Stage 3 Proposal

Proposal to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation


ResearchSpace Working Prototype (Stage 3)




 
Author: Dominic Oldman, Principal Investigator & Deputy Head of Information Systems, British Museum


Date: 8th October 2010

Version: 4







1    Proposal Summary


Summary

The British Museum respectfully requests a grant of $650,000 over a period of 12 months from January 2010 to build and test a working prototype of the ResearchSpace system. The ResearchSpace project aims to establish a shared infrastructure made up of three fundamental and mutually supporting elements:

Collaboration – A virtual environment which allows scholars to communicate and work together online to achieve common research goals and objectives.
Harmonised data – Collection and conservation data held in a common semantic form so that it can be shared and reused between projects without expensive integration software.
Research tools – The provision of components that can be used independently or with other components for data analysis and manipulation to support a particular collaborative research workflow.

The project is initially aimed at supporting existing Mellon prototype projects initiated under the Museums and Art Conservation program; It would also be able to support a much wider range of cultural heritage projects to secure the long term sustainability of the environment, and ensure that costs are kept to an absolute minimum. This in turn increases its accessibility, particularly for smaller organisations.

The ResearchSpace project is divided into 4 stages.

    Stage 1 - Definition of the ResearchSpace vision and requirements.
    Stage 2 - Definition of the ResearchSpace specifications and continuing RDF feasibility work.
    Stage 3 - Development of a working prototype of the ResearchSpace system.
    Stage 4 – Development of a production version of the ResearchSpace system.

    Stage 1 has been completed and the deliverables published to the ResearchSpace project site at www.researchspace.org. Stage 2 is currently underway with the support of an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Officer’s Grant.

    This proposal addresses stage 3 of the project and would create a version of the ResearchSpace system that would practically demonstrate some of the main project concepts and objectives. The system would integrate an existing open source collaboration application with an RDF (Resource Definition Framework) database, and incorporate a number of research tools. The final selection of these research tools would take place at the end of stage 2 and be informed by the stage deliverables along with a review by ResearchSpace stakeholders. A short description of the possible tools are described below. The prototype would be of sufficient robustness to support limited online collaborative research and would be reusable as the foundation for a final production version of ResearchSpace.

    The deliverables of stage 2 are listed below in the background to the main proposal. The overall achievement would be;
“..a practical and costed design for a shared technology infrastructure, ready for procurement, development and implementation.” [Stage 2 proposal]

    This would entail a more detailed and practical definition of the research tools that ResearchSpace would provide to scholars; a more technical specification describing the interaction of the 3 ResearchSpace elements and ultimately a specification that can be used by software developers to complete stage 3. The provision of a set of research tools, within a consistent and collaborative environment, is an important part of the ResearchSpace vision. A document providing additional information on the intended use of ResearchSpace is provided at Appendix 5.

    In addition, stage 2 will provide additional information about the use of the Resource Definition Framework (RDF) and the CIDOC-CRM (Conceptual Reference Model) ontology, mainly through the conversion and testing of the British Museum’s collection data. This knowledge will also make an important contribution to the final specification. The staged approach of the project aims to reduce risks and ensure that the development of ResearchSpace is not compromised by an approach which is overly innovative.


Main Proposal

    Background

    In June 2010 the Mellon Foundation kindly provided the funding to continue the development of the ResearchSpace project. This funding will allow the project to transform stakeholder requirements into build specifications and continue the work of the British Museum to demonstrate the use of linked ‘semantic’ data against a larger dataset of collection and conservation information. This work is being conducted with a view to informing the elements of ResearchSpace that enable integration of data from different institutions and provide a richer, semantic view of data to enhance research techniques. This work is underway and is due for completion in December 2010. It includes the following deliverables;

  • The conversion of the British Museum’s collection data to RDF format using the CIDOC-CRM ontology.
  • A functional and technical specification of the ResearchSpace system including the research tools that would be available within the ResearchSpace collaborative environment.
  • An evaluation and selection of the application technology (Content Management System and Digital Asset Management system) on which ResearchSpace would depend.
  • An evaluation of the appropriate internet hosting environment to host and support the ResearchSpace system.
  • Analysis of the scope, benefits and any potential issues in using semantic database technology which would require additional planning or mitigation.
  • Some small scale prototype research tools.

Project Rationale

    The British Museum holds in trust for the nation and the world a collection of art and antiquities from ancient and living cultures. Housed in one of Britain's architectural landmarks, the collection is one of the finest in existence, spanning two million years of human history. Access to the collection is free.

