appendix e f0259054 - whatdotheyknow...from: rolly gilmour to: sandy macdonald subject: re: slp...
TRANSCRIPT
From Rolly GilmourTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE SLP performance - JulyDate 25 July 2012 082836Attachments SLP Monitored statistics for july 2012docx
Attached
Rolly
--Rolly GilmourComputing ServiceUniversity of GlasgowGlasgow G12 8QQTel 0141 330 4848e-mail rowlandgilmourglasgowacukThe University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Sandy MacdonaldSent 24 July 2012 1704To Rolly GilmourSubject SLP performance
Hi Rolly
Any chance of running the performance report for SLP as per previous months - seeking todistribute to Board members on Friday
ThanksSandy
Sandy MacdonaldDirector of IT ServicesUniversity of GlasgowTel +44(0)141 330 4860
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
1
SLP Monitored statistics for July 2012
image1emf
image2emf
image3emf
SLP Monitored statistics for July 2012
Appendix E F0259054
2
Appendix E F0259054
3
Appendix E F0259054
4
From Michael ArthurTo David NewallCc Christine Lowther Janice McLellan Sandy Macdonald Diane GillespieSubject Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 25 July 2012 091320Attachments College Checklist v6doc
US Checklist v7doc
Hi David
We had an update meeting with Sandy Christine Barb and Janiceand I on Friday to review readiness for registration and enrolmentand main risks from the teams perspective On the whole we areconfident but that does depend on completion of tasks on thechecklists for Colleges and University Services The main areasof concern are class scheduling activity application offinancial aiddiscounts in both Colleges and RIO (including newRest of UK scholarships) and clarification of enrolmentarrangements for ErasmusVisiting students We are following upwith Schools on class scheduling and with RIO on their tasks andin general with Colleges through the weekly meetings that Janicehas with HoASAs
We think that we should also ask each Dean (or College Secretaryif they are away) and Dorothy to submit a written update onreadiness in advance of the Board - this can be done by updatingthe checklist we issued or their own version of it
If you agree then would suggest request goes from you Janice candraft something and I have attached the most recent versions ofchecklists to send out
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
5
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
6
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
7
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
8
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
RIO
Direct Admissions go live 4912 NA
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from
DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff
22612 20712
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems 21512
9712
28912 Based on
planned
start of
matric
Produce amp publish materials for new students 14512 1612 Yes Date
materials
due for
printing
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) 2712 14912
Issue email re updating email addresses 7512 19512 Yes Included in
offer letter
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo 4612 31712
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) 11612
9712
31712
Provide details of incoming visiting students
bull To Colleges re course choices
bull To AR re sponsorship
bull To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations
25612 6712
tbc
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students 6812 24812
Update mode of study for outgoing students 6812 24812
Appendix E F0259054
9
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Complete | Notes | |||||||||
RIO | |||||||||||||||||
Direct Admissions go live | 4912 | NA | |||||||||||||||
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff | 22612 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems | 21512 9712 | 28912 | Based on planned start of matric | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 14512 | 1612 | Yes | Date materials due for printing | |||||||||||||
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) | 2712 | 14912 | |||||||||||||||
Issue email re updating email addresses | 7512 | 19512 | Yes | Included in offer letter | |||||||||||||
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo | 4612 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) | 11612 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Provide details of incoming visiting students middot To Colleges re course choices middot To AR re sponsorship middot To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations | 25612 | 6712 tbc | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Update mode of study for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | OS task | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Accounts Receivable | |||||||||||||||||
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts | 11612 9712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Enrol continuing students in 3rd party contracts | 2712 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd party contracts | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts (updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for DAS applicants) | 2412 | 19512 | To be discussed MACRL | ||||||||||||||
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing | 18612 9712 | 29612 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Student Services Enquiry Team | |||||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 23412 | 19512 | check | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students | 14512 | 1612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Registry | |||||||||||||||||
Transition account access email tasks | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Produce account access emails | 1812 | 28912 | ongoing | ||||||||||||||
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Produce ID cards | 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Issue ID cards | 10912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Conduct Visa checks | 10912 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact | 22612 | 29612 | Check DB | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Staff identified amp asked to book course | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
1st Line Support team | |||||||||||||||||
Appoint manager | 7512 | 11512 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Recruit team | 14512 | 16612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Train team | 2712 9712 | 27712 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 1st line support | 30712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver face to face support | 10912 3912 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
SLSD | |||||||||||||||||
Upload and test tuition fees | 7512 | 15612 22612 | Yes | Complete 28612 | |||||||||||||
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges (highlighting where things appeared incorrect) | 22612 29612 | ||||||||||||||||
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) | 16412 | 1612 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Manage data migration from DAS | 26312 | 31812 | |||||||||||||||
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals (Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process defined) | 22612 | 6712 | Check dates JB | ||||||||||||||
Commence matriculation | 18612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Commence Term Activation | 25612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Fin Reg enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 19312 | 25512 29612 | Yes | UAT complete 57 | |||||||||||||
Deploy new Fin Reg process | 28512 16712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Finance Summary Screen | 19312 | 24312 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy finance summary screen | 26312 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Develop enrolment enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 2412 | 1612 19612 | Yes | UAT complete 20 amp 28 June | |||||||||||||
Deploy new enrolment process | 4612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop student summary screen | 26312 | 13412 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy student summary screen | 16412 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Update student comms toolkit | 2412 | 19412 15612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Development of student guidancetraining materials | 19612 | 13712 | |||||||||||||||
Testing of student guidancetraining materials | 2712 | 23712 | |||||||||||||||
Create new session for 201213 | 30412 | 11512 rev | Yes | Check BM | |||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo | 18612 28612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquoliversquo | 8712 | new | |||||||||||||||
Make dormantunused plans inactive | 20612 | 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Create new Fin Aid years | 16412 | 27412 18612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Update fees for incoming students | 9712 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Confirm content for Account Access email | 30412 | 4512 22612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Configure amp test Account Access email | 7512 | 19512 | Trans to Registry | ||||||||||||||
Transition Account Access email production to Registry | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run adviser allocation | 25612 | 10912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 3rd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Run progression after resits | 3912 5912 | ||||||||||||||||
Prepare and deliver training | 19312 | 28912 |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
SLP Monitored statistics for July 2012
Appendix E F0259054
2
Appendix E F0259054
3
Appendix E F0259054
4
From Michael ArthurTo David NewallCc Christine Lowther Janice McLellan Sandy Macdonald Diane GillespieSubject Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 25 July 2012 091320Attachments College Checklist v6doc
US Checklist v7doc
Hi David
We had an update meeting with Sandy Christine Barb and Janiceand I on Friday to review readiness for registration and enrolmentand main risks from the teams perspective On the whole we areconfident but that does depend on completion of tasks on thechecklists for Colleges and University Services The main areasof concern are class scheduling activity application offinancial aiddiscounts in both Colleges and RIO (including newRest of UK scholarships) and clarification of enrolmentarrangements for ErasmusVisiting students We are following upwith Schools on class scheduling and with RIO on their tasks andin general with Colleges through the weekly meetings that Janicehas with HoASAs
We think that we should also ask each Dean (or College Secretaryif they are away) and Dorothy to submit a written update onreadiness in advance of the Board - this can be done by updatingthe checklist we issued or their own version of it
If you agree then would suggest request goes from you Janice candraft something and I have attached the most recent versions ofchecklists to send out
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
5
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
6
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
7
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
8
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
RIO
Direct Admissions go live 4912 NA
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from
DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff
22612 20712
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems 21512
9712
28912 Based on
planned
start of
matric
Produce amp publish materials for new students 14512 1612 Yes Date
