DOC

InterCom Project Plan

By Carl Thomas,2015-02-15 22:55
15 views 0
Page 1 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011 InteropAbility Project Plan Project Information Project Identifier Project Title Interoperable Competences Framework Specification Project (InteropAbility) Project Hashtag Start Date 21 February 2011 End Date 8 July 2011 Lead Institution TAG Development..

InteropAbility Project Plan

Project Identifier

    Project Title Interoperable Competences Framework Specification Project

    (InteropAbility)

    Project Hashtag

    Start Date 21 February 2011 End Date 8 July 2011 Lead Institution TAG Developments, the web development division of BLi Education

    Ltd

    Project Director Matt Wingfield, Managing Director, TAG Developments Project Manager Alan Paull, APS Ltd

    Contact email alan@alanpaull.co.uk

    TAG Developments Partner Institutions APS Ltd

    MyKnowledgeMap Ltd

    Newcastle University

    The University of Nottingham

    Pebble Learning Ltd

    Project Webpage URL To be decided

    Programme Name eLearning Programme

    Programme Manager Lisa Gray, l.gray@jisc.ac.uk

Author(s) Alan Paull

    Project Role(s) Project Manager

    Date Filename 21 April 2011 InteropAbilityProjectPlan1.1.doc

    URL To be determined

    Access This document is for general dissemination.

    Version Date Comments 1.0 18 March 2011 First Release

    1.1 21 April 2011 Second Release: Change to para 1 to make it clear project is

    about exchange of info on structures.

    Slight change of some dates.

    Para 29 changed to OWFA 1.0 (from 0.9)

    Dissemination Plan updated

    Evaluation Plan updated.

    Page 1 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

Table of Contents

    Project Overview................................................................................................................................ 3 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 3

    Objective 1: Design goals and requirements............................................................................................ 3

    Objective 2: Common information model and initial draft specification ..................................................... 3

    Objective 3: Final specification ................................................................................................................ 3

    Objective 4: Dissemination and engagement ........................................................................................... 3 Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes ............................................................................................................ 4 Overall Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 4

    Methodology for creating the information model and draft specification .................................................... 4

    Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

    Critical Success Factors .......................................................................................................................... 7 Anticipated Impact ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Stakeholder Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 7 Related Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Constraints ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Assumptions .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Overview of risk .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Standards .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Intellectual Property Rights ......................................................................................................................... 9 Project Resources ........................................................................................................................... 10 Project Partners ....................................................................................................................................... 10

    Consortium Agreement ......................................................................................................................... 10 Project Management ................................................................................................................................ 10 Detailed Project Planning ................................................................................................................. 11 Evaluation Plan to follow........................................................................................................................ 11 Quality Assurance .................................................................................................................................... 12 Dissemination Plan................................................................................................................................... 12 Exit and Embedding Plans........................................................................................................................ 13 Sustainability Plans .................................................................................................................................. 13 Appendix A. Project Budget ............................................................................................................. 14 Appendix B. Workpackages ............................................................................................................. 15

Page 2 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

    Project Overview

    Project Summary

    1. In the InteropAbility Project the consortium partners will develop and test a common information model and

    draft specification for competence structures to support individuals and organisations that need to exchange

    information about these structures. Building on earlier interoperability work, including the development of

    Leap2A and XCRI, the project’s main focus will be on the potential use of the draft specification in the

    partners’ e-portfolio tools. Partners will carry out and report on their prototyping work that will demonstrate the

    efficacy of the draft specification in the context of a range of use cases and scenarios relating to usage by

    consortium members.

    2. Working in consultation with CETIS and the wider stakeholder community the project will provide guidance

    and discussion of any issues that pose challenges for implementation. The project will engage with the

    stakeholder community and will disseminate its findings, so that the draft specification and the project’s other

    outputs can form the basis of further work on interoperability standards in this domain, and so that early

    adopters can make practical use of the model and specification for publication of competence structures in a

    common format.

    3. The project will be completed over the period late February 2011 to early July 2011. The partners collectively

    represent market leading ePortfolio products and tools, and use a wide range of competence structures. 4. The strategic aim of the project is to make it easier for learners, institutions and other organisations to

    exchange information about competence structures and learners’ information relating to them. This strategic

    aim includes the export of information about learner achievements in a common format for consumption by

    other systems, and it will be of great interest not only to vendors and higher education institutions, both groups

    strongly represented in the InteropAbility Consortium, but also to Sector Skills Councils, other awarding

    bodies, professional and statutory bodies, and other agencies, such as the Quality Assurance Agency for

    Higher Education (QAA) and the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA).

    Objectives

    5. The project’s objectives are for the partners to work closely together to develop a set of agreed outputs,

    building up from initial use cases and scenarios, through detailed requirements, to a common information

    model and an agreed draft specification.