    The Museum was based on the practical principle that the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible. It was also grounded in the Enlightenment idea that human cultures can, despite their differences, understand one another through mutual engagement.  The Museum’s current strategy includes two significant objectives;

    To manage and research the collection more effectively
    To enhance access to the collection

    As such the ResearchSpace project, originally initiated by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, has particular resonance for the British Museum. The Museum actively encourages collaborative research with other organisations and facilitates this by continually improving access to the collection and associated knowledge. The Museum’s collection online system was launched in October 2007 providing the scholarly community with the same data that previously was only searchable within the Museum’s own walls. This online database is the culmination of 30 years work but is still in its early stages.  ResearchSpace would allow organisations like the British Museum to improve collection information by allowing a wider range of experts to more easily participate in its development.

    The ResearchSpace project would allow the British Museum, and other organisations with the same ethos of collaboration and accessibility, to reach an unprecedented level of scholarly investigation. By creating an infrastructure that allows data from many different sources to be semantically integrated, and with a set of tools designed to take full advantage, it will uncover knowledge that would be impossible to discover otherwise.    

    In a document issued in August 2009 by the Mellon Foundation’s Museums and Art Conservation programme (MAC), in association with the Research in Information Technology programme, stated the following;  

 “The most effective way to make each project as productive and sustainable as possible is to reduce the ongoing costs of the technology infrastructure required to support your work. The most effective way to do that is to build a single infrastructure that would support all of the current projects, as well as those that we hope will follow.”

    In addressing the data technology to be used in the shared infrastructure the same document concluded,

“To date the projects have explored two options for the back-end: Relational Databases and Resource Definition Framework or RDF. On balance, the Foundation‘s recommendation is that the projects choose RDF, an approach that maximizes the chances that scholars will be able to pursue their research in whatever new directions may emerge.” 

    The Principal Investigator, Dominic Oldman, has taken the original Mellon proposal and defined a more detailed vision of the shared infrastructure now known as ResearchSpace.  In addition, the following initiatives have helped develop the project further;

The endorsement of British Museum Directors of a business case for publishing the Museum’s collection in the RDF ‘semantic’ format, as computer readable data, in accord with the Museum’s accessibility strategy.  
The delivery of a project successfully publishing conservation and science data on the British Museum’s Collection Online system in RDF format. The data is served alongside data sourced from a traditional database format.
The initiation of a British Museum project to better understand the technology requirements of collaborative research projects using evidence from both internal and external sources.
Advocacy of the project to other museums and institutions.

    The shared infrastructure approach, together with the use of semantic technology, would reduce both time and costs (for example, the time and costs involved in setting up a separate IT infrastructure for each project, and savings made by reuse of technology across many projects) as well as remove risks for many projects that would normally have to develop software independently and in isolation. The gradual build up of these ‘community’ research tools and services would allow the Mellon prototype projects (and other research projects) to concentrate on the collection, organisation, and presentation of their data, rather than deal with technology decisions and issues that most of them are not equipped to manage.

    ResearchSpace would also be, in principle, available to any cultural heritage organisation, regardless of their funding source, facilitating the creation of a significant and sustainable community of people, data and tools. ResearchSpace would be owned and managed by the organisations that use it rather than being managed by any single institution. These factors would make research proposals more attractive to a whole range of funding organisations and ensure that ResearchSpace is continually updated and refreshed with new data.

    It is of particular concern that many collaborative projects rely on the technology and information systems of other organisations. This means that data can be locked away and not accessible to its owners or originators. This creates a problem, not only for the data contributor, but also the managers of the project in that, in many cases, there is overhead in managing other organisations data that cannot be sustained. It also creates a potential data authority risk, threatening the long term sustainability and credibility of the project.

    The project objectives and costs have been subject to a peer review and the report is included in this proposal at Appendix 2. In addition the data technology choice has also been independently reviewed and a report appears at Appendix 3.


Project Description

Objectives & Outcomes

    The objectives of the current proposal are as follows;
  • Create a system that clearly demonstrates the interaction of data, collaboration tools and research applications.
  • Develop software such that as much of it as possible would be reusable in a production version.
  • The prototype should be capable of supporting one or more of the Museums and Art Conservation (MAC) programme prototype projects and other similar collaboration research projects.
  • Inform specifications for the final stage of the project to complete a live production version of ResearchSpace.
The system deliverables include;

•    The creation of RDF data services within an off-the-shelf Content Management System using an off-the-shelf RDF database management system.
•    A selection of research tools that make use of the RDF data services and the inherent benefits that RDF provides.
•    Integrate the research tools into the social networking tools (Blogs, wikis, discussion forums, etc) provided by the CMS such that the tools can be launched from within the CMS and integrate with collaboration activity.
•    Migration of data into the system from various projects and organisations.

