Option 1
Top slice each faculty and do entirety of CSP prior to commencing development on the broader F&S site.
Option 2
Do one faculty at a time. Start with CSP. Once completed commence development on the broader F&S site.
Option 3
...
Paper presented to Madeleine 15.06.15
Notes:
- 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
Options Summary
| Option | Description | Pros | Cons | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Top slice courses, subjects and programmes. Once complete commence on faculty and school sites. |
|
| |
| 2 | Top slice courses and subjects. Programmes done with faculty and school sites. |
|
| |
| 3 | One faculty at a time, with their CSP first. |
|
| |
| 4 | Two parallel work streams. CSP in one, and F&S sites in another. |
|
| APPROVED OPTION |
Option 1 & 2
- 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
...
Option 4
Top slice courses and subjects across all faculties. Then commence each F&S site, with its associated programmes.
...
- .
Option 3
Do one faculty at a time. Start with CSP. Once completed commence development on the broader F&S site.
Option 4
Two work streams. CSP and F&S sites started and ran in parallel. CSP will finish ahead of F&S sites. F&S sites may overlap towards the end of each development block. First faculty site will take longer.
