Closure: Closure Questionnaire[Project Name]

______

Project Closure Questionnaire

All participants in the project should complete this questionnaire. The data collected will be used to complete the Closure Review template.

Project Name: / Migrate Exchange to Office 365 for Staff
Project Code: / COM008
Completed By: / Richard Good

Please select the appropriate answer for the following – select 1 if you strongly disagree through to 5 if you strongly agree. If the question is not relevant for you please select N/A. Please include comments where possible.

Were the objectives for this project met?

1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / X / 5 / N/A
Comments: / I believe the migration objectives were met, the provisioner objective and infrastructure objective (for the test provisioner) were not

Were the business requirements for this project met?

1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / X / 5 / N/A
Comments: / See above. Also see comments below RE: requirement capture.

Were the estimates for this project on target?

1 / 2 / 3 / X / 4 / 5 / N/A
Comments: / The project went over estimate on most (if not all) areas. See below for more details.

Was the resourcing for the project effective?

1 / 2 / 3 / X / 4 / 5 / N/A
Comments: / I think there were problems with resourcing. See below for more details.

Are there outstanding actions?

Yes / X / No
Details: / Test provisioner infrastructure, and provisioner memory leaks are the two I’m aware of.

Please include feedback below on lessons learned from the project, highlighting both areas for improvement and successes.

Details: / I think this was a difficult project from start to finish. My main view is that COM008 should have been split into separate projects, one for infrastructure, one for migration and one for the provisioner. The fact they were all combined together confused things, and led to people attending meetings for which only portions were relevant to them (which would increase the effort). I think the relationships between the various areas involved were strained during the project. Whilst I felt myself and the team were largely uninvolved in the tensions, the tension was both caused by and contributed to the difficult nature of the project.
Provisioner-wise, I think in future if coding work is to be done (in this case for the PowerShell scripts), then the development team should do it. I also think whilst I assume that service management being so involved in the code production was I assume well meaning, it contributed to the overall tension of the project. The decision to go ahead with the provisioner work as planned without a test provisioner was a mistake in my view, as we only identified issues with memory on live. I think we should have adjusted the existing provisioner instead of developing a new one based on the lack of test infrastructure to better manage the risk. I think the requirements were initially very vague, and were added to as the project progressed, this also contributed to the overspend, and the increase in time taken during UAT phase.
Resourcing was also difficult, with resource changes due to people leaving and late resource bookings/conflicts having to be made as the project went over-estimate.
However, we do have a new test infrastructure, the mail migration happened, and the provisioner if not robust is in a better place process-wise.

______

Page 1 of 2