Approach

    The project involves software development and configuration and will require the professional services of a software development consultancy. The ResearchSpace specification requires that the chosen supplier has resources conversant in the development of both standard database software applications as well as semantic software development. The project intends to tender these services according to the British Museum’s procurement guidelines. However, there may also be a case for single tender action (or a limited invitation) based on the following;

  • The need to keep a consistent approach with CollectionSpace and ConservationSpace.
  • The requirement for specialist skills.

    Since semantic technology is relatively new to many software consultancies, the tender will require that suppliers demonstrate their expertise and experience in both. It is possible that no one supplier possesses all the skills necessary to complete the contract and that the semantic services element are satisfied by a different supplier or that a partnership arrangement is established.

Quality Plan

    The main documentation to be followed by the supplier will be produced in stage 2. Specifications for the work will be attached to the ITT (Invitation to Tender) for response by the supplier. The ITT The final agreed specification will be based on the response provided by the supplier to the tender together with any further agreed modifications. Compliance with the specification will follow normal public sector acceptance testing including the following;

•    The supplier delivered everything that was agreed? – This should be checked against the agreed specification and agreed list of deliverables in the contract.
•    The deliverables are of an agreed quality in terms of functionality, usability and performance. – The supplier and project team will develop test scripts and scenarios for testers to use to verify these aspects.
•    The supplier is using the agreed standards and approach described in the specification document. The specification will provide guidance on the standards that should be employed to complete a particular function. For example, the specification will refer to the standard to be used in incorporating semantic version control.

    The deliverables to be tested will include;

•    The system and application software.
•    The system, installation, administrative and user documentation.
•    The source code and configuration information.

    The contract should also specify two formal peer review points, one during the software development stage and one at the end. The review should be conducted by an independent third party (or British Museum programming staff) to establish the following;

•    The supplier is on course for completing the contract on time.
•    The supplier is working according to the specification and standards specified.
•    The software itself complies with coding standards in terms of efficiency and clarity, is self documenting and makes correct use of design patterns.

    It is also intended that Martin Doerr, who is currently advising the Museum on the implementation of semantic technology for cultural heritage data, should also review the work relevant to his expertise.

    The contract will also specify that the software coding is test driven and that unit tests are incorporated and handed over as part of the final solution.

    The software development work will be closely monitored by the Project Manager and QA (Quality Assurance) consultant, and reviewed at regular intervals with the help of project stakeholders. The contract would include the production of acceptance tests based on compliance with the ResearchSpace specifications together with performance and usability targets. The specifications delivered as part of stage 2 will be used as part of the statement of requirements within the invitation to tender (ITT), to which prospective suppliers must respond. A draft scope of the works to be included in the tender are attached at Appendix 6.

3.3.7    The development of the working prototype is likely to uncover issues not anticipated by the requirements and not captured by the feasibility work of stage 2. As a result the project will revisit the specifications and make the appropriate recommendations in preparation for stage 4.

Intellectual Property

    All developed software and associated project deliverables would comply with Mellon Foundation’s intellectual property requirements. It is intended that all developed software will be available as open source code and downloadable from the ResearchSpace project site. Users of researchSpace would retain ownership of their data (although they would be encouraged to share it).

Reporting

    A project report including a financial statement on grant expenditure will be submitted to the Scholarly Communications and IT Programme, three months after the conclusion of the grant term. The report will provide a full narrative and comment on grant expenditures. A regular monthly project report will be made available to the project team and stakeholders.

Sustainability

    The sustainability of ResearchSpace is dependent upon the number of organisations and projects that use it. Activity in support of long term sustainability (in advance of this stage of work) is set out in Annex 3 of Appendix 2. This activity will continue throughout the remaining project stages.

    The anticipated model for maintaining ResearchSpace is based on an annual subscription fee. The level of this subscription fee is directly related to the number of organisations who subscribe. This will determine the final hosting and hardware costs, and the size of the support and maintenance contract. Although the working prototype will provide organisations with a more practical demonstration of the system, it will not be known until later how many organisations will sign up, and only rough estimates can be made at this point. The advocacy activities of the Principal Investigator and the support of the British Museum (including the large repository of data from the Museum) are aimed at maximising the number. It is possible that some transitional funding would be sought in stage 4 to cover initial costs while the ResearchSpace system is established within the cultural heritage community. 

