Draft Project Plan V1a 190711

Document Sample
Draft Project Plan V1a 190711 Powered By Docstoc
					Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 28 July 2011




JISC Project Plan

                                                  Project Information
Project Identifier                 To be completed by JISC
Project Title                      Digital Academic Records Exchange (DARE)
Project Hashtag                    #UMFDARE
                                      st                                         st
Start Date                         1 July 2011                   End Date     31 March 2012
Lead Institution                   Liverpool John Moores University
Project Director                   John Townsend
Project Manager                    Dr. Wayne Turnbull
Contact email                      j.w.townsend@ljmu.ac.uk & w.turnbull@ljmu.ac.uk
Partner Institutions               Bath Spa University; Coventry University; Cranfield University;
                                   De Montfort University; School of Oriental and African Studies &
                                   University of Sheffield.
Project Webpage URL                www.ljmu.ac.uk/DARE
Programme Name                     UMF Shared Services and the Cloud Programme
Programme Manager                  John Chapman


                                                 Document Information
Author(s)                          John Townsend, Wayne Turnbull, Jonathan Dempsey
Project Role(s)                    Project Lead, Project Manager, Service Provider
                                           th
Date                               19 July 2011               Filename        DARE Project Plan v1
URL                                www.ljmu.ac.uk/DARE
Access                             This report is for general dissemination


                                                   Document History
     Version                   Date                                      Comments
                          th
v1                     28 July 2011             Final Draft




Page 1 of 13
Document title: Draft Project Plan v1a
Last updated: 28 July 2011
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011



Table of Contents

  1.1   Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 3
  1.2   Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 3
  1.3   Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes ........................................................................................ 4
  1.4   Overall Approach .................................................................................................................... 4
  1.5   Anticipated Impact ................................................................................................................... 5
  1.6   Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................................................................... 5
  1.7   Related Projects ...................................................................................................................... 5
  1.8   Constraints .............................................................................................................................. 6
  1.9   Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 6
  1.10 Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 6
  1.11 Technical Development ........................................................................................................... 7
  1.12 Standards ................................................................................................................................ 8
  1.13 Intellectual Property Rights ..................................................................................................... 8
2 Project Resources ............................................................................................................................ 9
  2.1   Project Partners....................................................................................................................... 9
  2.2   Project Management ............................................................................................................... 9
  2.3   Project Roles ........................................................................................................................... 9
  2.4   Programme Support ................................................................................................................ 9
3 Detailed Project Planning .............................................................................................................. 10
  3.1   Evaluation Plan ..................................................................................................................... 10
  3.2   Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................. 11
  3.3   Dissemination Plan ............................................................................................................... 12
  3.4   Exit and Embedding Plans .................................................................................................... 12
  3.5   Sustainability Plans ............................................................................................................... 12
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 13
  Appendix A. Project Budget (attached) ............................................................................................. 13
  Appendix B. Workpackages (attached) ............................................................................................. 13




Page 2 of 13
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011
 1       Project Overview
1.1 Project Summary
Project DARE will deliver an operational system for the secure on-line delivery of degree certificates,
transcripts, Higher Education Achievement Reports and other student data via Digitary, as a Shared
Service. The proposed service will be suitable for deployment as Software as a Service on a cloud
platform.

The Digitary system has been selected as the basis for this bid as it is currently the only system that
implements a solution for the HEAR that conforms to the JISC-CETIS specification based on
electronic signatures and thereby provides the necessary open approach to ensure sustainability of
the service in the long term. Furthermore, it is the market leader, having been adopted by six UK
Higher Education institutions, two of which, Derby and Manchester, are Phase 1 HEAR Pilot
institutions. A majority of other HEAR pilot institutions have indicated that it is their preferred method
to deliver the HEAR.

1.2      Objectives
The main objectives of the project will be to specify and implement:
 An appropriate and secure cloud-based architecture for Software as a Service delivery to a range
   of users and institutions, including:
        o HEAR-Technical compliance (http://www.xcri.org/wiki/index.php/HEAR)
        o UK access federation engagement
        o Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) integration engagement (reference the JISC STEP-F
           project).
        o Appropriate arrangements for service hosting, following discussions with JANET, JISC
           and Eduserv (i.e. likely on UMF funded VMs)
        o Credit card charges (recently launched in Digitary 2.5) via Realex or WPM (potentially
           subject to some local tailoring by WPM and PSP arrangements)
 Appropriate mechanisms for partner institutions using a range of Student Record Systems and
   others to interact effectively with the service, using methods that are currently in use on-site with
   several student systems including:
       o Secure transfer of data and documents via web services (e.g. HTTP POST), ESB or file
           upload
       o The ability for students/graduates to provide/withdraw permission to third parties to
           access/view this information that satisfy the most stringent Data Protection requirements
       o A clear process for students/graduates to query any information held on them including
           access to documents and user-specific audit trails
 A robust business model for the continuation of the service beyond project completion, including:
       o Defined policies, contracts and Service Level Agreements with participating suppliers
           (drawing on FSD guidelines soon to be published by JISC Legal)
       o An appropriate Governance structure
       o A clear process for institutions to take on the service, including service costings
       o Policies and guidelines to ensure sustainability of the service independent of Digitary, if
           necessary




