Examination support system proposal

This document provides supporting information for the

solution to the current problems facing Cardiff University
regarding the marking of examination papers without a
supporting system.

Project Title:
Date:
Project Manager:
Independent Reviewer:
Project Sponsor/Owner
Client / senior user
Version Date
Previous Versions Date

Approvals
Name

Signature Title

Ver
sio
n
Hist
ory

Number of Changes

Date of Issue

Version

1. Executive Summary
This report will detail the commencement of the best possible solution to the current
problems faced by Cardiff University regarding the marking of examination papers.
The current system employed is one that bares considerable costs to the University.
Unnecessary effort is spent communicating simple enough processes including
deadline reminders, chasing up papers, file encryption and passing on comments from
externals. The current system is flawed in the sense that it offers no effective way to
monitor the progress of papers; meaning detecting when a paper is behind schedule is
a very manual process offering no automated indications.
As well as costing the University staffs effort, it also costs a considerable amount of
time. 6 weeks of the year is spent supporting the examination checking and approval
process. It is estimated that with the implementation of the new support system, the
cost of time will be significantly reduced. The new system allows for a time reduction
of up to 50% when compared to the current system in place.
Costing the university 30 per hour and the exam team 25 much money is spent by
the university on human resources. The cut in time will also reduce these costs and is
said to save both lecturers and external moderators 5 minutes per module. This
translates to a saving of 2.50 over each module.

2. Project Purpose and Reasons

The purpose of this project is to determine whether there is a more effective way of
carrying out the examination checking and approval processes carried out by Cardiff
University. The project is being undertaken due to the reasons presented below in the
bulleted list.

Considerable effort is spent using the current system. A new system will
streamline these saving the university time and effort.
Considerable time is spent. This could be reduced by 3 weeks with
implementation of a new system.
Considerable money is spent. The unnecessary effort and time spent by
humans costs the university money, which is spent on hourly wages for
examiners and lecturers.
The unnecessary costs of the process contribute to a flawed system, which
could be improved with the use of technology.

For these reasons to be deemed adequate, it is important they are aligned with Cardiff
Universitys vision for the future. This projects alignment with the strategies listed in
the Universities vision for 2012-2017 titled The Way Forward will now be discussed.

Within the enhancement activities section it states that academic and professional
services will be regularly reviewed and enhanced with the aim of providing an excellent
service. The project works coherently with this section of the universities strategy, as it
will be reviewing the current system in place and any possible enhancements that can
be made to the current system will be suggested. In terms of providing an excellent
service, an improved system for checking and approving exams would see the time
spent on the process being significantly reduced meaning students could receive their
grades sooner and in essence this project enhances the user experience.

3. Options

3.1: Do Nothing
This option involves making no changes to the existing processes in place. Allocation of
moderators and external examiners will continue to be done manually. Tracking forms
will still be used for the management of setting and checking of examinations.
Documentation used within the process will continue to be sent to examiners by email,
as will communications between the exam team and module leaders.
Doing nothing would prove beneficial for staff, as they will not face change to the
current process and will not have to undergo any further training or transition into a
new system. The University will face no further cost as no changes are being made to
the system therefore the only costs brought on by choosing this option would be the
existing costs to the university. With this being the current system for the examination
paper checking and approval process the university can be sure it works. Despite the
positives identified, each has its counter argument. With staff facing no further training
or transition to a new system, the university workforces skill sets may become out-
dated. The university may face no initial cost as they dont need to construct of
purchase any new software but in the long run, this option will be costly to the
university in terms of the unnecessary effort of staff, amount of time spent on the
process alongside with the money spent on paying staff wages for the time they spend
on the process. The university know this option works as it is the current system in
place however, despite the fact it works there may be a much more efficient and
resourceful option available.
3.2: Develop a system in house

