Project Proposal Document

1. Document Identification

Corporate Application Technology – Configuration Management

2. Background

In 1999 MIS separated the production and non-production environment for all
Corporate Applications through the procurement of the Calton and Arthur Unix
Database servers. In 2001 with the recognition of the move towards a three-tier web
based model for application delivery MIS purchased dedicated Unix application
servers Brodie and Rebus. During the last twelve months more and more applications
have migrated to this environment.

Over the past three years MIS have used the Utopia Help desk system to record bugs
and enhancement request. This approach has catered reasonably well for minor bug
fixes support for enhancements was limited – there was a separate Utopia Change
Request module which MIS had not purchased. Utopia is no longer supported and will
be phased out during 2002 and the replacement system has no provision for software
change requests.

As the corporate applications portfolio has grown it has become apparent that further
work is required to adequately support software development and release management
within this environment:

In particular the following issues need to be addressed:

• MIS development staff using the test environments to develop new software with
adverse impact on business partner testing activities.
• Development environments poorly maintained with out of date, unrepresentative
data leading to bugs which should have been identified during development
finding their way into test or production.
• Variable change control procedures leading to untested or inadequately tested
changes being applied to the production environment.
• Lack of formal enhancement request system for logging and processing
enhancement requests.
• The development and test database server Arthur running at capacity slowing up
both development and testing activities.
• The lack of formal release management facilities for systems.
• Poor communication to customers of when fixes will be included in production –
general response is either asap or perhaps not all.
• Lack of consistent development methodology across MIS.
This project sets out to address these problems and introduce a formal, consistent
approach to software development and release management across all Corporate
Applications.
3. Objectives

To introduce formal, consistent software development and release management

procedures for all MIS corporate applications with supporting hardware and software
provision as required.

4. Benefit Statement

This project seeks to:

• Improve the quality of in-house delivered software.

• Reduce risk of application downtime caused by untested software being
introduced to production.
• Improve testing facilities for MIS staff and customers.
• Improve development environment for MIS staff.
• Improve the responsiveness of the department on enhancement requests.
• Strengthen the University’s hand when dealing with poor quality software from
external suppliers.
• Improve the visibility and transparency of the development and release
management process.

5. Scope

The project addresses the development and release management requirements of all
Corporate Applications.

6. Deliverables

• Formalised change control procedures to manage the test and development

environments for all in house and package applications
• Formal release management procedures for all in-house Corporate Applications
• Formal procedures and supporting software if required for managing enhancement
requests.
• Procure, implement and configure new test database and application server.
• Separate development and test environments for all Corporate Applications
• Technical documentation for use by MIS staff.
• Overview documentation for use by MIS customers.

Project proposal to introduce new hardware, software and procedures to improve MIS
management of software release. Will include facilities for enhancement requests, bug
tracking facilities, configuration management etc.
7. Assumptions and constraints

Hardware funding may be an issue. If funding cannot be secured for 2002-2003 then
this element of project will be put back until major hardware upgrade scheduled for
2003-2004. Project can proceed without purchase of dedicated hardware for test
environment.

8. Estimates

Task Responsibility Estimated End Date

MIS DSG – Dev Pool
Procedures for change
MIS DSG - TS
control, release management August 2002
MIS BSG
and enhacement requests.
MIS CSG
Specify and procure test
MIS DSG - TS
database and application August 2002
FMD Unix
server
Specify and procure support MIS DSG – Dev Pool
change control, release MIS DSG - TS
November 2002
management and change MIS BSG
requests MIS CSG
MIS DSG – Dev Pool
Documentation Approved MIS DSG - TS
December 2002
and Released MIS BSG
MIS CSG
MIS DSG – Dev Pool
Implementation For MIS DSG - TS
From January 2003
Corporate Applications MIS BSG
MIS CSG

9. Cost

Staff
MIS DSG -Dev Pool 50 Resource Days
MIS DSG - TS 25 Resource Days
MIS BSG - 25 Resource Days
MIS CSG - 5 Resource Days
EUCS - 10 Resource Days
Business Partners – 25 Resource Days

Consultancy
£5000 for software installation and support.
Hardware
£40,000 for Test Database And Application Servers

Software
£20,000 for Configuration Management Software

10. Approved/Rejected

Approved/Rejected by MIC February 2002

Last Update By: Mark Ritchie

Last Update Date: 08/01/2002