Page 3 of 13
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011



1.3      Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes
  Output / Outcome Type                                   Brief Description
   (e.g. report, publication,
 software, knowledge built)
A production cloud-based         Based on a working, proven and compliant system for the delivery
Shared service                   of Higher Education Achievement Reports, degree certificates,
                                 transcripts, and other student data that is demonstrably operational
                                 with a range of institutions using different backend SRS.
Data mobility                    Appropriate mechanisms for collation and delivery of data from
                                 individual institutions and the SRS represented, taking a SOA
                                 approach wherever possible.
Enterprise Architecture          A documented model for the shared service.
Policy framework                 Documented policies, service charges, Service Level Agreements
                                 and contractual arrangements that will enable institutions to trust
                                 and use the shared service.
Governance model                 A business and governance model for the continuation of the
                                 service beyond project completion.
Report                           Detailing the benefits and impact to the actively participating
                                 institutions from taking the shared service, including a case study
                                 from each institution.


1.4      Overall Approach
The objective of the project will be realised by drawing on the extensive experience of Digitary in
providing secure electronic documents and providing a model that replicates this service within the
cloud. As outlined in the „anticipated outputs and outcomes‟ (see section 1.3 above) the project will
also deliver a governance model for the delivered service, based upon the needs of the UK HE sector.

The work will be managed on a day-to-day basis by project teams in each of the consortium partners
(see section 2.3, below), with overall co-ordination by a Project Advisory Board (see section 2.2,
below). The Advisory Board includes representation from each of the consortium partners, Digitary
and from the following key stakeholder groups:
     The Centre for Recording Achievement
     Eduserv
     HESA
     JISC
     University of London Computing Centre

The quality of project outcomes and the methods used for project evaluation will be analysed by the
Project Advisory Board which includes a „Project Assurance‟ role undertaken by a senior Director from
the lead partner institution.




Page 4 of 13
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011



1.5      Anticipated Impact
           Impact Area                                   Anticipated Impact Description
Effectiveness                           Vehicle for the implementation of the HEAR and coherence with
                                        sector-wide requirements for greater information about „course
                                        data‟.
Efficiencies                            Automated processing of electronic documents rather than
                                        manual processing of paper-based documents. Implementation
                                        of a shared service is approximately 30% less expensive for
                                        HEIs than a hosted service.
Impact on wider society                 Currently, in addition to the 7 consortium partners, 18 other
                                        HEIs have indicated an interest in evaluating the resulting
                                        service for implementation.
Future IT needs                         Understanding and resolving business and technical issues in
                                        the implementation of Project DARE will inform further
                                        development and participation in shared services through the
                                        HE Cloud.



1.6      Stakeholder Analysis
                  Stakeholder                                Interest / stake            Importance
                                                                                           (H/M/L)
JISC                                                 Programme management                     H
LJMU                                                 Lead partner                             H
Project partners                                     Consortium members                       H
Digitary                                             Software provider                        H
HEFCE                                                HE service provider                      M
JANET                                                HE service provider                      M
UCISA                                                HE service provider                      M
HESA                                                 HE service provider                      M
Centre for Recording Achievement                     HE service provider                      M
Eduserv / ULCC                                       Cloud service providers                  M
HEAR pilot institutions                              Potential service users                  M
Institutions expressing an interest in the project   Potential service users                  M
Students                                             Business stakeholders                    M
University senior managers                           Business stakeholders                    L
University administrators                            Business stakeholders                    L
Academic staff                                       Business stakeholders                    L


1.7      Related Projects

        SSPS
        STEP-F
        RMAS
        ERM
        HEAR pilot projects
        The Learning Records Service




Page 5 of 13
     Project Identifier:
     Version: v1
     Contact: John Townsend
     Date: 05 October 2011
          

