Assuming that we want to use (a somewhat) Agile approach to delivering scope of WIP II we need to decide on where we begin the iterative (two week?) cycle of analysis, design, development, testing and deployment. Deciding where to begin is important and will differ according to the criteria used. So, the following table is designed to gather a range of perspectives for each HLS being the starting point and then to provide input for a PMO decision.
Start with | Reasons for | Reasons against |
|---|---|---|
| Student information | Delivers benefit to key user group Builds on the existing student hubs Few internal dependencies Could deliver some early benefits | Low recruitment benefit No clear product owner Has manageable external dependency on Learning Success Large and may be difficult to break in to smaller releases |
| Course and Subject Information | Meeting stakeholder (i.e. PMO) expectations User numbers (GA) Already partially done in WIP I Valuable for recruitment | Requires decision on purpose of F&S sites (assumption that it is desirable to move this information out of departmental structures) Requires (simple) decision on the purpose of PG hub Require a reference group to provide product owner input Has manageable external dependency on CIP and COO Large and may be difficult to break in to smaller releases
|
| Postgraduate information | Large room for improvement Key focus group Few internal dependencies No external dependencies Could deliver some early benefits | May be difficult to identify a product owner |
Research Centres, Institutes and Chairs | No internal dependencies Could deliver some early benefits
| Fringe to WIP II purpose Low visitor numbers |
| Faculty and School Information | Central to WIP II purpose Meeting stakeholder (i.e. PMO) expectations Frequently clicked links Easy to break into small releases, delivering benefit early and often | Large, as in many faculties and schools Complex, as in the most internal dependencies Some very large faculties (i.e. many schools) |