1. SA&S-Fortnightly Status Report – Overview Period Ending 18 April 2018
Deliverables
this period
MyEd Portal: Contact Details roll out initiated. Resources booked.
Immigration : HR activities with impacted staff started
WSA: Communication sent to DoPS/College Registrars. Procurement project.
SCEC: seeking TOM Blueprint approval with SEP Board. System build: completed iteration1 incl all backlog of bug testing.
Timetabling Service: Business case and Blueprint approved by SA&S Board
Exam Timetabling: Decision to Go live with Aug resit diet.
PCIM: PID and planning in progress
Tier 4 :  Biometric functionality post live issues deployed for user sign off.
Current Status
Previous Status R A
Exam Timetabling ET
Policy
Tier 4 compliance
Management and Control
Engagement
Delivery
Planning
Resource
RAID
Costs & Benefits
Stakeholders
Communications R A G
-HR activities across the SA&S projects (risk raised)
-WSA No project sponsor: decision point required mid May for ITT sign off.
-SCEC system implementation is impacted by Blueprint non-approval, re-planning system work
Phase 3 Service detailed design at risk, because of SA&S resources required to complete.
Only PCIM planning work has started, but PM/BA only start end May
-Change Management resources being recruited to support WSA & Timetabling
-SAS Core team- implementation resources recruitment in progress
-Timetabling BA not confirmed yet
-New PM for PCIM, WSA & SCEC not in place yet.
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.
Immigration communication sent and face to face meetings held.
WSA communication sent to DoPS/Registrars.
Timetabling comm being drafted
Further engagements with users for SCEC (yammer) and planned workshop for timetabling & SCEC.
Being done through projects/workshops, programme lead 1:1 and SEP newsletter.
Use of the SEP toolkit communication.
-Issue: WSA communication was not cascaded consistently
-Timetabling communication drafted, on hold until HR approach is clear

2. SAS– Fortnightly Status Report – Programme Risks -Period Ending 18 Apr 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
There is a risk the HR activities required for  Timetabling, SCEC and WSA projects are delayed (starting at week -5 prior to HR announcement). There is a risk that the approach may affect the expected benefit realisation.
Delay to the HR announcement- The HR activities are not coordinated across SCEC, WSA & Timetabling services. This will impact the communication and the start of user engagements, who could both be at risk.
Impact to Go live date. 5 4 16 p
HR advisor for SEP Programme has now been appointed and is investigating potential HR approaches/ solutions. This needs approval with SEP programme lead
Heather Tracey
There is a risk the communication required to be sent for Timetabling, WSA, SCEC is being delayed because the HR activities are not clear (impact from above risk) and SCEC Blueprint is not approved
User engagements are delayed, or users who are impacted will make noise/do not engage.
Impact to the SAS programme reputation . 3 12 u
Depends on HR activity being confirmed above
Also depending on SCEC approval, agree common approach for all 3 projects with SEP Programme Lead.
Neil McGillivray

3. SAS– Fortnightly Status Report – Programme Risks -Period Ending 18 Apr 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
SCEC- There is a risk that proposed changes to the Target Operating Model (TOM) decision processes for special circumstances and extensions would require system changes
 May lead to an increase in the cost of the development effort and impact the timescales for delivery.
Options:
Stop next iteration until there is clarity from the business
Plan other work 4 5 20 u
Replanning system design with users around new proposed decision point-On Hold
Update: Next iteration(#2) has stated and is planned with work not impacted by the non approval of the blueprint- Workshops re decision process and framework have been delayed once TOM is approved.
Franck Bergeret
There is a risk that future projects may not have access to student systems BA or Implementation expertise. The risk is higher as the business cases for WSA is articulating the significant effort required from both BA & Implementation to complete the standard operating procedures.
This will impact on the start of the WSA implementation
Analysis of data and process is not completed for PGR and Programme and Course Information and publishing 3 12 q
SAS resource demand has been fed into the overall Student Systems resource planning for approval by Programme Sponsor. Recruitment is planned for. In the meantime short term staff for SCEC project have been recruited and in place.
Engaging with SRA and IS (end of life of degree finder) for the Programme/Course PCIM work.
Lisa Dawson
SCEC- Risks have been raised in the business case re 1) implementation mid year, 2) academic buy in , 3) CSPC does not support TOM proposal
1- inconsistent treatment of student cases, additional work for staff and reputational damage for SEP
2-resistance during implementation
3--impact to timeline
Review risks ‘mitigations articulated in the business case post Board decision
Update- waiting for SEP Board outcome

4. SA&S Fortnightly Status Report - Programme Issues-Period Ending 18 Apr 2018
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 escalation issue 1, for information issues 2
WSA Project has no named Project Sponsor. Impact: no-one identified early enough to sign-off initial key deliverables of procurement work (ITT delayed):
1. Planning-status completed
2. Evaluation group –status confirmed (needs organisational buy-in) and
3. Requirements ITT requires validation by sponsor- Decision point mid May.
High
Outstanding: being raised at next SAS Board.
Decision point is mid May so that the sponsor signs off the ITT. In the absence of project sponsor, the programme sponsor will be asked to sign off the ITT.
Barry Neilson
Student Finance- There are overlaps of work between SA&S and Finance programme. The student finance process workshops held in November 2017 identified a number of points in which the SA&S finance-related functions interact with the Finance Office.  Ideally, we need to dovetail into the Finance Transformation and Core Systems work, with SA&S influencing finance-related processes bringing the voice of the student and how they interact with the University’s financial processes.  Therefore it is the SAS programme lead's view that attempting to design new processes for an SA&S blueprint in isolation to and apart from the financial processes would be counter-productive.  
Medium
submit a list of requirements to the Finance Transformation and Core Systems team to request developments around the identified common themes. Ensure output takes the student focus into account
Meeting scheduled to manage the overlaps and the ownership
Workshops planned end April for Finance to be attended by SAS team member
Neil McGillivray

5. 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.