     1.8      Constraints
     Project constraints are mapped in the risk analysis (see 1.10 below).

     1.9      Assumptions
     Full detail of the assumptions is presented in the appended workpackages.


     1.10 Risk Analysis
  Risk Description       Probability    Severity      Risk                Detail of action to be taken
                             (P)           (S)       Score       (mitigation / reduction / transfer / acceptance)
                            1–5           1–5        (PxS)
                          (1 = low      (1 = low
                          5 = high)     5 = high)
Staffing:                     2             5          10     High impact as heavily dependent on specific
unavailability of key                                         individuals; mitigate through wider communication
project staff                                                 and documentation
Technical:                    1             4          4      Digitary have experience ref An Cheim; expert
unforeseen problems                                           assistance available from JANET and Eduserv
with operating
Digitary on a shared
cloud platform
Technical: failure to         4             3          12     Digitary already have the ability to support a point-
develop/provide a                                             to-point solution as alternative to ESB, HTTP
National ESB                                                  POST or upload in the absence of web service
effectively/to                                                capability
timescales
Organisational:               2             5          10     Within remit of Project Advisory Board to sign-off
failure to develop                                            governance model and determine functional
appropriate                                                   requirements of the operational service
governance
structures etc for the
operational service
Uptake falls short of         2             2          4      This would affect the success of the project but
anticipated levels                                            would not affect the sustainability of the service
                                                              (Digitary is happy to run the service for any number
                                                              of institutions, however small and there seems
                                                              sufficient interest to ensure uptake to make service
                                                              viable from a hosting perspective)
Uptake exceeds                4             2          8      Service is highly productised/can easily add new
anticipated levels                                            instances.
Digitary fails as a           1             4          4      Digitary is a well established company and is
company after                                                 happy to include contract clauses if this were to
shared service is                                             occur for provision of source code and for the
implemented                                                   continuing use of the system and system
                                                              implements open standards.
Digitary is bought by         2             4          8      Digitary is happy to include clauses for where this
another company                                               were to occur for the provision of source code and
that chooses to                                               for the continuing use of the system
discontinue offering
the Digitary system
Project takes longer          3             3          9      Project start is purposely planned for narrow
to get started than                                           window to convey urgency; no staff recruitment is

     Page 6 of 13
     Project Identifier:
     Version: v1
     Contact: John Townsend
     Date: 05 October 2011
 Risk Description        Probability     Severity      Risk                Detail of action to be taken
                             (P)            (S)       Score       (mitigation / reduction / transfer / acceptance)
                            1–5            1–5        (PxS)
                          (1 = low       (1 = low
                          5 = high)      5 = high)
anticipated                                                    anticipated
Application vendors           1              4           4     Web services integration already in use for Banner,
refuse to develop the                                          Campus Solutions and SITS. Need to focus on
required adaptors to                                           communications and engagement to ensure major
link their application                                         vendors are on board
system to the DARE
solution




     1.11 Technical Development
      The following schematic shows the current Digitary architecture in use by An Cheim, a consortium
      established by the Irish Department of Education and Science (DoES) along with the Institutes of
      Technology and Tipperary Institute for management of information systems for 14 institutes.




      This architecture illustrates Digitary‟s experience in successfully deploying a shared service for
      multiple institutions and will form the basis for DARE, informed by discussions with JISC and
      Eduserv.

      Digitary implements standards wherever possible. Digitary documents and digital signatures are
      represented in XML. Signatures comply with ETSI standard TS 101 903 for the creation of tamper-
      evident and legally valid documents using XAdES-A that ensure the long-term integrity and validity of
      documents in accordance with recommendations by CEN project European Learner Mobility.

      This project advocates the use of common approaches and the reuse of work done by institutions,
      such as the implementation of data standards and the reuse of ad hoc documents where standards
      development is not advantageous.

     Provision is made for development necessitated to accommodate decisions made by the project with
     respect to hosting, UK Access Management Federation, Enterprise Service Bus and the development
     of standard documents for use by project partners and by other institutions that take up the resulting
     service.

     Digitary will also develop its product as necessary to accommodate architecture decisions made
     within the project, such as relating to the optimisation of integration with the ESB.


     Page 7 of 13
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011
Ongoing development will be guided through the Digitary User Group.


1.12 Standards
The following table details the standards applicable to the Digitary Secure Document Service and the
HEAR. Appropriate standards will also need to be applied in the development of the National ESB and
the Cloud Hosting Service which, whilst not deliverables of this project, will be critical to its success.


