Content Comparison

...

• Across the full breadth/scope of the six HLS documents:
• Resolve a high level scope tension: The full scope of the six HLS documents is considerably larger than the scope of WIP II as stated in the Business Justification Case (BJC). Do we want to go with the smaller, the larger or somewhere in between? Once this question is answered one document (set) needs updating. This decision might also influence whether the success indicator work should be across the full breadth or for each HLS area.
• Draft a vision or mission statement: A short, powerful, persuasive statement explaining why we are doing WIP II
• Make high level IA decisions: This would address issues such as "Will To reduce the probability that significant rework of content will be required high level IA decisions should be made before the detailed content planning and writing begins. I expect that this is a web team decision, with input from PMO and maybe even higher. The following issues have already been identified and require decisions:
  • Postgraduate: Will postgraduates be an audience at the top level of the banner, alongside future students and current students?
  " and "
  • Research: Will the Research zone be the home for the large number of research sites, institutes and chairs?
  ". I expect that this is a web team decision, with input from senior management and a postgraduate stakeholder (e.g. product owner)?

...

• • Learning and Teaching: Does not seem an audience or client group. How could this be best reshaped, moved or demoted? 
  • Others: ???

• For each of the six HSL documents:
• Socialise with wider web team: Both the full scope of all six documents (like the overview given to the project team last Friday) (so that they can identify gaps, irregularities and inconsistencies) and (to the extent that time allows) workshop the specific content (scope, approach, assumptions, dependencies, etc) and to answer as many of the open questions as is possible.
• Hunt down answers to open question: The open questions are substantive enough to expect that they be answered before locking down the scope. Other questions that one could reasonably expect would be answered during the analysis cycles of an agile project are located in the most recent MS Word versionQuestions that arerefelct Most of the open questions For open questions, we recognise that some will only be answered while doing the work. However, those where greater value is realised if answered earlier are those that impact on the PMO decision (i.e. scope, priorities, assumptions and dependencies).
• Identify success indicators: There does not seem to be any measures of success, so lets propose some, both in output language (e.g. reduce the number of pages by X") and outcome oriented (X% reduction in the number of "where is info on Z?"). We can also gather these in the initial stakeholder conversations.
• Stakeholder analysis: Identify the key stakeholders for each domain (a starting list), with suggestions for the "product owner", and an initial conversation with a small number of stakeholders from each area (i.e. make the introductions, present our role, listen to their expectations, identify any thorny issues, etc).
• Draft initial epic - story breakdown: Valuable to test our understanding of the scope, to allow initial estimation and to know what goes in the early sprints. But it will change as soon as we start 

...