    Objective 1: Design goals and requirements

    6. The project team will describe specific use cases and scenarios in order to:

    ; Specify and agree design goals and requirements quickly, with a deadline of 22 April.

    ; Ensure that an appropriate range of different uses of the competence specification will be covered,

    including usage in academic, vocational, professional and qualification based areas.

    Objective 2: Common information model and initial draft specification 7. A common information model that meets the demands of the design goals and requirements will be drafted,

    in tandem with an initial draft specification. The initial information model and specification will be completed

    by the end of April 2011. It will be concise and complete in its coverage of the problem space, but not detailed.

    It will be designed to support further investigations and prototyping by the partners.

    Objective 3: Final specification

    8. The project team will produce and publish a final specification that is fit for purpose by the end of the project. It

    will be published on the Web in a suitable format, to be determined.

    Objective 4: Dissemination and engagement

    9. Project outputs and findings will be disseminated to stakeholders through existing events towards the end of

    the project, the project website and through JISC via formal reporting. Interim findings will be disseminated to

    interested parties who are not project team members, so that they can be engaged in the work.

    Page 3 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes

Output / Outcome Type Brief Description

    (e.g. report, publication,

    software, knowledge built)

    Published draft competence Draft specification for representing competence frameworks in HTML framework specification format and linked information model; to include design approach,

    requirements and example instances.

    A publicly available report (in A publicly available report (in PDF and HTML) linking to the above PDF and HTML) linking to deliverable, and also including:

    the draft specification ; a description of the process of the specification development,

    highlighting any issues arising and lessons for future work of this

    kind.

    ; a set of at least 10 substantially different competence structures

    actually used by one or more systems controlled by a consortium

    partner, fully using the format of the final version of the agreed

    specification.

    ; demonstrations of how the draft specification can be used by tools to

    consume and use competence frameworks across the partner

    systems.

    ; use-cases from each partner describing the envisaged use of the

    specification with their systems.

    ; discussion on specific issues that pose challenges for

    implementation, with clear explanations of how each one may be

    effectively overcome.

    ; discussion of how the partners plan to implement the use of the

    agreed specification.

    Recommendations to JISC Recommendations for wider interoperability in respect of Leap2A and

    XCRI

    Project website and Publication on the web of at least ten competency structures in the draft supporting materials format

    Use of the new specification We expect take-up by the stakeholder community as an important step in the stakeholder forward in interoperability development in this domain. Evidenced by community take-up of the format and publication on the web amongst the

    stakeholder community.

    Further work in future We expect that consideration will be given to further work on this proto-

    projects standard, so that a practical and enhanced formal standard for

    competence frameworks can be explored and agreed, in line with

    European and international developments, and full implementation case

    studies can be identified and documented to increase take up in the

    future.

    Overall Approach

    Methodology for creating the information model and draft specification

    10. The consortium’s approach to the project will build on the partners’ earlier involvement in Leap2A and XCRI

    standards development and implementation, and their ongoing activities integrating competence structures

    into e-portfolio tools and supporting their use by learners and advisers.

    11. Our methodology involves creating the following ‘products’, each one building successively on the previous

    one:

    1. Create initial use cases and scenarios, described with succinct text and diagrams, and identifying which

    competence structures will be used.

    2. Write and agree design goals and requirements, formally described textually on the project wiki;

    requirements will be derived from existing work on Leap2A, XCRI, competence structures and ePortfolio

    tools.

    Page 4 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

3. Create and agree the initial information model and draft specification for iterative testing and revision; it is

    likely that there will be a common core and additional elements for specific extra development. 4. Produce a prototype schema to test out the model.

    5. Create the final draft specification for reporting, publication and dissemination.

    12. We will consult with stakeholders, and explicitly with CETIS, via an interest group set up for this purpose,

    preferably on JISC-MAIL.

    Application of the draft specification: generic use cases

    13. The project’s relevant high level use cases are described here, forming the start of design goals and requirements:

    ; User can describe individual competence within a scheme

    ; User can indicate competence order within the context of a scheme ; User can describe scores or weighting for competences

    ; User can indicate requirement for self-assessment at competence level ; User can reference competence schemes against a level scheme

    ; User can indicate requirement for verification at competence level ; User can describe cumulative relationships between competences within schemes ; User can describe competence scheme hierarchy or groupings as required ; User can define a relationship between single competences for one or more schemes ; User can indicate relationships between schemes

    Scenarios

    14. These scenarios are repeated from the tender document for convenience. These scenarios are not prescriptive or exclusive. Each partner, and the wider community of practitioners, will have different priorities

    for development and implementation that will be supported by the specification. University of Nottingham