   Name of      Version                                             Notes
 standard or
specification
ETSI TS 101     V1.1.1,     Enrolment of users of Qualified Signer Certificates
456             2000 to
                2012
ETSI TS 101     V1.4.2      Digitary implements XAdES-A; which incorporates all aspects of the standard
903                         including the periodic application of system signatures to documents to maintain
                            their cryptographic integrity for the long term (A for archive). This meets the
                            objectives of the long term support of documents recommended in JISC‟s
                            “Guidance on managing student records” (2007, section 6) and in “The Higher
                            Education Achievement Report (HEAR): An „Update Pack‟ For Trial Institutions”
                            (2011).
BS EN 15981     2011        Data specification for the HEAR from the adoption of the specification European
                            Learner Mobility Achievement information (EuroLMAI) [Diploma Supplement]
HEAR            As          Technical architecture considerations for implementing the HEAR
Technical       updated     http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Technical_architecture_considerations_for_implementing_the_HEAR
                16 April
                2010
FIPS 140-2                  Digitary currently uses USP crypto-tokens iKey 4000 that comply with FIPS 140-2
                            Level 3




1.13 Intellectual Property Rights
The background Intellectual Property, that is existing IP brought to the project by a partner for the
purposes of the project, will be provided on a royalty-free basis. Each party retains the rights to their
background IP. All foreground Intellectual Property, that is IP that emerges from and is relevant to the
project, will belong to the project. Partners agree that the management and subsequent disbursement
of the foreground IP will be entrusted to the Project Advisory Board. Digitary will simultaneously to the
project – but not funded by the project – develop aspects of its product and supporting materials that
might, like its background Intellectual Property, be inherent to the service developed. Digitary will
retain ownership of such Third Party IPR and grant unconditional, irrevocable and perpetual licence to
HEFCE, JISC and their successors and to HEIs and FEIs to use such IPR.




Page 8 of 13
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011



2 Project Resources
2.1 Project Partners
        Liverpool John Moores University, lead partner
        Bath Spa University, project partner
        Coventry University, project partner
        Cranfield University, project partner
        De Montfort University, project partner
        School of Oriental and African Studies, project partner
        University of Sheffield, project partner
        Digitary, software provider
                                                                                 th
A Consortium Agreement is under development and will be delivered by 30 September 2011 at the
latest.


2.2      Project Management
Project DARE will be overseen by a Project Advisory Board, chaired by the LJMU PVC Academic
Enhancement, Research & Regional Engagement. The board comprises representation from all
project partners and relevant sector stakeholders (see section 1.4 above). The detailed project plan
(see the appended workpackages) outlines the activities and milestones of the overall project. Each
project partner institution will devise their own specific plans, with locally agreed actions that fall within
the timeframe outlined in the overall project plan. As lead partner, LJMU is responsible for the
publishing, maintaining and signing-off completion of the project plan.


2.3      Project Roles
As noted in 2.2 above each project partner institution will devise their own specific plans, with locally
agreed actions that fall within the timeframe outlined in the overall project plan. It follows that project
teams will operate in each of the partner institutions. For LJMU this team comprises:
  Team Member                     Role                  Contact Details            Days per week to be
       Name                                                                         spent on the project
John Townsend         Project lead                 J.W.Townsend@ljmu.ac.uk                    0.5
Wayne Turnbull        Project manager              W.Turnbull@ljmu.ac.uk                       1
Derek Hendy           Technical lead               D.S.Hendy@ljmu.ac.uk                       0.4
Sara Rioux            EA development               S.Rioux@ljmu.ac.uk                         0.2
David Jones           Technical development D.E.Jones@ljmu.ac.uk                              0.4
Shirley Wedgwood Project support                   S.Wedgwood@ljmu.ac.uk                      0.5


2.4      Programme Support
No additional programme support requirements are anticipated.




Page 9 of 13
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011



3 Detailed Project Planning
Outline Workplan

Full detail of the project is provided in the appended workpackages. These are mapped against five
non-sequential project phases:

PHASE                                                          TIME-LINE
  1         Outline project plan                               July 2011
  2         Project Management                                 July 2011 – March 2012
  3         Establish Service Framework                        July – September 2011
  4         Development and implementation                     September 2011 – March 2012
  5         Communication and Dissemination                    July 2011 – March 2012
  6         Sustainability                                     July 2011 – March 2012



3.1 Evaluation Plan
 Timing         Factor to Evaluate   Questions to Address        Method(s)    Measure of Success
Formative       Progress             Have project milestones   Mid-stage      Milestones have been
                                     been met?                 reporting &    met.
                                                               evaluation
Formative       Progress             Are deliverables on       Mid-stage      Deliverables are on
                                     schedule?                 reporting &    schedule.
                                                               evaluation
Formative       Progress             Are there barriers to     Mid-stage      No barriers to
                                     progress?                 reporting &    progress.
                                                               evaluation
Formative       Progress             Is project                Mid-stage      Effective
                                     communication             reporting &    communication.
                                     effective?                evaluation
Summative       Outputs              Were the objectives       Final          Objectives were met.
                                     met?                      Reporting &
                                                               evaluation
Summative       Outputs              Were stakeholder          Final          Benefits were realised.
                                     benefits realised?        Reporting &
                                                               evaluation
Summative       Outputs              Is there an effective     Advisory       Agreed governance
                                     governance model for      Board Output   model.
                                     the shared service?




