Course, Subjects and Programmes

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
1	Top slice courses, subjects and programmes. Once complete commence on faculty and school sites.	Adheres to initial view of completing centralised repositories first	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
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
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

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 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.