    15. Structures used or under discussion for use in the near future include: ; The Land Condition Skills Development ; Veterinary Science

    Framework (LCDSF) ; Teaching

    ; Biosciences ; SummitSkills (Sector Skills Council for the ; Nursing building services engineering sector)

    Pebble Learning

    16. Specific examples widely used in PebblePad are:

    ; Chemistry Employability Profile

    ; Hospitality Employability Profile

    ; Sport Employability Profile

    ; National Occupational Standards for Social

    Work

    ; Health Studies Employability Profile

    ; Requirements for Research Students

    ; Professional Standards for QTS

    ; NQT Professional Standards

    ; Graduate Skills

    Page 5 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

Newcastle University

    17. The two competency structures that are most widely used at Newcastle University are the Joint Skills Statement (for postgraduate medical students) and the Graduate Skills Framework (for undergraduate medical students).

    18. Newcastle University also has frameworks that are course-specific, and in ePet the list of learning outcomes is specific to an individual, so they can create their own as an extension of their more generic framework.

    TAG Developments

    19. TAG’s products support competency structures in a range of qualifications. We will choose one of the vocational qualification competencies for the purposes of this work. We also work closely with a provider of initial teacher training who has created their own teacher competency standards, with each bespoke criterion having a 1-1 relationship with the official QTS standards, thus providing the opportunity to test the specification in the deployment of local standard variations. MyKnowledgeMap

    20. Some of these frameworks are part of corporate deployments of our tools and may not be freely available for this project, but a growing number of core frameworks are being added to this selection as part of a JISC Benefits Realisation project utilising MyShowcase.

    ; Management Skills ; Health Teamworking

    ; Health Communication ; Archaeology NOS

    ; Health Ethical Practice

    21. The InteropAbility Project will comprise six core work packages, an evaluation strand and light touch project management with milestones for control.

    Work packages Overview

    M = milestone Months

    W = workshop 1 2 3 4 5

    WP1, Start up & baselining: Confirm use cases, scenarios and

    competence structures from partners and baseline current position

    WP2, Design goals & requirements: Create foundations for information W

    model and specification consult with stakeholders to validate. Approve.

    WP3, Write draft specification: Create information model & draft W

    specification consult with stakeholders. Approve.

    WP4: Engagement & dissemination: Engage and consult with wider

    stakeholder community (including CETIS). Disseminate.

    WP5: Partner development activities: Each partner to carry out its own

    investigations, prototyping and development.

    WP6: Synthesis & reporting: Synthesise outputs & issues. Write report. W

    Evaluation

    Project Management: Manage project in terms of time, cost, scope and risks, M1 M2 M3 M4 and liaising with JISC management

    Scope

    22. The project’s scope is limited to the work packages described above, which cover the development and testing of the draft specification within the specific interests of the partners, bearing in mind that these cover academic, vocational, professional and qualification based areas. The project time scale does not permit specific work outside these interests; other stakeholders will be encouraged to use the material for these purposes.

    23. The outputs of other initiatives will be taken into account in this work. Liaison with other initiatives will take the form of project dissemination and publications, rather than any joint working. The following areas will have an input into the project:

Page 6 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

; EuroLMAI

    ; Existing competence frameworks, for example MedBiquitous ; Relevant work within BSI IST43

    ; Completed JISC projects, such as Cogent and Leap2A work ; ecoTool Competence Model

    ; Personal Achieved Learning Outcomes

    ; INLOC

    ; ICOPER

    Out of scope

    24. The following areas are out of scope for this project: ; Formal investigation of standardisation of the draft specification ; Roll out of the draft specification to production level implementation.

    Critical Success Factors

    Critical Success Factors

    No. Description

    1 Active engagement from each partner in workshops

    2 Active engagement from each partner in investigations and prototyping activities

    3 Speed of activities, related feedback and iteration

    4 Close co-operation amongst partners

    Anticipated Impact

    25. The following impact areas have been identified:

    Impact Area Anticipated Impact Description

    increased use of interoperability technology

    improved articulation between learning pre-

    requisites, outcomes and required skills

    more effective and cheaper exchange of

    data between organisations in the

    competency domain

    stimulus for further work in the direction of

    national and international competency

    framework standards

    Stakeholder Analysis

    Stakeholder Interest / stake Importance

    (H/M/L)

