Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Version 1.0
Prepared By
Robert Treadgold Manager, Student Information
Stage Plan 1
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the Document...............................................................................1 2 STAGE DEFINITION ............................................................................................1 2.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................1 2.2 Scope .............................................................................................................1 2.3 Exclusions ......................................................................................................2 2.4 Constraints .....................................................................................................2 2.5 Assumptions...................................................................................................2 3 APPROACH .........................................................................................................2 3.1 Methodology...................................................................................................2 3.2 Project Products .............................................................................................3 4 STAGE PLAN DETAILS ......................................................................................4 4.1 Gantt Chart.....................................................................................................4 4.2 Resource Matrix .............................................................................................4 4.3 Milestones and Dates.....................................................................................4
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS APPENDIX B GANTT CHART
Page i
Stage Plan 1
DOCUMENT APPROVAL
Project Sponsor John Wood Signed Date Project Manager Robert Treadgold Signed Date
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Document Title Version No File Name Date: Distribution Timetable and Room Allocation System Stage 1 Plan 1.0 TARA Stage 1 Plan 23 March 2005 Project Management Group, Timetable and Room Allocation Reference Group, Project Working Parties. Note: This is the only controlled copy of this document. All others are uncontrolled
RELATED MATERIAL
Document Name Project Execution Plan (PEP) Description Project Execution Plan for the Timetable and Room Allocation System Project
Page ii
Stage Plan 1
This document is the Stage 1 Plan for the Timetable and Room Allocation System Project. It provides relevant information for the day-to-day management of the stage and is used as the basis for project management control throughout this stage. Specifically, it
Identifies details of all work activities, products and resource requirements to deliver the stage objectives Identifies all the products which the stage must produce Provides a baseline against which the stage progress will be measured Specifies the quality controls for the stage products and identifies the resources needed for them.
Determine what Edith Cowan University requires from a Teaching and Room Allocation (TARA) System. A requirements specification document to be prepared and focus on a system that reduces data duplication and consolidates systems with the potential for a single system for timetabling and room allocation of both teaching and non teaching spaces streamlines room bookings and optimizes the use of space provides ability for staff/students to request room bookings via the web provides a seamless means for collecting teaching activity requirements from schools preferably via the web integrates with other ECU systems, particularly Callista Student Management System and Archibus
has technical support either via a supplier or internal support from KITSC
Prepare a report outlining what Timetable and Room Allocation Systems are currently available for purchase and which systems are Australian universities using.
2.2
Scope
The specifications document to describe the requirements from a teaching timetable, room booking, event management and space management perspective. To also include interface and other technical requirements.
Page 1
Stage Plan 1
2.3
Exclusions
2.4
Constraints
Timescale deadlines for the various reports Budget Resources with appropriate skills Dependency on interfaces with Callista and Archibus
The following constraints have been identified in developing this Stage Plan:
2.5
Assumptions
Budget and Resources (with appropriate skills) will be available Timescale will be adequate Required Interfaces will be identified by stakeholders and approved by Project Management Group
The following assumptions have been made in developing this Stage Plan:
3 APPROACH 3.1
Methodology
Completion of a Timetable and Room Allocation System specifications document. Completion of an analysis outlining what Timetable and Room Allocation Systems are currently available and which systems are Australian universities using. An analysis of the current Timetable and Room Allocation System (Admin) against the specifications document is completed. The Project Management Group decides if the University continues with Admin initiating improvements or seek to buy/build a new system. The above outcomes would require the following steps: o o Establishment of a Working Party chaired by the Timetable Officer (Caryn Bate) to prepare the teaching timetable component of the Specifications document. Establishment of a Working Party chaired by a Campus Services representative (Karen Knowles) to prepare the ad hoc room bookings component of the Specifications document
Page 2
Stage Plan 1
taking into consideration the requirements of Security and how the system could be used for events management. o Establishment of a Working Party chaired by a Facilities Services representative (Sonja Woodwell) to prepare the space management and reporting component of the Specifications document. The Timetable Officer to undertake an analysis outlining what Timetable and Room Allocation Systems are currently available and which systems are Australian universities using. Recommend using the CAUDIT survey on Timetabling/Scheduling Software undertaken by Murdoch University in 2004 as a starting point. Information Delivery Systems (IDS) support compiles the Specifications document from the components prepared by each Working Party. Project Manager to prepare Specification document in a format suitable for the analysis/tender process. The specification document and two reports on current systems in use and on the market are provided to the Timetable and Room Allocation Reference Group (TARARG) for consideration and endorsement. The membership of TARARG is A representative from each Faculty A representative from Student Services A representative from Systems Support (Alan Dent) The Chair of each Working Party, Project Manager and IDS support would attend in an advisory capacity o Timetable Officer and IDS representative (Rukmini Edirisinghe or Stephen Edwards) to conduct an analysis of the current Timetable and Room Allocation System (Admin) against the Specifications document. The analysis would also provide an indication of the amount of enhancement required for Admin to meet the new ECU TARA system requirements. TARARG would consider the analysis and make a recommendation to the PMG PMG decide if we go with an improved version of Admin or buy/build a new system.
