to continue to work closely with team members 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.   Project Sponsor to mitigate by identifying gaps in documentation for key processes and to test recruitment market for possible contract or short term resource in the event of key resources leaving.  Document key processes to ensure suitable knowledge base, to support succession planning and remove single points of failure. Lisa Dawson

SAS – Programme Risks - Period Ending 28th May 2018 Consequences Inherent Impact Residual 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 Governance from the Edinburgh Medical School Lecture Recording Project has not been transferred to SEP/Timetabling project leaving a perception that alignment with SEP outputs could still be optional/a choice to be made. While it remains unresolved, the possibility that Medicine branch away from proposed ways of working remains. Current workshops for SEP Implementation compromised by perception that migration to Central Timetabling is a choice rather than a certainty. Expectations for future ways of working are not being managed effectively. Should Medicine adopt their own approach, predicted benefits will not be realised. 4 3 12 q Workshops with MVM are being delivered to reflect SEP’s planned future ways of working. Proposed governance from Medical School Lecture Recording project to be transferred to SEP: Jim Nisbet from MVM and Anne-Marie Scott from IS/LTW Change control being approved by SE & LTW Directors- Barry and Melissa. Franck Bergeret Resource for System Analysis, to determine way forward with the Room Booking System (WRB, Resource Booker) in the context of Medicine and NHS access, will not be available in IS Apps in the time requested. Room booking system for MVM will not be configured appropriately and in time for service go live. This would negatively impact benefits realisation within current planned timescales. 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 MVM Board for consideration. Note: even with such a solution, benefit realisation within planned timescales could still be affected. School Coordinators are not identified in time for successful Data Collation (dependent on HR activity). Lack of coordination of data at a local level leading to a heavy administrative burden for the TTU. Work with HR support to ensure School Coordinators are identified and embedded correctly and on time. Lesley Weir (PMO/HR)

SAS – Programme Issues - Period Ending 28th May 2018 Status: G Green - Low Not currently impacting the project A Amber - Medium Resolution in hand and is being managed within the Programme R Red – High Immediate escalation is required Issue Description. There is an issue that… Severity Score (RAG) Issue resolution Senior Managerial Responsibility 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. 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) 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). Continue to drive recruitment and secure colleagues who are experienced and recognised within the SA&S community. Monitor and review delivery timeline in line with actual resource and capability/capacity within the team. Update: additional recruitment following resignation of SAS programme lead, and end of secondment from lead design coordinator Neil McGillivray Contact Details The project has been re-estimated at design stage. Impact : the solution cannot be delivered for start of term, due to increased effort and availability of the development resources. Work re-estimated for the areas: Application to be recoded to be production ready​ Interface with EUCLID: address authentication model ​(Digital Transformation work) Infrastructure: increase resilience and remove single point of failure Approved by project Sponsor. Re-plan for go live in Oct 2018 (was Aug 2018) Ranald Swanston (PM)

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. 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.