OCM-12-025 ACADEMIC SERVICES PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Project Title: Online Coursework Management
Change Record Date Author Version Change Reference March 2012 Sue Milward v1 Initial draft April 2012 Sue Milward V2 Updates from Project Board April 2012 Sue Milward V3 Final updates from Project Board June 2012 Sue Milward V4 Major rewrite from Project Board and Senate Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 2. OVERVIEW... 2 a) Business Need... 2 a) Benefits... 2 3. SCOPE... 3 a) In Scope... 3 b) Out of Scope... 3 4. OBJECTIVES... 3 5. PROJECT PLAN... 3 6. RISK ANALYSIS... 5 a) Risks... 5 b) Issues... 5 c) Assumptions... 5 d) Dependencies... 5 e) Constraints... 5 7. PROJECT RESOURCES... 6 a) Financial Resources... 6 b) Human Resources... 7 8. MANAGING THE PROJECT... 9 a) Quality Assurance... 9 b) Change Control... 9 c) Project Logs... 9 d) Communications... 9 9. CLOSURE... 9 a) ITIL Process (Acceptance into Operational Service)... 9 b) Closure Procedure... 9 i
1. Executive Summary The On-line Coursework Management project commenced in 2011- its aim was to provide an end to end electronic solution for submission of coursework, marking and feedback and to provide tools within ELE to support students, academics and administrative staff in the coursework management process. There were three main drivers for the project: Student experience (e- submission and coursework turnaround times) Process efficiency Sustainability To support the project a review of existing processes in Colleges was undertaken, which revealed many different practices across and even within Colleges. For this reason a decision was taken early in the project to develop the software solution based on core TQA requirements. OCM was developed by an external hosting partner ULCC. The total development budget for the project was 50K. All staffing was met from existing resource. The project to date To date OCM v.1 has delivered integrated options for e-submission, plagiarism checks, e-marking, e-feedback and links with SITS, all via ELE. OCM v 1.1. is currently developing capacity for multiple marking, increased flexibility in moderation and mitigation requirements and enhancements to the look and feel of the product. Piloting of OCM has been hampered by difficulties caused by late delivery of the software which added to the reluctance of academic staff to test the system. Lack of support staff resource meant that academics have not been given the levels of support needed for such a large technology and process change project. In addition the apparent inconsistent application and interpretation of TQA guidance across the University made application of a single technical solution difficult. As a consequence of all these factors 40% of pilot users withdrew resulting in a general lack of confidence in the system. Further work is being undertaken during the summer to develop the most requested features, and the system is due to be available to Colleges by September 2012. In parallel, a series of open meetings are being held to encourage participation and attempt to dispel negative perceptions. Changes to the PID The original OCM version 2 PID proposed that funding be released for further technical development of the existing software during 2012-13. Following discussion at the Project Board and with the Director of Academic Services, a consensus has been reached that there are fundamental issues with this approach and that the project needs to focus on change management and assessment processes before looking to implement a technical solution. The following outlines the current situation : Colleges and Departments continue to run different assessment processes. Until there is a consistent understanding of the range of practice and how that can be streamlined, it will be difficult to develop a technical solution to suit all needs; The perceptions of OCM and in particular on-line marking have led to resistance from academic staff to engage; The developers have consistently failed to meet deadlines, leading to a lack of confidence in their ability to deliver; Since the project was started, the sector is engaging more with electronic assessment and more suppliers are developing off-the-shelf solutions, offering a greater choice of software solutions; New senior management sponsors (Dean and Head of Quality and Enhancement) may wish to review the current project roadmap. 1
Recommendations It is recommended that the September release of OCM continues, with Colleges encouraged to opt-in from 2012/13 where the system suits their needs. In the meantime the OCM version 2 project should be extended by one year, further funding allocated and refocused to include: A full review of assessment practice and policy with the aim of improving our understanding of the range of practice in colleges and ways of developing policies and processes that reflect that and consequently a technical solution that will meet the needs of stakeholders; A change-management project to ensure that all staff are engaged with the principles of electronic assessment; A review all software options that will meet agreed assessment standards and make appropriate recommendations. Only when the three points above are fully considered and complete will OCM become a viable option for the University. Depending on outcomes, it may subsequently be advantageous to consider interim alternative processes which may meet some if not all requirements e.g. on-line submission and feedback only. 2. Overview a) Business Need OCM will meet the following business needs if it is fit-for-purpose and staff are willing to engage with the system: Improved NSS assessment and feedback scores: o By making OCM suitable for use by most assignments, three week turnaround targets will be more easily met, students will be able to submit assignments from any location