The development of a new system in house is the next option available. This would
involve technical staff overseeing the development of a system from scratch. The initial
phase in developing the new system would be to bring together lecturers and the exam
team staff to derive requirements for the new system. The technical staff would base
their design in alignment with these requirements, then implement the necessary
features and test them thoroughly. After testing the software and the new system goes
live, technical members of staff would still need to be available for its maintenance and
up-keep. This options most significant benefit would be the fact that its high level of
customization would allow for strict alignment with the universities strategies and the
system could fit all of the business needs. A secondary advantage of this system would
be the fact that any technical support required would be readily available as
the developers of the system would be working within the university rather than for a
third party. With the examination marking and approval process considered a complex
and time consuming one, it is likely that an equally complex piece of software will be
required to enhance the current system. The issue with this is the universities in house
developers may not have experience with such a complex development. This would
mean undertaking a project without certainty that the developers possess the know
how to complete it. The university needs a long-term solution to the current problem
that its facing and with technology constantly evolving; the need for the new system
to be upgraded to cater for future platforms is inevitable. If the in house technical
team struggle to make such future developments then there is a risk that more money
could be spent in the long-term as further software may need to be developed if the
proposed system becomes defunct.


3.3: Outsourcing a new system
Outsourcing a system would involve purchasing a piece of software from another
company who specialise in software development. The university would have to find the
most suitable software for the requirements of the system in this case a journal
management system, which would be done by discussing the softwares suitability for
the university with its technical team, and would be determined by requirements derived
by lecturers and the exam team at Cardiff University. Once agreed on the suitable system
for purchase, the university would pay a fee to the company who they choose to
outsource the software from and they would then begin installing the system. After the
system has been implemented the users would need to be trained by the outsourcing
company in how to use the new system and the third party would maintain and upkeep
the system put in place. Due to the fact the company we outsource the system from
specialise in developing software, it will have been tested extensively and perhaps
implemented by other businesses. This means that the team of skilled developers who
have created the software will have resolved any issues with it that occur after its
implementation, leading to fewer complications than developing software in-house. This
option will guarantee that the software is thoroughly tested and glitch free. The
transition process can be considered a quick one when compared to developing a system
in house, rather than spending a vast amount of time developing the software, this
option simply requires installation after its purchase. In such a fast-paced business world,
this can reduce staff time spent on the current process, and developing their own system
and ensure our staff are quickly trained in using the systems and concentrating their
efforts on more important issues facing the university.

The main disadvantage of this option would be the fact that unlike in-house
development, the technical staff would not work for the university and would be harder
to get into contact with if issues were to arise. There is also a possibility of paying vendor
fees if any problems do occur with the new system. There is currently no effective off-
the-shelf commercial system available so this means any system that we choose to
outsource will be unlikely to align with the universities objectives or strategies.


4. Benefits

4.1 Time reduction
It is estimated that the implementation of an ICT system to facilitate the task
could reduce the amount of time it taken by the current system by up to 3
weeks. A possible 50% decrease in the amount of time spent on the process
means more time becomes available for university staff to focus on different
issues challenging the university. This will be measured in the amount of time
saved in comparison to the new system and will be able to be measured after
the first time it is implemented for the examination marking process.

4.2 Customer service
The 50% reduction in the amount of time spent on the process would mean
that students could have their exam results up to three weeks earlier. A fast
paced system for marking exam results would prove beneficial and improve the
customer service received by the students, this is specifically applicable to
placement and graduate scheme applicants who are awaiting their results with
urgency. This will be measured in the amount of time saved in comparison to
the new system and will be able to be measured after the first time it is
implemented for the examination marking process.