materials
due for
printing
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) 2712 14912
Issue email re updating email addresses 7512 19512 Yes Included in
offer letter
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo 4612 31712
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) 11612
9712
31712
Provide details of incoming visiting students
bull To Colleges re course choices
bull To AR re sponsorship
bull To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations
25612 6712
tbc
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students 6812 24812
Update mode of study for outgoing students 6812 24812
Appendix E F0259054
9
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Complete | Notes | |||||||||
RIO | |||||||||||||||||
Direct Admissions go live | 4912 | NA | |||||||||||||||
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff | 22612 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems | 21512 9712 | 28912 | Based on planned start of matric | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 14512 | 1612 | Yes | Date materials due for printing | |||||||||||||
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) | 2712 | 14912 | |||||||||||||||
Issue email re updating email addresses | 7512 | 19512 | Yes | Included in offer letter | |||||||||||||
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo | 4612 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) | 11612 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Provide details of incoming visiting students middot To Colleges re course choices middot To AR re sponsorship middot To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations | 25612 | 6712 tbc | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Update mode of study for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | OS task | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Accounts Receivable | |||||||||||||||||
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts | 11612 9712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Enrol continuing students in 3rd party contracts | 2712 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd party contracts | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts (updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for DAS applicants) | 2412 | 19512 | To be discussed MACRL | ||||||||||||||
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing | 18612 9712 | 29612 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Student Services Enquiry Team | |||||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 23412 | 19512 | check | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students | 14512 | 1612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Registry | |||||||||||||||||
Transition account access email tasks | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Produce account access emails | 1812 | 28912 | ongoing | ||||||||||||||
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Produce ID cards | 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Issue ID cards | 10912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Conduct Visa checks | 10912 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact | 22612 | 29612 | Check DB | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Staff identified amp asked to book course | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
1st Line Support team | |||||||||||||||||
Appoint manager | 7512 | 11512 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Recruit team | 14512 | 16612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Train team | 2712 9712 | 27712 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 1st line support | 30712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver face to face support | 10912 3912 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
SLSD | |||||||||||||||||
Upload and test tuition fees | 7512 | 15612 22612 | Yes | Complete 28612 | |||||||||||||
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges (highlighting where things appeared incorrect) | 22612 29612 | ||||||||||||||||
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) | 16412 | 1612 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Manage data migration from DAS | 26312 | 31812 | |||||||||||||||
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals (Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process defined) | 22612 | 6712 | Check dates JB | ||||||||||||||
Commence matriculation | 18612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Commence Term Activation | 25612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Fin Reg enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 19312 | 25512 29612 | Yes | UAT complete 57 | |||||||||||||
Deploy new Fin Reg process | 28512 16712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Finance Summary Screen | 19312 | 24312 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy finance summary screen | 26312 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Develop enrolment enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 2412 | 1612 19612 | Yes | UAT complete 20 amp 28 June | |||||||||||||
Deploy new enrolment process | 4612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop student summary screen | 26312 | 13412 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy student summary screen | 16412 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Update student comms toolkit | 2412 | 19412 15612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Development of student guidancetraining materials | 19612 | 13712 | |||||||||||||||
Testing of student guidancetraining materials | 2712 | 23712 | |||||||||||||||
Create new session for 201213 | 30412 | 11512 rev | Yes | Check BM | |||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo | 18612 28612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquoliversquo | 8712 | new | |||||||||||||||
Make dormantunused plans inactive | 20612 | 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Create new Fin Aid years | 16412 | 27412 18612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Update fees for incoming students | 9712 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Confirm content for Account Access email | 30412 | 4512 22612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Configure amp test Account Access email | 7512 | 19512 | Trans to Registry | ||||||||||||||
Transition Account Access email production to Registry | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run adviser allocation | 25612 | 10912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 3rd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Run progression after resits | 3912 5912 | ||||||||||||||||
Prepare and deliver training | 19312 | 28912 |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Appendix E F0259054
3
Appendix E F0259054
4
From Michael ArthurTo David NewallCc Christine Lowther Janice McLellan Sandy Macdonald Diane GillespieSubject Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 25 July 2012 091320Attachments College Checklist v6doc
US Checklist v7doc
Hi David
We had an update meeting with Sandy Christine Barb and Janiceand I on Friday to review readiness for registration and enrolmentand main risks from the teams perspective On the whole we areconfident but that does depend on completion of tasks on thechecklists for Colleges and University Services The main areasof concern are class scheduling activity application offinancial aiddiscounts in both Colleges and RIO (including newRest of UK scholarships) and clarification of enrolmentarrangements for ErasmusVisiting students We are following upwith Schools on class scheduling and with RIO on their tasks andin general with Colleges through the weekly meetings that Janicehas with HoASAs
We think that we should also ask each Dean (or College Secretaryif they are away) and Dorothy to submit a written update onreadiness in advance of the Board - this can be done by updatingthe checklist we issued or their own version of it
If you agree then would suggest request goes from you Janice candraft something and I have attached the most recent versions ofchecklists to send out
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
5
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
6
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
7
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
8
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
RIO
Direct Admissions go live 4912 NA
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from
DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff
22612 20712
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems 21512
9712
28912 Based on
planned
start of
matric
Produce amp publish materials for new students 14512 1612 Yes Date
materials
due for
printing
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) 2712 14912
Issue email re updating email addresses 7512 19512 Yes Included in
offer letter
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo 4612 31712
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) 11612
9712
31712
Provide details of incoming visiting students
bull To Colleges re course choices
bull To AR re sponsorship
bull To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations
25612 6712
tbc
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students 6812 24812
Update mode of study for outgoing students 6812 24812
Appendix E F0259054
9
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Complete | Notes | |||||||||
RIO | |||||||||||||||||
Direct Admissions go live | 4912 | NA | |||||||||||||||
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff | 22612 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems | 21512 9712 | 28912 | Based on planned start of matric | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 14512 | 1612 | Yes | Date materials due for printing | |||||||||||||
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) | 2712 | 14912 | |||||||||||||||
Issue email re updating email addresses | 7512 | 19512 | Yes | Included in offer letter | |||||||||||||
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo | 4612 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) | 11612 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Provide details of incoming visiting students middot To Colleges re course choices middot To AR re sponsorship middot To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations | 25612 | 6712 tbc | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Update mode of study for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | OS task | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Accounts Receivable | |||||||||||||||||
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts | 11612 9712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Enrol continuing students in 3rd party contracts | 2712 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd party contracts | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts (updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for DAS applicants) | 2412 | 19512 | To be discussed MACRL | ||||||||||||||
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing | 18612 9712 | 29612 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Student Services Enquiry Team | |||||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 23412 | 19512 | check | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students | 14512 | 1612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Registry | |||||||||||||||||
Transition account access email tasks | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Produce account access emails | 1812 | 28912 | ongoing | ||||||||||||||