    The annual current cost of the British Museum’s hosting environment is around £80,000 per year and between a third and a half of this supports the Collection Online system (approx £25000 to £40000). It is anticipated that the subscription fee for using ResearchSpace (which could potentially replace the Collection Online system) would be a fraction of this figure, providing a cost effective alternative with many additional features. It is expected that ResearchSpace will provide similar cost savings to other organisations.

    At the end of Stage 2, when more information is known, the ResearchSpace Principal Investigator will provide different cost models based on different assumptions about the size of the infrastructure and the number of organisations. The stakeholders will then agree on the model to be taken forward.

Dependencies 

This stage of the project requires the deliverables from stage 2 (see the Officer’s Grant proposal set out in Appendix 1 for all the primary project documentation and background material). At the time of writing, the concepts and requirements for ResearchSpace have been recorded and verified by the main MAC prototype project stakeholders. Stage 2 will transform these requirements into more detailed specifications and designs which can be used in a formal tender exercise. As such the budgets are estimates based on the previous British Museum software development projects (but verified by peer review). The British Museum’s pilot project to publish semantic data on its Collection Online system has also been useful in understanding the issues of developing these technologies.

Although the project has identified various open source tools that could be reused by ResearchSpace, the potential of these have not yet been investigated; This is a task assigned to stage 2 of the project. However, many of the research tool requirements are well known and examples can be found on the internet (and are cited in the Requirements Catalogue). The main difference is that ResearchSpace will develop tools within a consistent and integrated environment. It is essential that ResearchSpace tools use a consistent set of standards and design, and operate within a single collaborative environment integrated directly with the data provided by participating organisations. This also allows managed workflows to be applied to support a variety of different process models.  

In conclusion, adjustments to the ResearchSpace project and development plan may require some changes once stage 2 of the project has been completed. This is reflected in some of the activity descriptions.  

Stage 3 Scope

The following items are not in scope for stage 3:
  • ResearchSpace RDF gateway – This gateway is required for the automated import and export of data and will be designed to reduce the overhead of data transfer so that it can be applied in organisations that have limited IT resources. Initial datasets will be imported on a case by case basis.
  • Generic web application / publication system (Cranach will be a one off publication requiring technical resource – see below).
  • Full Digital Asset Management provision.
  • Complete architecture for production performance and capacity.
The following items are in scope for stage 3:

  • Three to six research tools depending upon complexity and therefore resources and timetable. These would include the priority research tools as agreed by representatives from the MAC pilot projects.
  • Replication of the Courtauld workflow system with enhancements.
  • Import of Cranach dataset.
  • Publication of Cranach data and assets.
  • A web interface for internet data entry.
The following items will be in scope if funds are sufficient;

Workflow capability.
Full attribution and security features.

Software Development

The software development specification is being written as part of stage 2 of the project and will not be complete until December 2010. As such the details of the software development are not yet available and it is anticipated that a number of decisions will be required during the drafting of the document. Some of the following information may therefore change during the course of stage 2.


The software development is made up of the following main elements:

•    Research Tool Data Services – This data layer would perform a similar purpose to a traditional data and business layer used in traditional ‘n-tier’ programming. However, because the services are using RDF data the challenges for retrieving, creating, modifying data are different. It is anticipated that these services will require optimisation to ensure the right level of performance. The service layer might also need to provide parallel read and write functions to the other ResearchSpace databases for ancillary services where the RDF database would not be used. Although the research tools will primarily be using collection and conservation data from the RDF database, it is possible that some ancillary data will not initially be stored as RDF in the working prototype. However, it would be a stage 4 objective to store all data as RDF in the final production version to ensure that data and logic are completely self-contained and portable.

•    Research Tools - The separation of the data services means that the developers working on the research tools do not need in-depth knowledge of RDF technology themselves. An observation from other projects is that developers who are not familiar with RDF database technology will come across a different and unfamiliar set of issues when compared to traditional database technologies.


•    Discussion Narrative - It is not anticipated that any of the narrative generated as part of the collaborative forums would be saved in the RDF format at this stage, and this would also include the data recording how the narrative cross references with the structured RDF data. In later versions of ResearchSpace tagging of narrative for storage in RDF may be an option (and is already a feature of some CMS systems) but it is the intention to initially keep the working prototype RDF data schema as simple as possible.

