Applications Division Annual Planning Proposal 2013-14
Text in italics is provided for guidance - please delete when proposal is complete
NAME
Mobile Information Solution with MyEd
Sponsor
Stuart McFarlane
Portfolio
Information Services
Programme
Web Integration
Programme Owner
Stuart McFarlane
IS Programme Manager
Adam Wadee
Authors (Business)
Martin Morrey
Authors (IS)
Alex Carter, Iain Fiddes, Richard Good, Simon Marsden, Stuart
McFarlane, Anne-Marie Scott
Date
12-02-2013
Section One – PROPOSAL OVERVIEW
 A long-term replacement is required for the current trial solution (CampusM) procured from
Ombiel in Mobile Campus project.
o The current procurement arrangement for CampusM expires in July 2014
 Expecting to deliver mobile-friendly web-portal
o Mobile-friendly web-portal interface, i.e. “MyEd Mobile”
o Mobile interface to prioritised subset of existing portal channels
o Enhanced with location-awareness for features such as PC availability
o Improved integration with other generic features of mobile devices, such as email
and calendar
o Integrable with a small number of targeted mobile apps
 Examples could include VLE app, library “Searcher” app
 The apps themselves are out of scope
 Simple, well-targeted user experience, optimised to a broad range of mobile devices.
 Using open and adaptable technology, designed to be as future-proof as possible
 Dependency on future MyEd enhancement, such as an upgrade to uPortal 4
Section Two – DETAILS
2.1 Business Objectives
A well-formed objective is Specific, Measurable, Attainable/Achievable, Realistic and Timebound.
No. Description
How Measured?
1
Enable a quality MyEd experience on a wide
 Frequency of visits by device categories
range of devices by July 2014
 Number of interactions per visit
 Reduced page loading times on mobiles
2
Improve experience of priority MyEd channels
 Frequency of interaction with these
on mobile devices by July 2014
channels from mobile devices
3
Increase deployment of core University services  Frequency of access to email and diary
to generic mobile applications
services, Scientia, from mobiles
4
Increase user satisfaction with mobile and
 Pre/post surveys of user satisfaction
portal provision
5
Simplify the maintenance of content across the  More users and units able to maintain
desktop and mobile portal
MyEd/mobile information directly
 More frequent changes to MyEd/mobile
information
Page 1 of 7
Printed: 12/03/2016
Applications Division Annual Planning Proposal 2013-14
2.2 Deliverables
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Deliverable (MoSCoW)
Scope Limitations
S Review of core portal technology (working assumption for
other deliverables is to continue with uPortal)
S Review and documentation of existing web service interfaces
supporting U@Ed & MyEd
M Integrate Cosign with new “Web Proxy Portlet” type in
uPortal, backstop to ignore “Page not available”
M Migrate existing proxy channels to web proxy portlet
M Upgrade of core portal technology, e.g. to uPortal 4, in
“Dust”, DEV,TEST,LIVE (including 17)
S Replace IDM integration with CentralAuth, adding all LDAP
attributes for MyEd PAGS and channels
S Review and document existing web-services supporting U@Ed
M Configure and deploy mobile-friendly web interface to the
portal (within provided framework)
M Mobile-friendly interface to prioritised subset of existing
portal channels (within provided framework)
S Cross-platform location support (maps integration) for
location-specific channels, such as PC availability
S Cross-platform solution to enable key targeted mobile apps to
opened from mobile web interface
C Deploy uMobile (apps) alongside uPortal, if time allows
S Improved integration with generic features of mobile devices,
such as email and calendar
C Policy and criteria for approving University-branded mobile
apps.
C Single data source for locations, used across portal, mobile,
UWS, e.g. using Google Fusion Tables
M Decommission U@Ed
M Early-stage load testing and performance (cache)
optimisation
Deployable with no more
effort uPortal upgrade
Apps themselves not
included
Not a bespoke
development
2.3 Timescales – Milestones and Multi Year Proposals
Milestone
Date
1 August
2013
31 March
2014
31 July 2014
30 January
2015
30 June 2015
Financial
Description (including reason if Milestone Date is hard)
Hard (Y/N)
Start Date
N
First Delivery Date
Core portal solution upgraded, core channels migrated
Second Delivery Date - end of CampusM arrangement
Mobile-friendly portal, delivering priority channels
Third Delivery Date
More channels and functionality in mobile + selected apps in uMobile
Fourth Delivery Date
Refinements and additions, based and feedback and usage
Breakdown of Work By Financial Year
N
Page 2 of 7
Y
N
N
Printed: 12/03/2016
Applications Division Annual Planning Proposal 2013-14
Year
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Only required for projects that need to start early i.e. in the current financial year
2.4 Stakeholders
Stakeholder Name and Role
Concerns / Required Actions
Portal/Mobile Strategy Group
Student Information Task Group
IS Web Group
MyEd Channel Owners
Cross-University group to be formed and consulted
Maintain availability of their information/content
during process
Informed
Y/N
N
Y
Y
N
2.5 Risks
No.