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Produce ID cards | 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Issue ID cards | 10912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Conduct Visa checks | 10912 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact | 22612 | 29612 | Check DB | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Staff identified amp asked to book course | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
1st Line Support team | |||||||||||||||||
Appoint manager | 7512 | 11512 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Recruit team | 14512 | 16612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Train team | 2712 9712 | 27712 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 1st line support | 30712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver face to face support | 10912 3912 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
SLSD | |||||||||||||||||
Upload and test tuition fees | 7512 | 15612 22612 | Yes | Complete 28612 | |||||||||||||
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges (highlighting where things appeared incorrect) | 22612 29612 | ||||||||||||||||
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) | 16412 | 1612 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Manage data migration from DAS | 26312 | 31812 | |||||||||||||||
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals (Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process defined) | 22612 | 6712 | Check dates JB | ||||||||||||||
Commence matriculation | 18612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Commence Term Activation | 25612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Fin Reg enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 19312 | 25512 29612 | Yes | UAT complete 57 | |||||||||||||
Deploy new Fin Reg process | 28512 16712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Finance Summary Screen | 19312 | 24312 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy finance summary screen | 26312 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Develop enrolment enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 2412 | 1612 19612 | Yes | UAT complete 20 amp 28 June | |||||||||||||
Deploy new enrolment process | 4612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop student summary screen | 26312 | 13412 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy student summary screen | 16412 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Update student comms toolkit | 2412 | 19412 15612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Development of student guidancetraining materials | 19612 | 13712 | |||||||||||||||
Testing of student guidancetraining materials | 2712 | 23712 | |||||||||||||||
Create new session for 201213 | 30412 | 11512 rev | Yes | Check BM | |||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo | 18612 28612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquoliversquo | 8712 | new | |||||||||||||||
Make dormantunused plans inactive | 20612 | 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Create new Fin Aid years | 16412 | 27412 18612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Update fees for incoming students | 9712 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Confirm content for Account Access email | 30412 | 4512 22612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Configure amp test Account Access email | 7512 | 19512 | Trans to Registry | ||||||||||||||
Transition Account Access email production to Registry | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run adviser allocation | 25612 | 10912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 3rd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Run progression after resits | 3912 5912 | ||||||||||||||||
Prepare and deliver training | 19312 | 28912 |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Appendix E F0259054
4
From Michael ArthurTo David NewallCc Christine Lowther Janice McLellan Sandy Macdonald Diane GillespieSubject Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 25 July 2012 091320Attachments College Checklist v6doc
US Checklist v7doc
Hi David
We had an update meeting with Sandy Christine Barb and Janiceand I on Friday to review readiness for registration and enrolmentand main risks from the teams perspective On the whole we areconfident but that does depend on completion of tasks on thechecklists for Colleges and University Services The main areasof concern are class scheduling activity application offinancial aiddiscounts in both Colleges and RIO (including newRest of UK scholarships) and clarification of enrolmentarrangements for ErasmusVisiting students We are following upwith Schools on class scheduling and with RIO on their tasks andin general with Colleges through the weekly meetings that Janicehas with HoASAs
We think that we should also ask each Dean (or College Secretaryif they are away) and Dorothy to submit a written update onreadiness in advance of the Board - this can be done by updatingthe checklist we issued or their own version of it
If you agree then would suggest request goes from you Janice candraft something and I have attached the most recent versions ofchecklists to send out
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
5
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
6
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
7
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
8
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
RIO
Direct Admissions go live 4912 NA
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from
DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff
22612 20712
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems 21512
9712
28912 Based on
planned
start of
matric
Produce amp publish materials for new students 14512 1612 Yes Date
materials
due for
printing
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) 2712 14912
Issue email re updating email addresses 7512 19512 Yes Included in
offer letter
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo 4612 31712
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) 11612
9712
31712
Provide details of incoming visiting students
bull To Colleges re course choices
bull To AR re sponsorship
bull To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations
25612 6712
tbc
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students 6812 24812
Update mode of study for outgoing students 6812 24812
Appendix E F0259054
9
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Complete | Notes | |||||||||
RIO | |||||||||||||||||
Direct Admissions go live | 4912 | NA | |||||||||||||||
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff | 22612 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems | 21512 9712 | 28912 | Based on planned start of matric | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 14512 | 1612 | Yes | Date materials due for printing | |||||||||||||
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) | 2712 | 14912 | |||||||||||||||
Issue email re updating email addresses | 7512 | 19512 | Yes | Included in offer letter | |||||||||||||
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo | 4612 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) | 11612 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Provide details of incoming visiting students middot To Colleges re course choices middot To AR re sponsorship middot To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations | 25612 | 6712 tbc | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Update mode of study for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | OS task | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Accounts Receivable | |||||||||||||||||
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts | 11612 9712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Enrol continuing students in 3rd party contracts | 2712 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd party contracts | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts (updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for DAS applicants) | 2412 | 19512 | To be discussed MACRL | ||||||||||||||
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing | 18612 9712 | 29612 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Student Services Enquiry Team | |||||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 23412 | 19512 | check | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students | 14512 | 1612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Registry | |||||||||||||||||
Transition account access email tasks | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Produce account access emails | 1812 | 28912 | ongoing | ||||||||||||||
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Produce ID cards | 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Issue ID cards | 10912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Conduct Visa checks | 10912 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact | 22612 | 29612 | Check DB | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Staff identified amp asked to book course | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
1st Line Support team | |||||||||||||||||
Appoint manager | 7512 | 11512 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Recruit team | 14512 | 16612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Train team | 2712 9712 | 27712 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 1st line support | 30712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver face to face support | 10912 3912 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
SLSD | |||||||||||||||||
Upload and test tuition fees | 7512 | 15612 22612 | Yes | Complete 28612 | |||||||||||||
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges (highlighting where things appeared incorrect) | 22612 29612 | ||||||||||||||||
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) | 16412 | 1612 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Manage data migration from DAS | 26312 | 31812 | |||||||||||||||
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals (Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process defined) | 22612 | 6712 | Check dates JB | ||||||||||||||
Commence matriculation | 18612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Commence Term Activation | 25612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Fin Reg enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 19312 | 25512 29612 | Yes | UAT complete 57 | |||||||||||||
Deploy new Fin Reg process | 28512 16712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Finance Summary Screen | 19312 | 24312 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy finance summary screen | 26312 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Develop enrolment enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 2412 | 1612 19612 | Yes | UAT complete 20 amp 28 June | |||||||||||||
Deploy new enrolment process | 4612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop student summary screen | 26312 | 13412 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy student summary screen | 16412 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Update student comms toolkit | 2412 | 19412 15612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Development of student guidancetraining materials | 19612 | 13712 | |||||||||||||||
Testing of student guidancetraining materials | 2712 | 23712 | |||||||||||||||
Create new session for 201213 | 30412 | 11512 rev | Yes | Check BM | |||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo | 18612 28612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquoliversquo | 8712 | new | |||||||||||||||