and will receive timely, legible feedback. Efficiency savings: o o Sustainability: o Support staff will no longer have to receive and receipt coursework, collate and distribute to markers, repeat the process to return work back to students and then manually enter the grades into SITS. Markers will have instant access to assignments providing more marking time. Assignments will no longer have to be printed and transported to markers. a) Benefits Cash savings will be generated indirectly through: Reduction in printed material as all assignments will be managed electronically; Reduction in administrative staff time to accept, distribute and manage the current paper-based system; Improved feedback turnaround times as academic staff will not have to wait for paper-based assignments to be delivered to them and will be able to release feedback as soon as marking is complete; Improved NSS scores for assessment and feedback thus improving University ranking. 2
3. Scope a) In Scope All electronic coursework assignments across all Colleges b) Out of Scope Management of assignments which cannot be handled electronically. Although it may be deemed in scope to manage feedback from such assignments through OCM. Management of exams processes 4. Objectives Complete a full review (feasibility study) of assessment practice and policy with the aim of improving our understanding of the range of practice in colleges and ways of developing policies and processes that reflect that and enable a detailed specification for an IT system to manage all process variations; Undertake a change-management review to ensure that processes are in place to support and engage all staff with the principles of electronic assessment, and if deemed necessary, consider a range of marking options; Undertake a review of all software solutions that will meet the agreed requirements and make appropriate recommendations for development or purchase. Implement the selected software solution 5. Project Plan P1. Current assessment practice and policy review P2. Extend pilot of OCM v1.1 2012 2013 2014 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 P3. Introduce minor enhancements to existing system P4. Change management to support engagement P5. Set scope of OCM v2 project P6. Procure and implement technical solution 3
Phase 1 Current assessment practice and policy review Undertake full review of existing assessment practice across the University. Identify common processes, areas for change and external constraints Dates/Duration: Sep 2012 Apr 2013 Provided by: Recommendations for new standard processes (where appropriate) Statement of requirements for an electronic coursework management tool Project Board, Assessment Process Workstream Phase 2 Extended OCM v 1.1 Pilot Opt-in OCM service for all Colleges Dates/Duration: Sep 2012 Aug 2014 Provided by: Staff engagement. Further heavily supported use of existing OCM software. Staff and student feedback. elearning Team, College Educational Technologists, College champions, OCM Pilot and Enhancements Workstream Phase 3 Introduce minor enhancements to existing system Limited extra functionality to improve staff engagement Dates/Duration: Sep Dec 2012 Provided by: Working from the existing wish-list, introduce further minor enhancements. OCM Pilot and Enhancements Workstream Phase 4 Change management to support academic staff engagement Structured change management exercise to engage staff with theory and practice of electronic assessment Dates/Duration: Sep 2012 Aug 2014 Provided by: Report on perceptions and provide support for staff engagement with new assessment practices Change Management Workstream Phase 5 Set Scope of OCM Project Recommendations on the extent of engagement, scope and targets for OCM within the University Dates/Duration: May Jul 2013 Provided by: Project Board, Project Scoping Workstream Phase 6 OCM v2 implementation Based on the outcomes of phases 1 to 5, implement the selected solution Dates/Duration: Nov 2013 Aug 2014 Fully functional OCM solution available for the 2014/15 session 4
Provided by: Project Board, Procurement and Implementation Workstream 6. Risk Analysis a) Risks There is a risk that there will be insufficient funding to undertake the extra activities in the proposal as well as acquire a suitable software solution. This will be mitigated by the use of existing resource where possible for process review, change management and software review. There is a risk that if a ULCC tender to extend the current OCM system is found to be the best solution available, that Exeter will continue to face challenges with ULCC s ability to deliver. This will be mitigated by the use of an experienced project manager and firm penalty clauses. There is a risk that student expectations of electronic management of the assessment process will not be met caused by the inevitable delay to the software implementation. This will be mitigated by an ongoing rollout of OCM v1.1 as well as a review of interim solutions which may include submission and feedback only. There is a risk that the process review will reveal such diversity in processes that a single software solution cannot be found. This will be mitigated by consideration of process change and software options available. There is a risk that academic staff will not be willing to embrace on-line marking. This will be mitigated by the change management process which will help staff to realise the benefits and flexibility of the software solution to cater for those who need to follow paper-based processes. b) Issues Funding for the extended project has not yet been identified. The original budget was based on ongoing implementation of low cost open-source shared service. The preferred technical solution may cost considerably more than anticipated (see project budget) c) Assumptions It is assumed that the Infrastructure Strategy will fund the project for the next 3 years It is assumed that local staff will be made available to support the project It is assumed that project management will be met from existing resource d) Dependencies There are no dependencies associated with this project e) Constraints There are no constraints associated with this project 5