Digital Asset Management metadata – Digital Assets would be linked through an RDF reference. In future stages the project may look at the use of XMP, if it is ratified as an open standard, or other open standards which have a semantic version (e.g., MPEG-7).

Online Data Entry Form – This form would allow users of ResearchSpace to upload data records directly to the ResearchSpace repository. The form would provide a temporary solution to cater for current projects.

Migration Services – The selected software contractor would also be asked to migrate data and images into ResearchSpace. This would include the British Museum’s data as well as data from the MAC projects.

The tender for software development services will use British Museum tendering rules. It is expected that this will include at least two different general software development organisations. The preference would be that one company owns the contract but they would need to demonstrate that they have the required knowledge and resources to cover all development areas. It would be open for a supplier to bid with a partner, or sub-contract certain aspects of the contract, to ensure that all the relevant skills are available. 

Example Research Tools

The following research tools represent some of the those discussed during the requirements and design phase of the project. Stage 2 will provide the full functional specifications for these tools.
 
Semantic Search Tool – The semantic search tool will provide the main mechanism for finding and accessing ResearchSpace data and assets. It is envisaged that this tool will provide a number of different mechanisms for searching the ResearchSpace repository including the ability to assert rules used for inference and display relationships to other data based on initial results.

Data Input Tool – This will allow standard data creation, modification and deletion based on data business rules and taxonomies.

Image Annotation – The ability for researchers to annotate an image either against the whole asset or against a particular point or region of the image. The data would be stored as RDF and be searchable through the semantic search tool. Annotations should be both controlled using the CRM (Conceptual reference Model) framework but also allow the option for uncontrolled comment. Note: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/fin-paper.pdf & http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/XGR-vocabularies/#existing-SI  & http://eprints.aktors.org/425/01/OntoMedia.pdf

Image Zoom (and Annotation) – Many ResearchSpace users will want to upload large high resolution images and allows colleagues the opportunity to zoom in revealing detail. The ability to annotate at different levels of zoom would also be useful. In the event the annotations should be available to the user and take him or her to the exact point where the annotation was made.

Data Annotation – The ability to add additional information using alternative ontologies or simple free text.

Note on Annotation – The ResearchSpace annotation requirement for both data and digital assets is a strong one. The stage 2 specification work will look carefully at existing work in this area and particularly the Open Annotation Collaboration project (www.openannotation.org) which is developing an approach to RDF annotation. The specification will be used for the working prototype. 

Image Compare – The ability to compare different images in order to uncover areas of interest for annotation. This may involve operations such as;  

•    Scaling two different images so that they fit one over another.
•    The ability to compare images through transparency or pixel difference.

 It would also be assumed that basic image editing features would also be available.

Relationship / Link Editor (internal and external) – The ability, through controlled terms, to link object records and group these relationships so that a defined story or pathway can be recorded for others to follow.

Version Comparison (Track Changes) – It should be possible to see all the different versions of a data field and see who created it.

Geographical Mapping – It should be possible to map data objects according to different types of recorded location, whether that is a production place, a place of birth, the origin of a material and so on. The user should be able to define the scope and scale of the map and the data elements that should be plotted.

Timeline Mapping – The ability to map objects against a graphical timeline. It should be possible to have different modes for recording frequency as well as individual object mapping. For example, it should be possible for a researcher to plot a large number of objects on a timeline to show graphically information such as the number of a particular objects found.

The ResearchSpace Requirements Catalogue also implies a number of other tools for collaboration, such as video conferencing and online educational tools.

Current Risks


Description

Likelihood

Impact

Comment

Project budget is too small

Low to Medium

Low to Medium

The project budget has been peer reviewed. There is some flexibility in the research tool element; however, if the tender process showed that the budget is not sufficient then the project would be de-scoped.  

 

Suppliers do not possess required skills

Low

Medium

The number of people / organisations with the required skills is increasing over time.  More semantic start-up companies are appearing.

Timetable is insufficient

Low to Medium

Medium to High

Stage 3 estimates have been peer reviewed. However, because some aspects of the project are innovative, estimates could be optimistic. This may adversely affect the Mellon (MAC) prototypes projects.

Alignment with CollectionSpace, ConservationSpace and Bamboo not realised

Medium

Medium

ResearchSpace is designed to work with any collection data source. However, the value of alignment with the other projects is significant. The PI will maintain communication with the other projects and discuss programme issues.

Exchange rate changes significantly.

Medium

High

Remove or adjust budget items.