Make dormantunused plans inactive | 20612 | 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Create new Fin Aid years | 16412 | 27412 18612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Update fees for incoming students | 9712 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Confirm content for Account Access email | 30412 | 4512 22612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Configure amp test Account Access email | 7512 | 19512 | Trans to Registry | ||||||||||||||
Transition Account Access email production to Registry | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run adviser allocation | 25612 | 10912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 3rd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Run progression after resits | 3912 5912 | ||||||||||||||||
Prepare and deliver training | 19312 | 28912 |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
From Michael ArthurTo David NewallCc Christine Lowther Janice McLellan Sandy Macdonald Diane GillespieSubject Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 25 July 2012 091320Attachments College Checklist v6doc
US Checklist v7doc
Hi David
We had an update meeting with Sandy Christine Barb and Janiceand I on Friday to review readiness for registration and enrolmentand main risks from the teams perspective On the whole we areconfident but that does depend on completion of tasks on thechecklists for Colleges and University Services The main areasof concern are class scheduling activity application offinancial aiddiscounts in both Colleges and RIO (including newRest of UK scholarships) and clarification of enrolmentarrangements for ErasmusVisiting students We are following upwith Schools on class scheduling and with RIO on their tasks andin general with Colleges through the weekly meetings that Janicehas with HoASAs
We think that we should also ask each Dean (or College Secretaryif they are away) and Dorothy to submit a written update onreadiness in advance of the Board - this can be done by updatingthe checklist we issued or their own version of it
If you agree then would suggest request goes from you Janice candraft something and I have attached the most recent versions ofchecklists to send out
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
5
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
6
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
7
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
8
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
RIO
Direct Admissions go live 4912 NA
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from
DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff
22612 20712
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems 21512
9712
28912 Based on
planned
start of
matric
Produce amp publish materials for new students 14512 1612 Yes Date
materials
due for
printing
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) 2712 14912
Issue email re updating email addresses 7512 19512 Yes Included in
offer letter
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo 4612 31712
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) 11612
9712
31712
Provide details of incoming visiting students
bull To Colleges re course choices
bull To AR re sponsorship
bull To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations
25612 6712
tbc
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students 6812 24812
Update mode of study for outgoing students 6812 24812
Appendix E F0259054
9
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Complete | Notes | |||||||||
RIO | |||||||||||||||||
Direct Admissions go live | 4912 | NA | |||||||||||||||
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff | 22612 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems | 21512 9712 | 28912 | Based on planned start of matric | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 14512 | 1612 | Yes | Date materials due for printing | |||||||||||||
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) | 2712 | 14912 | |||||||||||||||
Issue email re updating email addresses | 7512 | 19512 | Yes | Included in offer letter | |||||||||||||
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo | 4612 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) | 11612 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Provide details of incoming visiting students middot To Colleges re course choices middot To AR re sponsorship middot To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations | 25612 | 6712 tbc | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Update mode of study for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 6812 | 24812 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | OS task | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Accounts Receivable | |||||||||||||||||
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts | 11612 9712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Enrol continuing students in 3rd party contracts | 2712 9712 | 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd party contracts | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts (updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for DAS applicants) | 2412 | 19512 | To be discussed MACRL | ||||||||||||||
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing | 18612 9712 | 29612 31712 | |||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Student Services Enquiry Team | |||||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for new students | 23412 | 19512 | check | ||||||||||||||
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students | 14512 | 1612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | check | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Registry | |||||||||||||||||
Transition account access email tasks | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Produce account access emails | 1812 | 28912 | ongoing | ||||||||||||||
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Produce ID cards | 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Issue ID cards | 10912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Conduct Visa checks | 10912 3912 | 51012 | |||||||||||||||
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact | 22612 | 29612 | Check DB | ||||||||||||||
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks | 22612 | 29612 | Staff identified amp asked to book course | ||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
1st Line Support team | |||||||||||||||||
Appoint manager | 7512 | 11512 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Recruit team | 14512 | 16612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Train team | 2712 9712 | 27712 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 1st line support | 30712 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver face to face support | 10912 3912 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
SLSD | |||||||||||||||||
Upload and test tuition fees | 7512 | 15612 22612 | Yes | Complete 28612 | |||||||||||||
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges (highlighting where things appeared incorrect) | 22612 29612 | ||||||||||||||||
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) | 16412 | 1612 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Manage data migration from DAS | 26312 | 31812 | |||||||||||||||
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals (Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process defined) | 22612 | 6712 | Check dates JB | ||||||||||||||
Commence matriculation | 18612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Commence Term Activation | 25612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Fin Reg enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 19312 | 25512 29612 | Yes | UAT complete 57 | |||||||||||||
Deploy new Fin Reg process | 28512 16712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop Finance Summary Screen | 19312 | 24312 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy finance summary screen | 26312 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Develop enrolment enhancements (x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes) | 2412 | 1612 19612 | Yes | UAT complete 20 amp 28 June | |||||||||||||
Deploy new enrolment process | 4612 9712 | ||||||||||||||||
Develop student summary screen | 26312 | 13412 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Deploy student summary screen | 16412 | Yes | |||||||||||||||
Update student comms toolkit | 2412 | 19412 15612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Development of student guidancetraining materials | 19612 | 13712 | |||||||||||||||
Testing of student guidancetraining materials | 2712 | 23712 | |||||||||||||||
Create new session for 201213 | 30412 | 11512 rev | Yes | Check BM | |||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo | 18612 28612 | 29612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run progression in lsquoliversquo | 8712 | new | |||||||||||||||
Make dormantunused plans inactive | 20612 | 29612 | |||||||||||||||
Create new Fin Aid years | 16412 | 27412 18612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Update fees for incoming students | 9712 | 20712 | |||||||||||||||
Confirm content for Account Access email | 30412 | 4512 22612 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Configure amp test Account Access email | 7512 | 19512 | Trans to Registry | ||||||||||||||
Transition Account Access email production to Registry | 2712 | 6712 | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Run adviser allocation | 25612 | 10912 | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 3rd line support | 1812 | 28912 | |||||||||||||||
Run progression after resits | 3912 5912 | ||||||||||||||||
Prepare and deliver training | 19312 | 28912 |
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
6
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
7
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
8
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
RIO
Direct Admissions go live 4912 NA
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from
DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff
22612 20712
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems 21512
9712
28912 Based on
planned
start of
matric
Produce amp publish materials for new students 14512 1612 Yes Date
materials
due for
printing
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) 2712 14912
Issue email re updating email addresses 7512 19512 Yes Included in
offer letter
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo 4612 31712
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) 11612
9712
31712
Provide details of incoming visiting students
bull To Colleges re course choices
bull To AR re sponsorship
bull To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations
25612 6712
tbc
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students 6812 24812
Update mode of study for outgoing students 6812 24812
Appendix E F0259054
9
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
7
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
8
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
RIO
Direct Admissions go live 4912 NA
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from
DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff
22612 20712
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems 21512
9712
28912 Based on
planned
start of
matric
Produce amp publish materials for new students 14512 1612 Yes Date
materials
due for
printing
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) 2712 14912
Issue email re updating email addresses 7512 19512 Yes Included in
offer letter
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo 4612 31712
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) 11612
9712
31712
Provide details of incoming visiting students