4.3 Staff effort reduction
Within the current system there is a lot of unnecessary efforts, educed from
carrying out manual tasks, the need for which could be eliminated with an
automated system.
The new system would allow material to be accessed, by lecturers and the
exam team from a central intranet using a quick and easy to use interface.
These effort-consuming tasks would be automated by the new system, with
users being able to check the status of exam papers, be notified of comments
on papers and access material from a central infrastructure, significant effort
would be saved that is normally spent on carrying out such tasks manually. This
will be measureable after the first exams are approved after the systems
implementation. This can be measured by surveying the staff who take part in
the process to find out whether they feel the new system required less effort
than the old one.
4.4 Enhanced Security
The implementation of a new system could remove the need for email
communications to be made; enhancing security as such communications could
be intercepted. The new system will mean that users can login securely using a
unique username and password, a technique that is not free from risks such as
hacking however, there will be no need for information to be sent between
parties and therefore no opportunity for the interception of information. This
will be measured by assessing the amount of times informative documentation
is downloaded from the centralised area, in comparison to the amount of
emails that were sent prior to the systems implementation. It will be
measureable after the first academic year in which the new system is
implemented.


4.5 Alignment with university ambition
The universities ambition aims to support the student experience through effective
and innovative education strategy. The project is aligned with this ambition, as the
implementation of the system will provide a more effective way of carrying out the
marking and approval process, and doing so with the implementation of an ICT
system that can be built upon can be considered innovative. To assess the systems
alignment with the university ambition, effectiveness and innovation needs to be
measured. A survey will be required to determine the systems effectiveness from
the users point of view; the difference in time and cost taken to carry out the
process when compared to the old system will also be assessed to help determine
this. Innovative alignment will be measured by estimating the number of years that
the system will remain effective, and assessing where there is room to build on the
new system such as branching it out to align with future strategies.
4.6 Dis-benefits

4.7 Transition period
There will be a time period in which the members of staff who carry out the
marking and approval process must adapt from the old system to the new one. This
will be measured by the amount of time it takes for users to adapt to the new
system. It can be measured from the initial briefing up until the point where the
new system is implemented and new staff members are using it.

4.8 Disruption
It is a possibility that members of staff may be reluctant to change; this could see
staff morale being affected and staff holding negative attitudes towards the
university. This can be measured by counting the number of staff members who
respond negatively to the change. It is expected that a small minority of staff
members may hold a negative response to the change however, if a majority of the
staff members react negatively then additional meetings may be required to
further explain the need for the new system.

4.9 Training costs
In order to transition staff members from the old to the new system a training
phase will be required. This will mean the university will have to pay the
professionals who implement the system to teach university staff members how to
use the new system proficiently. This can be measured by the amount of money
spent on the initial training carried out for the members of staff. This an initial
measurement rather than a continuous one as it is expected that once staff
members are accustomed to the system, new members of staff that require
training can receive it in-house rather than from members of the third party.

4.10 Relocating staff
With the increase in effectiveness it is a possibility that staff will need to be
relocated. Currently staff members are used to spending 6 weeks on the marking
and approval process however, if the process is completed in less time then staff
may need to be allocated elsewhere to help the university with other challenges.
This can be measured by counting the number of staff members that are relocated
since the system can reduce the time taken by up to 50% this will be measured
within the 3 weeks following the initial 3 weeks of marking and approving is carried
out.


5. Risk Analysis
5. 1 - Team members may not get on, causing splits in the group. This could
lead to work not being completed on time or completed at all if team members
come to a large enough disagreement.

Risk likelihood: Medium

Risk Impact: High

Different methods can be used to control this issue; they can be classified into
two types, pre-emptive solutions and reactive solutions. The pre-emptive
solution aims to eliminate the problem before it becomes an issue. This could
be something as simple as discussing any issues team members have as soon as
the issues arrive rather than letting them snowball and form a larger
disagreement. The reactive solution would be implemented after
disagreements get in the way of working efficiently, then making affected
members of the team meet to discuss their issues and come to some sort of
resolving solution.
Mitigation - The best overall solution would be pre-emptive ones as they target
this issue before it spirals out of control, with that said it is important that
reactive solutions are in place providing this risk does occur.

5.2 - Some members of the technical staff may be more proficient in using the
decided coding language than others.