Page 10 of 13
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011



3.2      Quality Assurance
Output / Outcome     A production cloud-based Shared service
     Name
 When will QA be     Who will carry out the QA    What QA methods / measures will be used?
  carried out?                 work?
Summative            Project Advisory Board       Full compliance with the business and technical
                                                  requirements outlined in the project plan.

Output / Outcome         Data mobility
      Name
 When will QA be     Who will carry out the QA    What QA methods / measures will be used?
   carried out?                work?
Formative            Project Manager / Project    Evaluation of mid-stage partner progress reports
                     Assurance                    and updates from Digitary.

Output / Outcome     Enterprise Architecture
     Name
 When will QA be     Who will carry out the QA    What QA methods / measures will be used?
  carried out?                 work?
Summative            Project Manager / Advisory   Production of a documented model for the
                     Board                        shared service with agreement of all
                                                  stakeholders.

Output / Outcome         Policy framework
     Name
 When will QA be     Who will carry out the QA    What QA methods / measures will be used?
  carried out?                 work?
Summative            Project Advisory Board       Contractual agreements and protocols to
                                                  underpin the shared service.

Output / Outcome     Governance model
     Name
 When will QA be     Who will carry out the QA    What QA methods / measures will be used?
  carried out?                 work?
Summative            Project Advisory Board       A business and governance model for the
                                                  continuation of the service beyond project
                                                  completion.

Output / Outcome         Report
     Name
 When will QA be     Who will carry out the QA    What QA methods / measures will be used?
  carried out?                 work?
Summative            Project Manager / Project    Informed by partner case studies, identifying and
                     Assurance                    documenting best practice and lessons learned.




Page 11 of 13
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011



3.3      Dissemination Plan

  Timing        Dissemination Activity         Audience               Purpose          Key Message
Formative       Academic Registrars         Senior University    Explain & inform    Benefits of HEAR
Dec 2011        Council conference          Administrators       re: project &       development and
                                                                 progress            shared services
Throughout      Project DARE website        Partners /           Explain & inform    Benefits of HEAR
                                            interested parties   re: project &       development and
                                                                 progress            shared services
Summative       UCISA conference            Senior University    Outline outcomes    Evaluation of
March                                       IT specialists       of project          outputs and
2012                                                                                 launch of shared
                                                                                     service
Summative       Association of University   University           Outline outcomes    Evaluation of
April 2012      Administrators              Administrators       of project          outputs and
                conference                                                           promotion of
                                                                                     shared service
Summative       Student Record Officers     Student Record       Outline outcomes    Evaluation of
March           Conference                  Officers             of project          outputs and
2012                                                                                 promotion of
                                                                                     shared service
Throughout      Various – as                Various              Promote project     Value of project
                opportunities arise


3.4      Exit and Embedding Plans

          Project                Action for Take-up & Embedding                Action for Exit
   Outputs/Outcomes
An operational shared           See Sustainability below               See Sustainability below
service
A project report & series of    Availability on project & JISC         Ensure continued hosting by
case studies                    websites; dissemination as per plan    JISC
An EA model for the             As above; also engage with the JISC    Ensure continued hosting by
shared service                  Strategic Information Practice Group   JISC & as part of SIPG
                                (formerly EAPG)                        resources

3.5 Sustainability Plans
  Project Outputs           Why Sustainable           Scenarios for Taking         Issues to Address
                                                            Forward
An operational            It is the main           A properly constituted          Demonstrate
shared service for the    objective of the         governance model for the         efficiency and
secure delivery of        project to provide a     management and delivery          effectiveness of the
academic documents        sustainable              of the shared service            service
                          operational service ie                                   Identify responsible
                          sustainability will be                                    owner
                          addressed as a key                                       Define SLAs
                          part of the project                                      Identify additional
                                                                                    participants/
                                                                                   Demonstrate
                                                                                    market need

Page 12 of 13
Project Identifier:
Version: v1
Contact: John Townsend
Date: 05 October 2011
Appendices
Appendix A. Project Budget (attached)

Appendix B. Workpackages (attached)




Page 13 of 13

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:41
posted:10/5/2011
language:English
pages:13