bull To Colleges re course choices
bull To AR re sponsorship
bull To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations
25612 6712
tbc
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students 6812 24812
Update mode of study for outgoing students 6812 24812
Appendix E F0259054
9
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
8
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
RIO
Direct Admissions go live 4912 NA
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from
DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff
22612 20712
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems 21512
9712
28912 Based on
planned
start of
matric
Produce amp publish materials for new students 14512 1612 Yes Date
materials
due for
printing
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) 2712 14912
Issue email re updating email addresses 7512 19512 Yes Included in
offer letter
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo 4612 31712
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) 11612
9712
31712
Provide details of incoming visiting students
bull To Colleges re course choices
bull To AR re sponsorship
bull To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations
25612 6712
tbc
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students 6812 24812
Update mode of study for outgoing students 6812 24812
Appendix E F0259054
9
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 University Services Preparation Checklist v7
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
RIO
Direct Admissions go live 4912 NA
Identify resources required for transfer of docs from
DAS to MyCampus inc location of staff
22612 20712
Manage withdrawals amp deferrals between systems 21512
9712
28912 Based on
planned
start of
matric
Produce amp publish materials for new students 14512 1612 Yes Date
materials
due for
printing
Issue materials to new students (Welcome Packs) 2712 14912
Issue email re updating email addresses 7512 19512 Yes Included in
offer letter
Attach students to lsquostudent groupsrsquo 4612 31712
Apply admissions discounts amp Fin Aid (new students) 11612
9712
31712
Provide details of incoming visiting students
bull To Colleges re course choices
bull To AR re sponsorship
bull To SLSD finance re non-automated fee variations
25612 6712
tbc
Assign dummy courses for outgoing students 6812 24812
Update mode of study for outgoing students 6812 24812
Appendix E F0259054
9
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Add placement data for outgoing students 6812 24812
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 OS task
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Accounts Receivable
Process advancedirect payments amp update accounts 11612
9712
28912
Enrol continuing students in 3rd
party contracts 2712
9712
31712
Check amp enrol new students in 3rd
party contracts 1812 28912
Convert enrolment deposits amp update accounts
(updating accounts in MyCampus with deposit info for
DAS applicants)
2412 19512 To be
discussed
MACRL
Check amp update fees where pound0 showing 18612
9712
29612
31712
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Yes
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Student Services Enquiry Team
Produce amp publish materials for new students 23412 19512 check
Produce amp publish materials for continuing students 14512 1612 check
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 check
Deliver 2nd
line support 1812 28912
Registry
Transition account access email tasks 2712 6712 Yes
Produce account access emails 1812 28912 ongoing
Appendix E F0259054
10
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Deal with lsquobounce checkrsquo Account Access notifications 1812 28912
Produce ID cards 3912 51012
Issue ID cards 10912 51012
Conduct Visa checks 10912
3912
51012
Clarify process for PGT SAAS funding amp impact 22612 29612 Check DB
Identify staff to be trained on Supportworks 22612 29612 Staff
identified
amp asked to
book
course
Deliver 2nd
line student support 1812 28912
1st
Line Support team
Appoint manager 7512 11512 Yes
Recruit team 14512 16612 Yes
Train team 2712
9712
27712
Deliver 1st
line support 30712 28912
Deliver face to face support 10912
3912
28912
SLSD
Upload and test tuition fees 7512 15612
22612
Yes Complete
28612
Issue spreadsheet tuition fees by plan to Colleges
(highlighting where things appeared incorrect)
22612
29612
Appendix E F0259054
11
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Create amp update student groups (GIC amp Visiting) 16412 1612
29612
Manage data migration from DAS 26312 31812
Define process for managing withdrawals amp deferrals
(Admissions SUG to agree responsibility once process
defined)
22612
6712 Check
dates JB
Commence matriculation 18612
9712
Commence Term Activation 25612
9712
Develop Fin Reg enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
19312 25512
29612
Yes UAT
complete
57
Deploy new Fin Reg process 28512
16712
Develop Finance Summary Screen 19312 24312 Yes
Deploy finance summary screen 26312 Yes
Develop enrolment enhancements
(x-ref SUG documentation for details of changes)
2412 1612
19612
Yes UAT
complete
20 amp 28
June
Deploy new enrolment process 4612
9712
Develop student summary screen 26312 13412 Yes
Deploy student summary screen 16412 Yes
Update student comms toolkit 2412 19412
15612
Yes
Appendix E F0259054
12
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Complete Notes
Development of student guidancetraining materials 19612 13712
Testing of student guidancetraining materials 2712 23712
Create new session for 201213 30412 11512
rev
Yes Check BM
Run progression in lsquotestrsquo 18612
28612
29612
Yes
Issue progression reports to Colleges for checking 2712 6712 Yes
Run progression in lsquoliversquo 8712 new
Make dormantunused plans inactive 20612 29612
Create new Fin Aid years 16412 27412
18612
Yes
Update fees for incoming students 9712 20712
Confirm content for Account Access email 30412 4512
22612
Yes
Configure amp test Account Access email 7512 19512 Trans to
Registry
Transition Account Access email production to Registry 2712 6712 Yes
Run adviser allocation 25612 10912
Deliver 3rd
line support 1812 28912
Run progression after resits 3912
5912
Prepare and deliver training 19312 28912
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
13
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy MacdonaldSubject meetingDate 25 July 2012 121000
Hi Sandy
I tried to give you a call a couple of times Irsquom out of the meeting now ndash not sure if youwant to come over just now ndash spoke with Barb and she doesnrsquot really have anythingshe needs to cover and same with me
Cheers
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
14
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
From Michael ArthurTo Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Contract issuesDate 25 July 2012 173405
For info
Also I spoke with Cheryl today and unfortunately She did say she was more than happy to
provide us with email assistance as and when required
Mike
-----Original Message-----From Bill WelchSent 25 July 2012 1656To Michael ArthurSubject Contract issues
Hi
As August 12th only a couple of weeks away I would really like an update as soon as possible
You can call me at
Do not worry about the time difference (I am awake anyway) thanks Bill
Appendix E F0259054
15
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
From Janice McLellanTo Michael Arthur Barbara Mueller Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldCc Diane Gillespie Karen LeeSubject Project Board - Lessons Learned ReportDate 26 July 2012 094852Attachments 20120725 Lessons Learned Recommendations updatedoc
Hi All
I have updated the Lessons Learned Report - looking good Only 3 SLSD items left in progress solooking good I think Of the 3 left they are also very close to completion
Let me know if you have any commentschanges
Janice
Mrs Janice McLellanSupport ManagerStudent Lifecycle Support amp Development Team
Tel 0141 330 1679E-mail jmclellanadminglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
16
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this item
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Ref | Recommendation | Decision Responsibility | Current Position | ||||
1 | The University should allow students (especially international students) to enrol before completing financial registration | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation There should be a move away from the linear process and students should still be encouraged to complete financial registration as soon as possible and would not be able to access facilities such as the library and other facilities until registration had been completed | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented developed and are being tested by staff and students Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information For more information on this please contact your Specialist User Group representative details of whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section of the SLP website Recommendation Implemented | ||||
2 | The University should review the relationship between MyCampus and advising and the role of advisers in MyCampus | 6212 This recommendation must be considered by the Chief Advisers Group The interface between advising and MyCampus was not optimised and the relationship between MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be reviewed The Board supports the concern set out in the report that advisers of Study should meet with students before the point at which their curriculum could no longer be changed David Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the same direction Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all Colleges were already committed to the practice of advisers meeting students before their curriculum was finalised | Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on 8th May The proposed workcentre functionality was demonstrated and the group suggested a number of refinements to this The workcentre has been developed and members of the SUG were involved in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on 20 June Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to ensure all advisers undertake the required training both College-specific and MyCampus Recommendation Implemented | ||||
3 | The option for students to choose courses directly from the course catalogue should be removed so that they have to use MyRequirements | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Students must go through MyRequirements a measure which should reduce the incidence of course clashes and of poor curricular choices | Following feedback from Specialist User Group members the designs for enhancements to the registration amp enrolment process have been documented and developed Students and staff conducted UAT on 20th and 28th June respectively with students also being involved in reviewing the guidance materials produced The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration and enrolment opening in Summer 2012 Copies of the design documents have been published on the Sharepoint site for information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
4 | The revised SLP project plan as well as regular reports on progress should be shared with the University community | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Publication of project plan and progress updates to be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter Aitchison | High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be refreshed monthly Regular updates will be communicated to staff via Campus e-news each month and via the SRC newsletter for students following Project Board meetings Recommendation Implemented | ||||
