Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Added some pros and cons

...

OptionDescriptionProsConsComments
1Top slice courses, subjects and programmes. Once complete commence on faculty and school sites.
  • Adheres to initial view of completing centralised repositories first
  • Optimised for the goal of "supporting recruitment benefits by our 1 October deadline"
  • Delivers some benefits to all faculties this year
  • Delays work on the faculty and school sites
 
2Top slice courses and subjects. Programmes done with faculty and school sites.
  • Adheres to initial view of completing centralised repositories first
  • Move onto F&S sites earlier as programmes are addressed in this development
 
  • Recruitment process will bounce all future students to an old style programme page
 
3One faculty at a time, with their CSP first.
  • Each faculty and school site is completed and released as a whole
  • Still addresses CSP first, but focuses on priority faculties upfront
  • Slows engagement across faculties
 
4Two parallel work streams. CSP in one, and F&S sites in another.
  • Allows progress on F&S sites and CSP in parallel
  • Improves engagement across all faculties, as will work with them sooner on CSP
 
  • Enables more flexible resource mapping (specialists to priority task)
  • Any specific faculty will be slower due to prioritising CSP
 

 

Option 1 & 2

  1. Top slice each faculty and do entirety of CSP prior to commencing development on the broader F&S site.
  2. Top slice but for courses and subject only.  Do programmes as part of the wider F&S site.

...