o o
3.2
Project Products
This is a matrix showing responsibility for production of the projects products. It cross-references back to the product descriptions (see Appendix A). ID Product Name
1 2 Timetable and Room Allocation System specifications document Report on Timetable and Room Allocation System packages currently in use by other universities Report on Timetable and Room Allocation System packages currently on the market Request for Tender Document Admin comparison against TARA system requirements
Product Type
Report Report
Primary Responsibilit y
Project Manager Timetable Officer
Due Date
20 April 2005 8 April 2005 15 April 2005 11 May 2005 1 June 2005
3 5 6
The full list of the products to be produced by this stage of the project, together with their quality assurance status, will be maintained in the Quality Log. Page 3
Stage Plan 1
Appendix B
4.2
Resource Matrix
Review of Specification document and reports on available TARA systems and TARA systems currently being used by other universities
IDS Support (Stephen Edwards) Compile component of each WP into final Specifications document Determine tender process Format Specifications document into analysis format Preparation of TARA System Specifications document Prepare report on what TARA systems are available Prepare report on what TARA systems used by other universities Project Manager (Robert Treadgold)
Working Party Chairs (Caryn Bate, Steve Butcher, Stephen Edwards, Karen Knowles) Timetable Officer (Caryn Bate)
4.3
Key Milestone
Timetable and Room Allocation System specifications document Report on Timetable and Room Allocation System packages currently in use by other universities Report on Timetable and Room Allocation System packages currently on the market Request for Tender Document Admin comparison against TARA system requirements
Page 4
Stage Plan 1
COMPONENTS
executive summary current configuration key issues functional requirements information requirements reporting requirements interface requirements the warnings and help facilities required system administration requirements with regards to archiving, auditing, disaster recovery, storage, service level, performance and security system requirements with regard to hardware, software, network, web and servers implementation considerations.
DERIVATION
Working parties will be established that will consult with relevant stakeholders so as to determine the functional requirements of a timetable and room allocation system. The TARA system functional specification document prepared by Robert Treadgold in April 2004 will be used as reference material in preparing the specifications document.
ALLOCATED TO
The Chair of each relevant Working Party is responsible for their component of the specifications document. The Project Manager is responsible for compiling the components into the final document.
QUALITY CRITERIA
TYPE OF QUALITY CHECK REQUIRED
Each working party is to ensure adequate consultation takes place that ensures all key clients of a TARA system have input into the construction of the specifications document. The Timetable and Room Allocation Reference Group to assess the specifications document.
Stage Plan 1
Stage Plan 1
Product Number 2
PRODUCT NAME
Report on Timetable and Room Allocation System packages currently in use by other universities
COMPONENTS
name of university and contact person what timetable and room allocation system they are using and for how long they have been using it whether they are using a different system for timetabling to what they use for room bookings and the name of the systems being used what student information system are they using what space management system are they using does their timetable system also allow for students to enrol in units and unit activities on line of the above systems, which have a direct or indirect interface level of satisfaction with the systems they are using
DERIVATION
The CAUDIT survey on Timetabling/Scheduling Software undertaken by Murdoch University in 2004 and consultation with universities in Australia.
ALLOCATED TO
Timetable Officer
QUALITY CRITERIA
TYPE OF QUALITY CHECK REQUIRED
The Timetable and Room Allocation Reference Group to assess the report ensuring at least 50% of Australian universities have replied.
Stage Plan 1
Product Number 3
PRODUCT NAME
Report on Timetable and Room Allocation System packages currently on the market
COMPONENTS
name of system and how long it has been on the market name and location of supplier how many other universities use it and if possible the name of the Australian universities using it. summary of what the system can do what is the purchase and maintenance costs what after sales service is available including implementation and training is their evidence of it being used with either Callista or Archibus
DERIVATION
Report on Timetable and Room Allocation System packages currently in use by other universities will give an indication of products on the market. A search on the internet should advise of other systems available.
ALLOCATED TO
Timetable Officer
QUALITY CRITERIA
TYPE OF QUALITY CHECK REQUIRED
The Timetable and Room Allocation Reference Group to assess the report ensuring systems available for purchase mentioned in the report on systems in other universities has been included.
Stage Plan 1
Product Number 4
PRODUCT NAME
The Request for Tender document.
COMPONENTS
The document would comprise the information from the specifications document. It will include a prioritising of the functionality and technical requirements.
DERIVATION
The TARA system specifications document.
ALLOCATED TO
Project Manager
QUALITY CRITERIA
TYPE OF QUALITY CHECK REQUIRED
The Timetable and Room Allocation Reference Group to assess the report ensuring all functional and technical requirements of a TARA system have been included.
Stage Plan 1
Product number 6
PRODUCT NAME
Admin comparison against TARA system requirements
COMPONENTS
The document would comprise the information from the specifications document.
DERIVATION
The TARA system specifications document.
ALLOCATED TO
Timetable Officer and IDS Representative
QUALITY CRITERIA
TYPE OF QUALITY CHECK REQUIRED
The Timetable and Room Allocation Reference Group to assess the report ensuring all functional and technical requirements of a TARA system have been assessed.