5 | Information about contacts within the user community and the SLP team should be published widely | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation The SLP team would address this in conjunction with the other areas clarifying College University Services and SLP contacts | Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
6 | Usability and the user experience of staff and students should be given the very highest priority | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation | The User Interface is being enhanced with the introduction of Work Centres which will improve navigation and may reduce the number of clicks required for certain transactions This is an ongoing activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going live on 20 June The enhancements to financial registration and enrolment will also improve the user experience The involvement of students in testing functionality and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design and development activity is helping ensure the user interface continues to have a high priority Recommendation Implemented | ||||
7 | MyCampus handbooks should be produced for Advisers administrative staff and appropriate academic staff | 6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team will take forward | Training Materials are currently being reviewed and updated In line with the training schedule As part of this consideration is being given to how these might be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An Adviser handbook has been produced and is being reviewed by the SUG | ||||
8 | Two new members should be added to the Project Board to represent the user community including one representing administrative users and one academic users Each individual should convene a user group which should receive administrative support | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now members of the Board and therefore were not required to convene separate groups or be members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others | Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined the Board More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias Robinson agreed Recommendation Implemented | ||||
9 | The user groups should be involved in comprehensive system testing | 6212 ndash Project Board agreed with recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups and student representatives (recruited through SRC) are directly participating in User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced functionality Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of all new developments and enhanced functionality Their comments and feedback have been used to either further refine functionality or to identify areas for future development A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being prepared by the SLSD team | ||||
10 | Comprehensive user training should be provided in a timely manner ahead of roll-out | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Full training calendar developed and published Courses can be booked using the online booking system Training activity has been mapped to the Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for resource planning within Colleges and Services Colleges and Services have been asked to identify any additional training requirements Weekly reports are being provided to each College detailing attendees at training Recommendation Implemented | ||||
11 | Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in place to support users during the roll-out phase | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved The central 1st line support team started on 9th July and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25 support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the business They have undertaken full training in readiness for delivery of 1st line support Colleges are implementing their models for local support over the summer period including recruitment of additional temporary staff where required Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points from the 1st line to 2nd and 3rd line support has been produced A comprehensive range of training and guidance materials has been produced to support registration and enrolment | ||||
12 | Project implementation protocols should be reviewed and made more robust | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Specialist User Groups have been established for 10 functional areas As part of their remit they will ensure more robust implementation protocols are adopted Recommendation Implemented | ||||
13 | If possible a replica of the live database should be provided to facilitate user testing | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica of live database will be available | A replication of the live database has been created (CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff attending training being recommended to use this as a lsquoplayrsquo environment Recommendation Implemented | ||||
14 | The services of an individual or groups of individuals should be secured to review academic plans in a holistic way | 6212 Review of academic plans (including resources implications and consistency of plans) to be discussed with Deans of LampT | Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for planning and monitoring activity to ensure completion of this task Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on progress at each Project Board Plan testing and building was completed prior to Progression being run This process was run at the end of June with results being in line with expectations Recommendation Implemented | ||||
15 | Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of communication should be addressed immediately | 6212 SLP Team progressing | Formal procedures established to middot Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and BI-Query models middot Request development of additional reports and queries These are available through the SLP website Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to provide additional contact information Recommendation Implemented | ||||
16 | A properly trained adequately-staffed and appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set up to assist students with registration and enrolment | 6212 ndash Project Board accepted the recommendation Project Board will come back to this at a later date | Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved See item 11 above Recommendation Implemented | ||||
17 | In undertaking any substantial project in the future the University should learn the wider lessons from the MyCampus implementation captured in this report Specifically robust project governance and best practice in project management disciplines must be employed allowing adequate time and appropriate user engagement at each stage Benefits management should be fully embedded from the outset such that success criteria are clearly identified and understood by the user community as a whole | 6212 Noted as a University issue | Recommendation to be progressed by University Management |
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Recommendations
Status and progress updates
The process for publishing the updated recommendations document each month following
presentation to the Project Board is now fully established
Where a recommendation is complete or has been passed to another body (eg SMG) for
action it will be shown lsquogreyed outrsquo and no further updates will be recorded against this
item
Appendix E F0259054
17
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
SLPxx xx
Lessons Learned Review ndash Recommendations Update June 2012
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
1 The University should allow students (especially
international students) to enrol before completing
financial registration
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
There should be a move away from the linear
process and students should still be encouraged to
complete financial registration as soon as possible
and would not be able to access facilities such as the
library and other facilities until registration had been
completed
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented developed and are being tested by
staff and students
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
For more information on this please contact your
Specialist User Group representative details of
whom can be found under the Whorsquos Who section
of the SLP website
Recommendation Implemented
2 The University should review the relationship
between MyCampus and advising and the role of
advisers in MyCampus
6212 This recommendation must be considered
by the Chief Advisers Group
The interface between advising and MyCampus was
not optimised and the relationship between
MyCampus and the role of the advisers should be
reviewed The Board supports the concern set out
in the report that advisers of Study should meet
with students before the point at which their
curriculum could no longer be changed David
Newall would discuss with Graham Caie suggesting
the existing Chief Advisers Group join up with the
Advising SUG to ensure discussions moved in the
same direction
Specialist User Group (SUG) for Advising was held on
8th
May The proposed workcentre functionality was
demonstrated and the group suggested a number of
refinements to this The workcentre has been
developed and members of the SUG were involved
in UAT prior to the workcentre being made live on
20 June
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are taking steps to
ensure all advisers undertake the required training
both College-specific and MyCampus
Recommendation Implemented
Appendix E F0259054
18
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Chairmans Note This matter was discussed at SMG
on 16 February where Graham Caie noted that all
Colleges were already committed to the practice of
advisers meeting students before their curriculum
was finalised
3 The option for students to choose courses directly
from the course catalogue should be removed so
that they have to use MyRequirements
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Students must go through MyRequirements a
measure which should reduce the incidence of
course clashes and of poor curricular choices
Following feedback from Specialist User Group
members the designs for enhancements to the
registration amp enrolment process have been
documented and developed Students and staff
conducted UAT on 20th
and 28th
June respectively
with students also being involved in reviewing the
guidance materials produced
The enhanced enrolment functionality was deployed
to the live system on 25 July 2012 for registration
and enrolment opening in Summer 2012
Copies of the design documents have been
published on the Sharepoint site for information
Recommendation Implemented
4 The revised SLP project plan as well as regular
reports on progress should be shared with the
University community
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Publication of project plan and progress updates to
be taken forward with SLP Team and Peter
Aitchison
High Level Plan published on SLP website and will be
refreshed monthly
Regular updates will be communicated to staff via
Campus e-news each month and via the SRC
newsletter for students following Project Board
meetings
Appendix E F0259054
19
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
5 Information about contacts within the user
community and the SLP team should be published
widely
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
The SLP team would address this in conjunction with
the other areas clarifying College University
Services and SLP contacts
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Recommendation Implemented
6 Usability and the user experience of staff and
