1. SA&S-Fortnightly Status Report – Overview Period Ending 2 May 2018
Deliverables
this period
MyEd Portal: Contact Details roll out end of planning, re-estimation approved by sponsor. Resources booked.
Immigration : HR activities with impacted staff
WSA: Implementation tasks in progress. Procurement project: requirements being reviewed with users. Sponsor appointed
SCEC: TOM rework planned. System build: suspended pending rework.
Timetabling Service: prep completed ahead of workshops
Exam Timetabling: Completing testing of Aug resit diet.
PCIM: PID and planning in progress
Tier 4 :  Biometric functionality post live issues signed off, closure approved by sponsor.
Current Status
Previous Status R R
Exam Timetabling ET
Policy
Tier 4 compliance
Management and Control
Engagement
Delivery
Planning
Resource
RAID
Costs & Benefits
Stakeholders
Communications R A G
-Clarification of HR activities/approach across the SA&S projects
-SCEC system implementation is impacted by Blueprint rework
-Exam timetabling: IS developer conflict for bug fixing
-Phase 3 Service detailed design at risk, because of SA&S resources required to complete not recruited yet.
-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 recruited yet, PM tbc
-New PM for PCIM 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 Registrars/Head of colleges.
Timetabling comm drafted
Further engagements -planned workshop for timetabling & WSA. SCEC workshop for TOM decision process/policy rework
Being done through projects/workshops, programme lead 1:1 and SEP newsletter.
Use of the SEP toolkit communication.
-confirmation required of when we can issue more detailed info to Schools about WSA and Timetabling with supporting information about the HR processes.

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
WSA- There is a risk further schools opt out from using the new WSA expert team (MVM said they will).
Increase risk probability- raised at Go Abroad exchange coordinators (EC) meeting - several academic EC from schools indicated their dissatisfaction with the proposal of a professional service s team managing learning agreements. 20
Escalated with Programme Director & Programme Sponsor. Being followed up with a meeting with the concerned EC.
Identify schools disagreeing and discuss/engage with DoPS.
If schools feel they should be exempt they will have to make a written case for presentation to the Design Authority 

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: System build suspended. Activities taking place to rework the TOM.
Workshops re decision process and framework requirements 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
Decreased following SEP Board decision to address the academic roles through policy, and to delay the implementation to Aug 2019

4. 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.