---

Project development

Project Management

The need for good project management is recognised especially in this kind of project which has a number of different products in a number of different areas.

The PRINCE 2 methodology will be used throughout AGORA and will also be extended by having a project management web server at the lead site allowing distributed access to project management reports live. This is necessary to give the greatest access to all partners and to manage a distributed project.

The virtual project teams will be convened by one of the appropriate full-time team members who will coordinate the team and be responsible for delivering that teams product. The virtual teams will use the web over JANET to communicated and cooperate.

Teams will be formed and dissolved as needed for specific stages of the project. These teams include product development as well quality assurance. This way quality assurance can be maintained and involvement by all partners promoted.

Stage Boundaries

Due to the length of the project it will effectively be split into 4 stages which align with the financial arrangements. These stages will be treated as smaller projects in their own right. This PRINCE approach will allow tight control by specifying deliverables in smaller more manageable units. An advantage of this approach is that the overall vision can be maintained but changes in the environment can be integrated as soon they become important.

The Stage boundaries can be loosely described as:

Stage 1: Build project team, create prototype and get user consensus from the prototype on the final vision.

Stage 2: Build first release the first production system and introduce migration support tools.

Stage 3: Finalise technology and support in all partner sites and disseminate further.

Stage 4: Emphasis on dissemination, maintenance and future plan implementation

Key Dates

Project Start - November 1997

Stage Boundaries

• Stage 1 begins - November 1997
• Stage 2 begins - August 1998
• Stage 3 begins - August 1999
• Stage 4 begins - August 2000

Project Closure - October 2000

Deliverable descriptions

The deliverables strategy is ongoing within the project. All documents will be made available on the WWW to all stakeholders, immediately they have passed quality assurance.

The project management reports and task summaries will also be available on the web live. This will allow stakeholders to monitor progress and quickly grasp the status of the project.

In addition to this continuous flow of materials there will be specific stage deliverables.

Stage 1

• Prototype delivery
• Evaluation report describing the collective vision for the final products. This report will go through a strict quality assurance procedure.
• Communications strategy describing the specific steps to both ensuring awareness in the community and growing the user groups.
• Library partner guidance manual produced from the technical group. This will guide the library group in their preparation for implementing the HLMS.
• On-line conferencing and communications environment.
• Standardisation reports.

Stage 2

• Hybrid Library management system pilot implementation.
• Technical implementation specification for library group.
• HLMS management guide.
• HLMS implementation guide.
• User feedback reports.

Stage 3

• Upgraded and completed HLMS.
• Software suite.
• Set of implementation guides for all areas including training guides for use at libraries to support staff development.
• Planning exit strategy.

Stage 4

• Upgraded HLMS with any bug fixes.
• Complete project evaluation and report.
• Implementing exit strategy.

Systems development, integration design and development methods

Fretwell Downing Informatics are ISO 9000 accredited and their Quality Management System are DTI ticketed. These are compatible with the PRINCE 2 project management methodology in use throughout the project.

Evaluation

The Agora consortium regards evaluation as a key element of the project and one which must be addressed from the outset. The collaborative framework within which the consortium will operate will provide a good range of perspectives: from different types of library as well as from a technical standpoint. However, evaluation will be much wider than that, and will draw on the broad user community towards which Agora is addressed. Formative evaluation will track the project from day one and will:

• provide a user view on the initial objective setting and user requirements. It should be noted that users have been drawn into the proposal.
• draw users into the assessment of each stage of the project.
• ensure that software development is an iterative process, through staged prototyping, which involves constant checking back on user requirements.
• review the user requirements and project products in the light of technical and service advances during the period.
• invite user feedback through the dissemination process.

In this process the project will make use of focus groups to elicit views on requirements and on the gaps between perceived requirements and perceived product delivery. It will also use structured interviews and competitor analysis to triangulate these inputs and provide a dynamic assessment of progress.

It is intended to carry out a formal annual review process, which will be summarised in the Projectís annual report. The Project will have a Management Committee which will consist of representatives of Consortium partners, partner groups and the funders. This will monitor the development of the project against a project plan. Summative evaluation will bring a rounded view of the place of Agora within the networked information community as a whole, ensuring that it can be placed optimally within the market place and strategically within the developing context of hybrid libraries.

CERLIM's credentials for leading the evaluation and assessment efforts in Agora have been explored more fully above (see Objectives: Quality Assurance/Product Evaluation). CERLIM has considerable experience of these issues, playing a similar role in the eLib NewsAgent project and having carried out several successful evaluation strands within EC Libraries Programme projects (BIBDEL, SELF, EQLIPSE etc.). The results of the evaluation will be fed into the communication framework developed in the project.

CERLIM will utilise its position as a research centre, separate and distinct from its host library, both to conduct evaluation of the AGORA product at the University of Central Lancashire Library and Learning Resource Services, and to co-ordinate input from the other evaluation sites. In particular, a Quality Assurance Group will be set up, in accordance with the requirements of the PRINCE project management application. Furthermore, CERLIM will choose a mix of appropriate methodologies to ensure that both the AGORA product and its impact on users and services are evaluated effectively.

Product evaluation, quality control and review mechanisms

Quality Assurance

Formal quality assurance procedures are built into the development cycle from the first. These are inclusive and wide ranging. They ensure that the project can only continue to the next stage by acceptance of the products by all parties.

Project Review

There is project review by the users, by all the partners and the funding council on a regular basis. There is project evaluation throughout and product evaluation at all stages.

Arrangements for user and community feedback

The evaluation will also act as a third party perspective in addition to the quality assurance procedures. The quality assurance procedures and project board both have comprehensive user and community involvement.

Evaluation and Quality Assurance

Open Evaluation and online documentation enable community feedback from both public events and the evaluation team.

Dissemination Plans

The dissemination plans are built into the base of the project. This is highlighted by the inclusion of a team member who's primary role is project communications and dissemination.

In addition to this there will be extra specific activities to involve the community in year 3. This is reflected in increased travel and dissemination costs for the final year. We will take the project to the community in the last year to capitalise on the dissemination efforts over the previous 2 years.