students should be given the very highest priority
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
The User Interface is being enhanced with the
introduction of Work Centres which will improve
navigation and may reduce the number of clicks
required for certain transactions This is an ongoing
activity with the first Work Centre (Advising) going
live on 20 June The enhancements to financial
registration and enrolment will also improve the
user experience
The involvement of students in testing functionality
and the contribution of SUGs and CLGs to the design
and development activity is helping ensure the user
interface continues to have a high priority
Recommendation Implemented
7 MyCampus handbooks should be produced for
Advisers administrative staff and appropriate
academic staff
6212 ndash Project Board determined that SLP team
will take forward
Training Materials are currently being reviewed and
updated In line with the training schedule As part of
this consideration is being given to how these might
be logically grouped into role-based User Guides An
Adviser handbook has been produced and is being
reviewed by the SUG
Appendix E F0259054
20
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
8 Two new members should be added to the Project
Board to represent the user community including
one representing administrative users and one
academic users Each individual should convene a
user group which should receive administrative
support
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Lillias Robinson and Fred Cartmel were now
members of the Board and therefore were not
required to convene separate groups or be
members of the SUGS Christine Lowther Janice
McLellan and Lillias Robinson would discuss whether
Lillias Robinson should take a specific role in the
weekly Support Meetings convened by Janice
McLellan and attended by HoASAs and others
Peter Aitchison (Corporate Comms) has also joined
the Board
More active role in the Support Meetings for Lillias
Robinson agreed
Recommendation Implemented
9 The user groups should be involved in
comprehensive system testing
6212 ndash Project Board agreed with
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Specialist User Groups and student representatives
(recruited through SRC) are directly participating in
User Acceptance Testing for all newenhanced
functionality
Staff and students have been involved in the UAT of
all new developments and enhanced functionality
Their comments and feedback have been used to
either further refine functionality or to identify areas
for future development
A summary of the outcomes of UAT is being
prepared by the SLSD team
10 Comprehensive user training should be provided in a
timely manner ahead of roll-out
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Full training calendar developed and published
Courses can be booked using the online booking
system
Training activity has been mapped to the
Appendix E F0259054
21
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Registration amp Enrolment timeline to allow for
resource planning within Colleges and Services
Colleges and Services have been asked to identify
any additional training requirements
Weekly reports are being provided to each College
detailing attendees at training
Recommendation Implemented
11 Appropriate support mechanisms should be put in
place to support users during the roll-out phase
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
The central 1st
line support team started on 9th
July
and comprises Team Manager team Lead 25
support assistants and 5 secondees (3 FTE) from the
business They have undertaken full training in
readiness for delivery of 1st
line support
Colleges are implementing their models for local
support over the summer period including
recruitment of additional temporary staff where
required
Clarification on call handling and the hand-off points
from the 1st
line to 2nd
and 3rd
line support has been
produced
A comprehensive range of training and guidance
materials has been produced to support registration
and enrolment
12 Project implementation protocols should be
reviewed and made more robust
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Specialist User Groups have been established for 10
functional areas As part of their remit they will
ensure more robust implementation protocols are
Appendix E F0259054
22
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
adopted
Recommendation Implemented
13 If possible a replica of the live database should be
provided to facilitate user testing
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Once system fully up to date with bundles a replica
of live database will be available
A replication of the live database has been created
(CSSAND) and is now in general use with staff
attending training being recommended to use this
as a lsquoplayrsquo environment
Recommendation Implemented
14 The services of an individual or groups of individuals
should be secured to review academic plans in a
holistic way
6212
Review of academic plans (including resources
implications and consistency of plans) to be
discussed with Deans of LampT
Deans of Learning amp Teaching are responsible for
planning and monitoring activity to ensure
completion of this task
Deans of Learning amp Teaching to provide update on
progress at each Project Board
Plan testing and building was completed prior to
Progression being run This process was run at the
end of June with results being in line with
expectations
Recommendation Implemented
15 Issues concerning queries permissions and lines of
communication should be addressed immediately
6212
SLP Team progressing
Formal procedures established to
bull Obtain access to MyCampus functionality and
BI-Query models
bull Request development of additional reports and
queries
These are available through the SLP website
Whorsquos Who section published on SLP website to
provide additional contact information
Appendix E F0259054
23
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
SLPxx xx
Ref Recommendation Decision Responsibility Current Position
Recommendation Implemented
16 A properly trained adequately-staffed and
appropriately empowered Help Desk should be set
up to assist students with registration and
enrolment
6212 ndash Project Board accepted the
recommendation
Project Board will come back to this at a later date
Summer 2012 Support Model has been approved
See item 11 above
Recommendation Implemented
17 In undertaking any substantial project in the future
the University should learn the wider lessons from
the MyCampus implementation captured in this
report Specifically robust project governance and
best practice in project management disciplines
must be employed allowing adequate time and
appropriate user engagement at each stage
Benefits management should be fully embedded
from the outset such that success criteria are clearly
identified and understood by the user community as
a whole
6212
Noted as a University issue
Recommendation to be progressed by University
Management
Appendix E F0259054
24
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
From David NewallTo Janice McLellan Michael Arthur Christine Lowther Sandy MacdonaldSubject FW Registration amp enrolment checklistsDate 26 July 2012 103054Attachments College Checklist v7doc
All
For info
David
_____________________________________________From David NewallSent 26 July 2012 1030To David Fearn Alice Jenkins Jill Morrison Moira Fischbacher-SmithSubject Registration amp enrolment checklists
Alice David Jill Moira
We have the next SLP Board on Monday 6 August and I would like to spend a fewminutes reviewing the College and University Services checklists for Registration andEnrolment I hope that will help address any areas where there is continuinguncertainty or a need for further action resource
The General College checklist is attached for reference (I think you may have tailoredthis within the College) Irsquoll put this and the University Services checklist on the agendafor us to review
David
Appendix E F0259054
25
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a negative impact on student experience
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Task | Resp | Staff identified | Staff trained | Security roles assigned | Start date Revised | End date Revised | Comp | Notes | |||||||||
Confirm tuition fees | NA | NA | NA | 30 March | |||||||||||||
Progression rule testing | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Plan completenessaccuracy checking | February | 31 May | |||||||||||||||
Class scheduling | 16 April | 31 May | If not complete then data has to entered in both CMIS and MyCampus | ||||||||||||||
Confirm enrolment arrangements | 23 April | 30 April 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs | 1 May | 31 May 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students | 30 April | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load exam results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Check progression reports | 2 July | 9 July | New task agreed with plan testers | ||||||||||||||
Issue student communication re progression and any required action | 9 July | New task agreed with HoASAs | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required | 18 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Load degree results | 18 May | 12 June | |||||||||||||||
Load resit results | 18 August | 4 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Check holds and action as required post-resits | 6 Sept | 14 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required | 2 July 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Check fees and apply discounts | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply bench fees | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply financial aid | 28 May 18 June | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required | 11 June 9 July | 31 July | |||||||||||||||
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad | 11 June | 22 June | Note required for progression If not applied then student would lsquofailrsquo progression and the record then updated manually | ||||||||||||||
Allocate update advisers | 2 July | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Assign dummy course for outgoing students | 1 August | 24 August | |||||||||||||||
Attach student groups to relevant courses for visiting students | 2 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students | 9 July | 31 July | New | ||||||||||||||
Enrol students via quick or block enrol | 1 August | 30 Sept | |||||||||||||||
Add placement data for outgoing students | 1 August | 31 August | |||||||||||||||
Create research training courses amp schedule | 30 April | 30 June | |||||||||||||||
Deliver 2nd line student support | 2 July | 30 Sept |
Registration amp Enrolment ndash Summer 2012 Colleges Preparation Checklist
Task Resp Staff
identified
Staff
trained
Security
roles
assigned
Start date
Revised
End date
Revised
Comp Notes
Confirm tuition fees NA NA NA 30 March
Progression rule testing February 31 May
Plan completenessaccuracy checking February 31 May
Class scheduling 16 April 31 May If not complete
then data has to
entered in both
CMIS and
MyCampus
Confirm enrolment arrangements 23 April 30 April
30 June
Produce enrolment guidance amp URLs 1 May 31 May
30 June
Conduct PGR annual review amp progress students 30 April 31 July
Load exam results 18 May 12 June
Check progression reports 2 July 9 July New task agreed
with plan testers
Issue student communication re progression and
any required action
9 July New task agreed
with HoASAs
Check holds and action as required 18 June
9 July
31 July
Load degree results 18 May 12 June
Load resit results 18 August 4 Sept
Check holds and action as required post-resits 6 Sept 14 Sept
