1. SA&S-Fortnightly Status Report – Overview Period Ending 1st June 2017
Deliverables
this period
1. Tranche 1: Six project PIDs are being signed offs by project team ; Core team now involved in analysis/foundation phase;
2. Planning about next steps for Tier 4;
3. TOM finalised for SEP Board;
4. Planning resources with SSP in progress;
5. User engagement progressed at projects. Post change management roles and responsibilities being clarified;
Current Status
Previous Status G A
Management and Control
Engagement
Delivery
Planning
Resource
RAID
Costs & Benefits
Stakeholders
Communications G A
PIDs signed off on track. Need to plan additional Dev resources for SAS002 from July. Timetabling vendor’s resource confirmed.
Clarify Tier 4 planning/milestones.
Recruitment of Core SA&S team resources being planned. Next year SA&S plan to be aligned with SSP plans.
Programme Plan to be updated with PID new baselines.
Resources for projects mobilised. Reduced senior BA availability during peak APT period
Mobilisation of Tier 4 resources tbc. ISG resources to support Timetabling to be fully secured
RAID log up-to-date for Risks and Issues, Assumptions and Dependencies.
To be updated as PIDs progress.
Detailed projects costs being progressed, baseline as per PID sign offs.. Benefits log completed in PIDs: to be articulated at Programme level. Customer mapping Journey toolkit tbc.
Roles for change management being clarified post training. Follow up at project level with newly appointed CM resource on SCEC and Working & Study Away projects. EUSA engaged. User engagement at projects
Wider stakeholder programme communication: next newsletter due mid June. Long term strategy and plan being articulated at SEP level, expected to be cascaded at sub-programme level.

2. SAS– Fortnightly Status Report – Programme Risks Period Ending 1st June 2017
For information
Risk
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
There is a risk that the number of SA&S projects that can be run within SSP during 17/18 is limited. This takes into account the SSP compliance and support priorities, SSP resource capacity and the constraint that no more than 5 concurrent projects can be run in SSP.
Some tranche 1 projects do not start as per plan 4 3 12
No movement
Align SSP and SA&S planning- Agree prioritisation-Resolve conflict with Barry Recruit BA/Dev resources in SSP (2 year fixed term)
Franck Bergeret
The TOM does not address the entirety of the scope of the SA&S. There is a risk that standard processes , introduced by the OBC, slip back to as it was, i.e. diverse local solutions
Benefits are not realised
Take opportunities to change roles and responsibilities during OBC design and implementation.
Persuade users of the benefits of standard approaches, and seek continuous development
Barry Neilson
There is a risk that coordination of the communication at programme level is not being done
Projects will not get traction, Colleges and Schools not convinced of need for change, benefits will not be realised 2 6
Decreased
Communication and Stakeholder engagement can be planned now that the approaches and roles are nearing agreement and resource is in place to support the teams.   Outcome of SEP level communication strategy and impact at programme to be done.

3. SAS– Fortnightly Status Report – Programme Issues Period Ending 1st June 2017
Green - Low
Not currently impacting the project A
Amber - Medium
Resolution in hand and is being managed within the Programme R
Red – High
Immediate escalation is required
For escalation
Issue ID #
Issue Description. There is an issue that…
Severity
Score
(RAG)
Issue resolution
Senior Managerial Responsibility 1
Mobilising core project team resource continues to be challenging but is progressing.
SA&S projects require SSP projects to be re-prioritised and the planning cycles of SE and SSP are not yet aligned.
Medium
1.Joint approach to planning from 2017/18 (SA&S and SSP), assess resource capacity, plan new resources
2.A joint senior supplier team to which operational project issues can be escalated-DONE-weekly meeting set up
3. A formal plan
1.Franck with SSP management team
2.Barry Neilson
3. Sally Priestley (PMO) 2
SEP is continuing to work through its approach to change management, benefits management and the associated roles, which in turn impacts plans for stakeholder engagement. The inter-related tools and methods are new to the University and it is taking time to articulate and plan the approach and to provide training and guidance.
-Additional resource will be put in place to provide training and support in change management and stakeholder communication, including at project level. -Training will be rolled out to all those involved in projects, included Change Facilitators and Board members.
-Plans and approaches will be documented.
-A proposal for the key roles and relationships to manage business change will be proposed to the SEP Board in June.
Sally Priestley (PMO) 3
We do not have a mature tool to baseline the user experience, one of our key recurrent benefits on SA&S projects. SA&S team has worked on providing a toolkit for the Customer Journey Mapping, but it is proving very lengthy to use (Around 3hrs/person from interview to transcript/process)
Use a mature tool with KPMG assistance Or
Accept that the existing toolkit will take time 4
How do we articulate the relationships between changes falling from the TOM and those that will be necessary to achieve the benefits described in the OBC, i.e. changes to roles and responsibilities
KPMG resources have been made available to articulate the link between TOM/OBC
Barry Neilson

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.