Roles & Responsibilities

This stage of the Research project has the following roles;

•    Principal Investigator – Dominic Oldman, Deputy Head of Information Systems and IS Development Manager, British Museum. Responsibility for direction, reporting and completion of the project.
•    Project Manager – Position to be appointed. Responsibility for the planning, execution, and closing of the project.
•    Domain and QA Consultant - Dr Austin Nevin (Andrew W. Mellon Fellow and coordinator for the 'Master of the Fogg Pieta' Pilot Project). Providing expertise on the project’s scholarly requirements, liaising with stakeholders and ensuring the quality of the deliverables.
•    Application Support Analyst – Position to be appointed. Providing IT installation and configuration skills.

Software development resources will be provided by a supplier appointed through a tendering exercise.

Timetable



3.13.1    External suppliers will be provided with the broad project milestones and asked to submit plans for their part of the project, as part of the tender process. The project milestones are as follows;
 
3.13.2    The following provides a more detailed breakdown of the work;

Activities  

Completion Date

Description

Task Owner

Employ Project Manager

January 2011

The project can only afford 8 months project management. The 8 months will be split into two 4 month contracts. The first 4 months are focussed on completing the tender stage and initiating all the different stages of work.

 

The Project Domain and QA Consultant will then regularly liaise with the contractors to confirm progress against the timetable and provide reports to the project team.

 

A second 4 month project will be required to manage the completion of the packages, and the testing and acceptance stage

Principal Investigator

Deploy Software Tender Packages

30/01/2010

As described above and in Appendix 7

Project Manager

Negotiations and agree clarifications and modifications with contractors

March 2011

During the tender process the Project Manager willdeal with clarifications and negotiations, take references and ensure that bidders can demonstrate their ability to complete the work. The Project Manager will also administer best and final offers and finalise proposed timetables.

Project Manager

Sign Software Development Contracts

30th March 2011

This will initiate the software development work. The contract will include a project plan and appropriate reporting and communication instructions.

Principal Investigator

Commence talks with Hosting environment and finalise costs

April 2011

Stage 3 would have produced a shortlist of suitable hosting environments. The Project Manager will follow this work up and make arrangements for hosting the ResearchSpace working prototype.

Project Manager

Purchase and install hardware for Testing

April 2011

Hardware for internal testing and staging requires purchase and installation.

Project Manager.

Application Support Analyst

Commission Interface Design

April 2011

The UI design will be provided to the software developer for implementation on the UI.

Web Design Consultant, Domain & QA Consultant

Software Development

6 month from May to October

This is an aggressive timetable, but based on limited scope of work, and with the knowledge that the specifications and instructions have been completed up front in stage 2.

 

The QA consultant and the Principal Investigator will meet regularly with contractors during this period to ensure that the technical aspects of the project are being completed properly and that stakeholders’ interests are being represented.

 

Datasets from the Rembrandt and Cranach projects, and British Museum should be provided at the beginning of this period.

 

Domain & QA Consultant

 

Principal Investigator

 

Application Support Analyst

Project Manager Contract

September to December

Appoint Project Manager for testing and implementation.

Principal Investigator

Communication

& Meetings

 

Throughout project period

The QA consultant will be responsible for project communications, organising and chairing supplier, team and stakeholder meetings.

Domain & QA Consultant

Prepare testing environment according to contractor instructions

October 2011

We need to prepare the testing environment for user acceptance testing. It is envisaged that we will require instructions from the contractors and project technical resource.

Application Support Analyst

Make arrangements with hosting company ready for installation

October 2011

Make arrangements prior to implementation

Project Manager

Data Migration

&

System Testing

 

 

 

October 2011

The contractors should deliver to the system which has been tested in accordance with agreed test scripts encompassing delivery, function and performance.

Contract Supplier

User Acceptance Testing

 

 

 

Oct / Nov 2011

User acceptance testing should repeat the testing performed by the suppliers and any additional scenario tests developed during the project.

Project team and stakeholders

Implementation

 

December 2011

Install and test the system on the Internet hosting environment.

Application Support Analyst

 


Appendix 1: Officer’s Grant Proposal dated 28th May 2010

Appendix 2:  Peer Review of Stage 3 Objectives and Costs

Appendix 3: Technological Choices of the ResearchSpace Project

Appendix 4: Budget – Excel Spreadsheet

Appendix 5:  ResearchSpace Requirements – Practical Vision and Supporting Notes

Appendix 6: Draft Scope of Works

Appendix 7 – Application Support Analyst Draft Job Description

Appendix 8 – Project Manager Draft Job Description



Comments