Page Comparison

Paper presented to Madeleine 15.06.15

Options presented do not attempt demonstrate timeframes, only that CSP is less complex than a faculty and school site
The first faculty site dealt with is likely to be a longer development activity
All 7 teaching faculties are planned to be dealt with via one of these options
FGR approach TBC

...

Option	Description	Pros	Cons	Comments
1	Top 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
2	Top 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
3	One 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 Increased duplication of course outlines, as COO runs ahead of WIP II.
4	Two 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	APPROVED OPTION

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

...