# data[].attributes.body
•Sponsor/ sponsors

•Programme Managers

•Programme Administrator

•Business Change management

•Business Leads

•Comms and Training

•Testers and owners

•Transition

•Application Services and BAU Teams

•Service Delivery Teams

•Relationship Managers

•Planning and Resourcing

Stakeholders

•Process Owners

•Students

•Acedemics

•Suppliers

# data[].attributes.body
•Programme Manager – Planners

•Project Managers

•Programme Sponsor

•Business Change Management

•Business Advisors/ Solution Advisors (CTEL)

•Communications

•Programme Business Analyst

•Technical Coordinators

•Domain Architects

•Solution developers

•SPSGs Strategic groups

•Testing

•Service/ Business Owners

•Supplier management

•DESC

•Academic specialists

•TEL (DEC)

•SITS

# data[].attributes.body
•Sponsors – Are decisions fully informed?

•Empowered sponsorship groups

•Empowered PM’s (tolerances defined?)

•Resourcing planning – BAU considered?

•Business Change management and engagement

•Expertise gaps – In solutions e.g. Video/ developers

•Transition- ownership post project and effective handovers

•Supplier management varies greatly

•No additional resources in technical teams when new Tier 1 services introduced.

•Escalation of ideas process unknown

# data[].attributes.body
•Impact on other teams always seems unplanned

•Business Advisors/ Solution Advisors (CTEL)

•Information Compliance SME (been relying on project team)

•Gaps in programme sponsorship

•Project managers gap / acting PMs

•Communications Gap

•SPSGs Strategic groups (partially formed)

•Supplier management (inconsistent)/ vendor relationships management

•Domain Architects

•BA fully integrated in the programme

# data[].attributes.body
•Lack of project managers – adversely effected project length on a range of projects.

•Recruitment – PM’s understanding of product

•Understanding of Structure – TEL Board- PRB- ITFEG- SED Governance – FPG’s

•Being realistic in planning dates – taking into account key academic dates.

•Transition and go live planning – need effective support for end users.

•Failure to plan for content management, data management, retention, use of data as an asset

•Testing not efficient- testing teams engagement early.

•Product evaluation needs improving

•Comms continuous and early

•*** Clear requirement that are fit for purpose and reviewing periodically***

# data[].attributes.body
Current structure, Dependencies & Constraints

•SED governance

•Education Strategy

•Sponsorship and Empowerment

•Resourcing for BAU Activities

•Testing

•IT Communications

•Resourcing

•Suppliers and providers

# data[].attributes.body
Lessons learned to date

•Lack of overarching programme budget/ control of finances

•Lack of involvement in recruitment from wider project teams

•Lack of project management resources on the programme

•Changing rules over the course of the Programme

•Staff turnover – lack of passion for the programme

•Communications

•Lack of programme aspiration and appetite wider stakeholders

•Lack of customer vision/ losing sight of benefits

•Focus on time and budget and keeping the project green

•Hierarchy PM’s at the top/ application services and CTEL feeling of subordination

•Application solutions/ solutions / CTEL working together could be streamlined.

•CTEL expertise and faculty relationships not being fully utilised.

•Some delivered projects ad successes evaluation of LC, Benchmarking, Keats upgrade are these being fully communicated.

•Better relationships with suppliers (JISC, Catalyst)

# data[].attributes.body
Current structure, Dependencies & Constraints

•Project structure and constraints on time?

•KOM Waterfall approach?

•Lack of Programme relationship building

•SCRUM

•AGILE

•Stakeholders (are these currently being brought in too late)

•PIA (who responsible for this?)

•Lack of planning PM’s not consulted enough by team and don’t do enough consultation with the team when planning.

# data[].attributes.body
•Programme and project communications to be filtered through a central point (Nabila Raji) •Sharing information across the team

•Workshops like this one to build ways of working
•Weekly catch-ups

# data[].attributes.body
•Reporting in a more consistent way
•Spending more time/ in a structured way on the forming stage T0- T1
Reporting Honestly
•BA involvement from the very beginning
•Consistent/ structured way of storing documents
•Programme Finance code
•KCL standard recruitment processes/ wider involvement in recruitment panels
•Wider knowledge sharing of Education and Environment projects with CTEL and others
•Visionary/ planning/ strategic links with what we do
•Focus on Benefits and Quality
•Engage with and focus on Students more rather than IT processes

# data[].attributes.body
•Setting unrealistic timeframes
•Rushing recruitment
•Talking about TEL and SITS as separate pieces of work
•CTEL covering as PM’s
•Too many projects and making minimal progress
•Roles doing more than they should areas of expertise