Risk likelihood: High

Risk Impact: Low Medium

Mitigation - A solution to this is to distribute project roles throughout the group

such that the more competent programmers are given mainly implementation
focused tasks. The weaker programmers of the group would be given other
tasks, for example, they could work on the design of the system, or carry out
background research.
5.3 - Team members may be familiar with different versions of the same
programming language. For example, one developer may be more familiar with
Java 7, whilst others may be more familiar with Java 6. As well as this, technical
staff may be less familiar than others with using different IDEs (Integrated
Development Environment) such as Eclipse, NetBeans, or a simple text editor.

Risk likelihood: Medium (Could depend on the experience in a

language)
Risk Impact: Medium

Mitigation - A solution to this is to make team members use the same version of
a programming language, and to all use the same IDE. For example, the team
could develop the system using Java in NetBeans, or develop with Python in a
text editor such as Sublime Text.


5.4 - Team members may not complete work on time resulting in a backlog of work as
uncompleted work begins to clash with new work.

Risk Likelihood: Medium

Risk Impact: Medium High

Mitigation - A solution to this is to appoint a team-member that is considered reliable as

project manager. This person must have the capacity to co-ordinate the team, and motivate
them to work efficiently. They should be informative of deadlines and chase up members of
the team as these deadlines approach so that team members know what they need to do
and by when.

5.5 Due to the nature of this project and its scale, multiple developers will be required to
work on different sections of the system. With this comes the risk of team members
becoming isolated and unable to conceptualise the project on a bigger scale, which will
affect how effectively they work and their quality of work.

Risk Likelihood: Low Medium

Risk Impact: Medium

Mitigation - The solution to this would be for the project manager to bring together all
members of the team for a meeting every week to discuss progression in each section of the
project, and answer any questions and queries team member have.
5.6 - Unexpected circumstances may affect a member of the technical team such as a family
issue, or by illness.

Risk Likelihood: High

Risk Impact: Low Medium

Mitigation - A solution to this would be to let the team member know what they missed,
especially if the work missed is important. This could be achieved by keeping up a high level
of communication via email or telephone.

5.7 Members of staff being reluctant to adapt to the new system.

Risk Likelihood: Medium

Risk Impact: Medium - High

Mitigation In order to reduce this risk, staff meetings will be organised to brief the team on
why a new system is needed. Continuous support will be required during and after the
transition period in which staff members are still learning to use the system.


6. Project Cost
The estimated project cost has been calculated using the constructive cost model
this is because this model is considered to work well in whatever environment it
is applied. The formula for this model is applied to the amount of lines of code
expected required by the software, and in this project the estimation for lines of
code is 10,000. Given the project will require 10,000 lines of code the following
has been estimated:

The development will take 9.1 months
6 Technical staff members will be required for the development of this
project

The costing for the development period over the period it is assumed that each
person will work 152 hours per month. Given this assumption the estimated total
cost of development is 214,631.60. Further time will be allocated to the project
for pre and post development phases these are allocated as follows:

1 Month for pre development activities
1 Month for post development activities

The costing for the pre development and post development activities comes to a
total of 47,120. With all the phases above considered this brings the total spent
on this project to be 11.1 months, and the total cost of the project to
261,751.60.


It is estimated that 20% of the source code will be edited each year for upgrading,
improving and adding functionality to the system. As 11 different technical
members of staff will work on the development, 11 will be required for the
maintenance of the system. With these assumptions in place the estimated cost
of maintenance each year will be 6,987. The projected costs of the project over
the next five years is shown below:


Cost of Project
Maintenance
Total annual cost
Year
1
6,987
268,738.60
261,751.60
2

6,987
6,987
3

6,987
6,987
4

6,987
6,987
5

6,987
6,987
Projected cost of the project over the next five years: 296,686.60
Assuming that this money is borrowed the money with a 5% interest fee the total
cost of the project would be: 311,520.93
For a detailed breakdown of how these estimations were made please see the
documents appendix.


7. Project time schedule
The implementation of this project will be carried out over a 12-month timescale with the
project expected to finish on the 24th day of the 11th month.
7.1 - Phases
The timescale will consist of the following events