    JISC Funding body; support for HEIs to make it easier H

    for institutions, learners and teachers to work with

    a range of competence structures within e-

    portfolio systems, and to export information on

    learner achievements (against a competence

    structure) into other systems

    JISC CETIS Development and encouragement of use of H

    interoperability standards; maximise usability of

    new specification and link with other related

    standards

    Consortium partners Practical usage of new specification in existing H

    and future products and services; promotion of

    interoperable technologies and systems; direct

    Page 7 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

    influence on developments in this domain; more

    effective interoperable systems

    Learners using competence Better exchange of personal information for M

    structures (including employees) enhancement of employment and learning

    outcomes

    Universities, professional bodies More effective data exchange systems for M

    and other awarding bodies using competence structures; better understanding of competence structures the issues; greater use of interoperable

    competence structures

    Software vendors and service Practical usage of new specification in existing H

    providers (ePortfolio and related and future products and services; more effective tools) interoperable systems

    Skills agencies, for example Wider usage of existing and future competence M

    Sector Skills Councils structures

    Employers Better recruitment M

    Related Projects

    Earlier Leap2A and XCRI projects

    Cogent

    Constraints

    26. Our major constraints are financial resources and time scale. The project has to be narrowly focused

    on its specific outputs, so that these can be produced on time and to budget. There is no scope for

    wider investigation.

    Assumptions

    27. Each partner will commit staff resources in terms of management and development sufficient to

    deliver the required outputs. These commitments are listed in the budget for the project and represent

    both JISC-funded activity and institutional contributions. Overview of risk

    28. A separate risk log is being maintained.

    ProbabilImpact ProximiRisk Risk Description Detail of action to be taken ity (P) (I) ty (X) Score (mitigation / reduction / transfer / acceptance) 1 5 1 5 1-5 (PxS)/(1=low (1=low (1=low (1/X) 5=high) 5=high) 5=high)

    Wider community not 5 2 2 20 Community engagement activities built into properly engaged project plan; specific individuals targeted;

    dissemination activities evaluated.

    Failure to agree key 3 3 3 27 Early consensus exhibited by all partners; use ‘common core’ for cases aired early; reduce common core, and model and specification explore and record the issue.

    Unexpected complexity 3 2 2 12 Early agreement to realistic project plan; delays production of project manager keeps partners to task; outputs project board re-schedules project using

    increased or different resources (change

    management); project seeks extension (worst

    case).

    A consortium partner 1 3 1 3 Up-front agreement to participate; consortium drops out agreement; other partner picks up that

    partners work.

    Page 8 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

Standards

    Name of standard or Version Notes

    specification

    XCRI-CAP 1.2 V1.2 is in draft, but not yet launched and entirely

    stable. However, it is compliant with other relevant

    European standards and represents a future-

    proofed approach.

    Leap2A

    XML 1.0

    HTML 4.0

    Intellectual Property Rights

    29. To be covered under OWFA 1.0 agreement.

    Page 9 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

    Project Resources

    Project Partners

    30. TAG Developments, the web development division of BLi Education Ltd

    http://www.taglearning.com/taglearning/

    Role: Lead partner and budget holder; ePortfolio solution and tools vendor

    Contacts: Project Executive and InteropAbility Consortium Chairman Matt Wingfield,

    M.Wingfield@blieducation.com; Lead Contact and Project Board Chairman Karim Derrick,

    k.derrick@blieducation.com

    31. APS Ltd

    http://www.alanpaull.co.uk/

    Role: Project management; technical information management

    Contact: Project Manager - Alan Paull, alan@alanpaull.co.uk

    32. MyKnowledgeMap Ltd

    http://www.myknowledgemap.com/

    Role: ePortfolio solution and tools vendor

    Contact: Dave Waller, dave.waller@myknowledgemap.com

    33. Newcastle University

    http://www.ncl.ac.uk/

    Role: ePortfolio user and vendor, awarding body

    Contact: Paul Horner, paul.horner@newcastle.ac.uk

    34. The University of Nottingham

    http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/eportfolio/

    Role: Academic centre for ePortfolio development, awarding body

    Contact: Kirstie Coolin, Kirstie.Coolin@nottingham.ac.uk

    35. Pebble Learning Ltd

    http://www.pebblelearning.co.uk/

    Role: ePortfolio solution and tools vendor

    Contact: Shane Sutherland, shane@pebblelearning.co.uk

    Consortium Agreement

    36. To be agreed and signed.

    Project Management

    37. The project is led by TAG Developments. Matt Wingfield, Managing Director, will be the Project

    Executive and responsible for delivery. A Project Board, chaired by the TAG Developments and with a

    member from each partner organisation, will oversee project direction and change management. It will

    only meet formally if important decisions are required.

    38. Project management will be light touch. Alan Paull, the Project Manager, will be responsible for

    production and maintenance of the Project Plan, setting activities, day-to-day progress, and driving

    delivery of outputs from each partner. He will report regularly to the Project Board. 39. Consortium decision making will be via the Project Board.

    Page 10 of 15 Document title: InteropAbility Project Plan Last updated: 21 April 2011

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com