Www.projects.ed.ac.uk



Asset Register Update12th February 2012Update on Project Activities since the last User Group (9th Jan 2013)Meetings with Finance, Estates and Governance and Strategic Planning (GaSP) to review the feasibility of existing asset register solutions within the UniversityIncorporating feedback from the last User Group, the draft Business Requirements document was created and circulated within the Project Team. Systems analysis against the agreed business requirements for the eFinancials, WebCentral, PURE and Science and Engineering asset register solutionsAgreement of non-functional requirements for scoring each asset solution, for example; skills must be readily available for any development work or ease of access for users. Collation of outputs from the systems and business analysis to create the gap analysis matrix. Analysis of Software SolutionsIt was agreed early in the project that solutions currently available within the University would be matched to the agreed requirements gathered through consultation with the user community. This decision was made to remove uncertainty of using external solutions and also to limit the time required to identify and deliver a suitable solution. The project team identified the following options currently available within the University; Science and Engineering Asset Register (CSE)eFinancials Asset Register ModuleWebCentral PUREOf the above, not one could fully meet all Mandatory requirements without some form of development. Based on current functionality available within each solution the match against requirements that could be fully or partially met for each are; CSEeFinancialsWebCentralPUREMandatory Functional Requirements (20 req.)17/2016/2011/2019/20Highly Desirable Functional Requirements (7 req.)5/75/73/74/7Desirable Functional Requirements (10 req.)3/103/102/101/10Essential Data Requirements (28 req.)27/2814/2812/289/28Optional Data Requirements4/248/249/240/24Web CentralThe web central system has the facility to record assets. It meets some of the basic requirements for this project, and has some scope for modification. It does, however, have a number of drawbacks. It has not been used by the University, and will therefore require significant familiarisation and training for IS staff before any work could begin on the system. It is likely that this, plus the cost of the developments required, would take the use of Web Central beyond the budget available for this project.A further potential drawback revolves around the longer term use of the Web Central system as a whole. Estates and Buildings are currently reviewing their relationship with the software provider, and a project to review aspects of the Estates and Building systems provision has been tabled for the 2013/14 financial year. The future of the Estates systems, as they currently stand, is not clear.As a consequence, it is recommended that the Web Central system is not given any further consideration.User Group Action: The User Group to consider agreement of the Project Teams recommendation to not consider the Web Central option further. PureThe PURE system is the closest match to the mandatory requirements of all options but there is a large gap with the available data requirements. There is the option to make use of a free text description field for any data fields that could be provided, however, this would not provide the search or reporting functionality needed. In addition to the above, the Research Information Systems team have a pre agreed development schedule for PURE that would conflict with the timescales for delivery of the Asset Register. It is therefore recommended that the PURE system is discounted from the options available for further analysis. There would also likely be cost implications for this option as the supplier may need to be involved.User Group Action: The User Group to confirm whether they accept the Project Team’s recommendation that PURE should not be considered an option for the University’s Research Asset Register.College of Science and Engineering Equipment Sharing Database (Software Development)This database was developed to provide a register of shareable equipment in the College of Science and Engineering, and has proved a valuable proof of concept in the efforts to provide a university wide system.As might be expected, this system meets many of the mandatory and essential requirements. It is, however, recommended that, in order to migrate it to a university wide system, it should be re-developed using Information Services (IS) supported hardware and software. This would ensure the required level of technical support, and would also provide some scope for further development of the system. It is estimated that this work can be done within the existing scope and budget of the project.It is recommended that the equipment sharing database is included in those systems given further consideration.eFinancials Fixed Asset ModuleeFinancials is currently used to record all university assets with a value of ?25k or more, and can be used to record assets of lower value. The Finance Department is currently planning to use the fixed assets module to record all insurable assets.The fixed assets module meets a number of the mandatory and essential data requirements, and may be able to be configured to meet the majority of them. The Project Team are in discussions with Finance over options to make use of unused fields.An important benefit of using eFinancials will be the ability to establish a single, “golden copy” of recorded assets, removing the need for duplicate record keeping and improving accuracy. This also reduces the likelihood of data not being kept in sync. The Project Team view this as a benefit to the eFinancials option but seek the User Groups input in to how important this factor should be in the final decision. User Group Action: Confirm the importance of delivering a solution which reduces the need for double keying or maintaining multiple data sets.End user search and reporting will need to be developed outwith eFinancials. It is proposed that a MyEd channel would be developed to deliver the user search. This would provide a level of security for accessing the search. BOXI and WebFirst reporting could be provided to meet reporting requirements.It is recommended that eFinancials is included in those systems given further consideration. User Group Action: Confirm the Project Teams recommendation to limit further investigation to the options of using either the eFinancials Asset Register or basing a software development on the CSE solution.Confirmation of Data RequirementsAt the last User Group the functional user requirements were reviewed and minor changes agreed. Paper B contains a list of the draft data fields categorised as essential or optional based on user consultations. Given the limited project budget and the options available it may not be possible to deliver all data fields, therefore the group are now asked to review the data requirements and confirm that essential or optional data fields are correctly categorised. User Group Action: Review and confirm which data is truly essential for the purpose of recording and sharing Assets. Use of a TaxonomyUsing a Taxonomy has a number of benefits for searching and reporting, however, there are also implications for on-going support and maintenance. Such concerns include; Who would be responsible for agreeing and maintaining changes?What if an asset doesn’t logically fit within the provided taxonomy? If changes are made, should existing records be updated to reflect the changes?The APUC have identified the N8 taxonomy (see Paper C) and wish to promote this as the standard for categorisation of assets. Given this, it would seem sensible that should a taxonomy be required then the N8 option should be adopted. The N8 is a partnership of 8 Northern Universities (Durham, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and York) and the taxonomy has been developed through that partnership. The N8 taxonomy has three levels (Class, Order and Genus) and the project team would like the User Group’s input as to whether, if adopted, the full three levels are required. User Group Action: Confirm whether the solution should include the use of a full taxonomy or whether a simplified approach could be considered. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download