7. Project Resources a) Financial Resources All figures are inclusive of VAT at 20% Item Year 1 (12/13) Funding source: Year 2 (13/14) Project (Capital) Costs 90K Infrastructure Strategy Year 3 (14/15) Total OCM user support 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Change management 23,000 23,000 46,000 Process review 1 15,000 15,000 Hardware and storage 2 10,000 50,000 50,000 110,000 On-line marking equipment 3 10,000 10,000 Software licence 4 100,000 20,000 5 120,000 Technical implementation services 40,000 6 20,000 60,000 Procurement 5,000 5,000 Contingency 10,000 20,000 20,000 50,000 Total 98,000 268,000 140,000 506,000 On-going (revenue) Costs Funding source: 40K pa Infrastructure Strategy Total 40,000 40,000 170,000 Deficits against the current budget: Year 1: 8,000 Year 2: 228,000 Year 3: 100,000 1 Based on advice from the Change Team 2 Based on ULCC storage costs and anticipated take-up of the system 3 Equipment to assist staff with on-line marking trials e.g. tablet devices 4 Ballpark figure. If open-source or ULCC development selected, may be considerably less 5 Assuming 20% annual licence cost 6 May be local support or consultancy services depending on the solution chosen 6
b) Human Resources Project Sponsor: Academic Dean i. Project Board Role Chair Name Head of Quality and Enhancement Project Manager Academic Dean College Manager Academic representative Head of elearning Head of Academic Policy and Standards College support representative Exeter IT representative Guild VP Academic Affairs ii. Dedicated Project Staff Title Role Days Funding Source Project Manager Oversee the entire project 100% 2 year Existing resource OCM User Support Change Manager Process Review Manager Technical manager Dedicated OCM v1.1 technical and change support Produce change plan for introduction of new processes and on-line marking review Undertake feasibility study of the requirements and impact of introducing a single electronic coursework management solution Undertake technical integration of the selected solution 100% 3 year Project 50% 3 year Project 50% 8 months (yr 1) Project 100% 50% 1 year (yr 1) 6 months (yr 2) Project iii. Project Workstreams Assessment Process Work Stream Aim: To oversee the assessment practice and policy review Role Name Days Manager Project Manager 20% 8 months Head of Academic Policy and Standards Process Review Manager College representative 10% 50% 8 months 7
OCM Pilot and Enhancements Work Stream Aim: To oversee and support the extended pilot and manage minor enhancements Role Name Days Manager Project Manager 20% 2 year OCM User Support Head of elearning Exeter IT representative College Learning Technologist College representative Change Management Work Stream 100% 2% Aim: To oversee the assessment change management process Role Name Days 2 year Manager Project Manager 20% 8 months Project Scoping Work Stream Change Manager College representative 50% 10% 2 year Aim: To review outcomes from change management and assessment reviews, set the scope of the technical solution and make recommendations for system selection Role Name Days Manager Project Manager 50% 3 months Head of Academic Policy and Standards Exeter IT representative Head of elearning College representative Procurement and Implementation Work Stream 3 months Aim: To procure and implement a technical solution based on the outcomes of the project scoping workstream Role Name Days Manager Project Manager 50% 1 year Head of elearning Exeter IT representative OCM User Support Technical Manager Procurement representative College representative Student representative 100% 100% 1 year iv. Other Internal Resources Exeter IT Enterprise Applications team ongoing technical support for Moodle2 elearning team, College learning technologists second line support, training 8
8. Managing the Project a) Quality Assurance All QA will be managed by the Project Board b) Change Control The standard University change controls will be exercised, with change requests presented to the Project Board for consideration and decision. Given the time constraint and the danger of scope creep, care will be taken to minimize the number of change requests that are accepted. All change requests that are presented to the Board will be published on the project website. c) Project Logs Project logs containing risks, issues and actions will be maintained throughout the project the emphasis will be on ensuring that none of the risks that are recognized become issues that need to be overcome. The latest copy will be held on the project website. d) Communications i. Stakeholder Analysis A stakeholder analysis will be created and will inform the communications plan and actions. A copy will be held on the project website. ii. Communications Plan A communications plan will be developed as part of the project set. The communications plan will be actioned throughout the implementation and beyond. A copy will be held on the project website. 9. Closure a) ITIL Process (Acceptance into Operational Service) This will be completed and signed off prior to go-live b) Closure Procedure i. On-going Ownership and Accountability On-going support will be provided by the selected software supplier Local support will be managed by the IT Helpdesk, Academic Systems and elearning teams ii. On-going Training The elearning Team will take responsibility for training academic and administrative staff. Students will not require training in the use of the system, but will be provided with general guidelines by their Colleges. 9