Description
1
Unable to upgrade MyEd
core e.g. to uPortal 4.0
Lack of agreement about
proposed mobile strategy
Rapid changes to mobile
technology and devices
Selected framework
becomes “abandonware”
Insufficient resources to
complete all deliverables
Business requirements
change during the project
2
3
4
5
6
Impact /
Probability
Low/High
Management Approach and Actions
Retain: Mobile skin in uPortal 3.2.4, but
will require greater customisation
Low/High
Retain: Option to increase priority of app
solution, e.g. uMobile
High/Medium
Reduce: Use platform neutral
technologies
Medium/Medium Monitor: Study adoption of frameworks,
and choose widely-used solution.
High/High
Reduce: Prioritise deliverables and order
of delivery
High/High
Reduce: Use agile methodology to adapt
to changing priorities
2.6 Other Relevant Information
Companion paper on “Mobile Information Solutions”, gives background and details of the proposed
mobile/portal strategy.
Section Three – CATEGORY and STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
3.1 Project Category
Compliance (C) - must be done for regulatory compliance or technology obsolescence
Discretionary (D) - delivers major benefits, important service improvements etc.
Project
Category
C – Contractual/procurement arrangement for existing mobile solution
(CampusM) expires in July 2014
3.2 Funding
Funding
Source
CF
Page 3 of 7
Printed: 12/03/2016
Applications Division Annual Planning Proposal 2013-14
Page 4 of 7
Printed: 12/03/2016
Applications Division Annual Planning Proposal 2013-14
Section Four – PROJECT BENEFITS, COSTS AND PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Benefits (over 5 years)
Provide the estimated benefits and costs over a 5-year period on the basis of the information
currently available. Benefits may be tangible (i.e. quantifiable in financial terms) or intangible (i.e.
benefit is a perceived benefit that cannot be easily quantified e.g. enhanced student experience or
reputational impacts of a solution). Tangible and intangible benefits of the proposed solution should
be stated. For tangible benefits – describe the benefit and the method/assumptions used to calculate
the value. For intangible benefits – describe the benefit and any associated assumptions. For each
benefit provide details and timing of actions to ensure benefits are realised.
Tangible Benefits
Description
Value
(£)
Calculation Method and
Assumptions
Benefits Realisation –
Required Actions and Timing
Assumptions
Benefits Realisation –
Required Actions and Timing
Deliver infrastructure
critical to the future
development of portal and
mobile services
Enable easy access key
information, especially
location based and timely
info, from their mobile
device
Provide a central platform
for University services to
circulate information on
mobile devices
Enable simple re-use of
Golden Copy information
on mobile devices.
Single point of maintenance
for mobile and portal
content
Intangible Benefits
Description
More consistent and integrated use
experience across desktop web and
mobile platforms
More future-proof portal and mobile
solution
Increased potential for integration
with the University website
Reduced investment in, dependence
on specific mobile platforms, or 3rd
party services
Page 5 of 7
Printed: 12/03/2016
Applications Division Annual Planning Proposal 2013-14
4.2 Benefit and Cost Summary (over 5 years)
This summary and should be taken from the Detailed Benefits and Costs Worksheet completed to
accompany this proposal.
5 Year Summary
ISG
CSG
SASG
Benefits
Costs
£
£
£
£
£
£
Colleges inc
Students
£
£
External
Costs
£
£
Total
£
£
IS Apps Days
Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.0
Note: costs and benefits are estimated based on an assessment of the information available at the
time this proposal is prepared. The actual costs and benefits of the resulting projects may vary from
these estimates.
4.3 Funding/Resource Requirements
The proposal may be dependant on additional funding or resources which have to be secured
independently of the annual planning process. Where this is applicable provide details of any
additional funding/resources required and confirm whether or not these have been secured.
Requirement
Value (£)
Funding Arrangements and Provider(s)
Secured
(Y/N)
4.4 Procurement Requirements
Where there are no external costs this should stated as “Not Applicable”. Where procurement activity
is required Procurement Office should be informed as early as possible so that they can assist with
cost estimation and identify any assistance that may be required for procurement activities.
Total Cost of
Goods & Services
(over 4 yrs)
Description of Goods and Services to be procured
(All procurement activity must be in accordance with the
rules laid out Scottish Procurement Policy Handbook.
Guidance on Procurement )
Procurement
Office
Informed?
Yes/No
< £50 k
> £50 k
Page 6 of 7
Printed: 12/03/2016
Applications Division Annual Planning Proposal 2013-14
Notes from estimation meeting on 12/02/13 (Iain F, Martin M, Adam W)


The approach to the estimation was done by breaking down the deliverables in section
2.2 by priority (Martin has updated the priorities in this version of the proposal). We
agreed that deliverables 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16 and 17 are Must Do. The remaining
deliverables are tagged as S (Should Do) and C (Could Do).
Iain was able to provide estimates for the Dev Tech effort for some of the M
deliverables:
o 5 and 8: ~45 days
o 16: ~10 days
o 17: ~15 days
o Background booking to support development: ~10 days
o 3 point estimate of 80, 100, 120 days
Page 7 of 7
Printed: 12/03/2016