Update plans - Hons to Designated as required 2 July
9 July
31 July
Appendix E F0259054
26
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Check fees and apply discounts 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply bench fees 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply financial aid 28 May
18 June
31 July
Update lsquoacademic loadrsquo where required 11 June
9 July
31 July
Apply credit - students returning from year abroad 11 June
22 June Note required for
progression If not
applied then
student would lsquofailrsquo
progression and
the record then
updated manually
Allocate update advisers 2 July 30 Sept
Assign dummy course for outgoing students 1 August 24 August
Attach student groups to relevant courses for
visiting students
2 July 31 July New
Apply lsquoTransfer Creditrsquo for GIC students 9 July 31 July New
Enrol students via quick or block enrol 1 August 30 Sept
Add placement data for outgoing students 1 August 31 August
Create research training courses amp schedule 30 April 30 June
Deliver 2nd
line student support 2 July 30 Sept
Notes
31 July date against various tasks is for those students expected to be able to register amp enrol from 1 August Each is then an ongoing task as students are
either term activated or new information is added (eg later PGR reviews)
Appendix E F0259054
27
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Dates associated with these items are fixed deadlines Failure to meet these dates will impact on other tasks and timescales including the ability of
students to register and enrol from 1 August
End dates not marked indicate that there is no absolute requirement for the task to be completed by this date nor a direct impact on dependent tasks
which would affect the ability of students to register and enrol However failure to meet these deadlines would result in incomplete records (eg no
location information for outgoing study abroad students incomplete timetables as a result of block enrolments not being completed) and would have a
negative impact on student experience
Appendix E F0259054
28
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 091134
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
29
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092404Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgow
Appendix E F0259054
30
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Cc
- Hugh Woods
- Recipients
- slp-infraglasgowacuk BarryCrozierglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk HughWoodsglasgowacuk
-
-
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
JobReporthtm
JobReporthtm
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Caroline Weir
- To
- Barry Crozier SLP Infra
- Cc
- Patrick Nwaozuzu
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk slp-infraglasgowacuk PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi
How do we progress this
Caroline
From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023 To Caroline Weir Subject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Caroline
The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in the export directory going back to last Tuesday
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email
From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852 To Patrick Nwaozuzu Subject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick
GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is
Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping
Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file or directory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14
Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me
I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failing but I could be wrong
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----From [ ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 216855
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
Instance Process Name Description Process Type Run Status Run Control ID Type Output Format Server Name Begin DateTime End DateTime 219574 Agresso GL Response Application Engine Not Successful Response_Agresso Web Text Files (txt) PSUNX 2012-07-25-052007933924 2012-07-25-052020129645 Parameter
psae -CT ORACLE -CD CSPROD -CO BATCH -CP OPRPSWD -R Response_Agresso -I 219574 -AI UOG_GL_RESP -OT 6 -FP packagespsoftpsoftcscsprodappservprcsCSPRODlog_outputAE_UOG_GL_RESP_219574 -OF 14
Distribution List
Application Messages
PeopleCode Exit(1) Abort invoked by Application at UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (108543)
Process 219574 ABENDED at Step UOG_GL_RESPMAINReadFile (PeopleCode) -- RC = 16 (108524)
219574 UOG_GL_RESP MAIN ReadFile PeopleCode 16 7 8 9 (6530)
Successfully posted generated files to the report repository (6571)
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
Type Name User BATCH
-
G12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
31
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
|
From Caroline WeirTo SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 083700Attachments JobReporthtm
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
32
|
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier SLP InfraCc Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 23 July 2012 113600
Hi How do we progress thisCaroline From Patrick Nwaozuzu Sent 23 July 2012 1023To Caroline WeirSubject RE The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Caroline The process for picking up the response file has not worked I have response file sitting in theexport directory going back to last Tuesday Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Caroline Weir Sent 23 July 2012 0852To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully ) Hi Patrick GL Response process from Friday failed message I get is Error in opening Inbound Agresso GL response file Program Stopping Open of file slpsharedtransitfinanceimportAGR_CS_23072012txt failed No such file ordirectory (2633) UOG_GL_RESPMAINGBLdefault1900-01-01ReadFileOnExecute PCPC1431 Statement14 Did you generate a response file and if so could you send it to me I checked the GL file and there doesnrsquot seem to be anything obvious failingbut I could be wrong Thanks
Appendix E F0259054
33
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
Caroline -----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] Sent 23 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) Process Instance 216855Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
34
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 092705Attachments FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )msg
Hi Barry ndash email attached
Many thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
35
FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
- From
- Andrew Charters
- To
- Barry Crozier
- Recipients
- BarryCrozierglasgowacuk
-
-
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface from Campus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problem particularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get it resolved
Thanks for your help
Andrew
Andrew Charters
Group Financial Controller
Tel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----
From Patrick Nwaozuzu
Sent 25 July 2012 1514
To Andrew Charters
Subject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from the Agresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since we had the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind Regards
Patrick Nwaozuzu
___________________________________
System Support and Development Section
Tel No +44(0)141-330-2756
Email PatrickNwaozuzuglasgowacuk
-----Original Message-----
From Andrew Charters
Sent 25 July 2012 0947
To Patrick Nwaozuzu
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with this
Many thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From Carolyn Timar
Sent 25 July 2012 0929
To Andrew Charters
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Financial Accountant
0141 330 3934
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From Hugh Woods
Sent 25 July 2012 0917
To Carolyn Timar
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
-----Original Message-----
From Caroline Weir
Sent 25 July 2012 0837
To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick Nwaozuzu
Cc Hugh Woods
Subject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we are approaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
Thanks
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From slp-infraglasgowacuk [mailtoslp-infraglasgowacuk]
Sent 25 July 2012 0521
To Caroline Weir
Subject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574
Process Name UOG_GL_RESP
Process Type Application Engine
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
IntroductionThe tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course SearchThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Test Requirement 2 Student ApplicationsThis is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runsBelow are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over timeThese charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periodsimage4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions
Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans
All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August
In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically
Academic Advisement
The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students
The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly
The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study
Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August
Student Records
Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment
Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes
Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc
In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions
Finance
User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT
New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records
The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so
Training
In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining
Technical
In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
INTERIM PROJECT BOARD
PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By
Barbara Mueller
Report Date
25 July 2012
-
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry CrozierSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )Date 25 July 2012 160600
Hi Barry - I wonder if you could help with this We are having a problem with the interface fromCampus into Agresso as described by Patrick below This is causing a significant problemparticularly with yearend approaching Are you able to do anything quickly for us to try and get itresolved
Thanks for your helpAndrew
Andrew ChartersGroup Financial ControllerTel No 0141 330 2831
-----Original Message-----From Patrick NwaozuzuSent 25 July 2012 1514To Andrew ChartersSubject RE The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Andrew
This issue is to do with a routine that MIS have written (Barry Crozier) that takes a file from theAgresso Export directory and moves it to an area that the SLP system can pick it up from Since wehad the new Agresso business server installed on the 14th 15th July this has not worked
If you require any further information just give me a call
Kind RegardsPatrick Nwaozuzu___________________________________System Support and Development SectionTel No +44(0)141-330-2756Email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----From Andrew ChartersSent 25 July 2012 0947To Patrick NwaozuzuSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Hi Patrick - do you know what the issue is with thisMany thanks Andrew
-----Original Message-----From Carolyn TimarSent 25 July 2012 0929To Andrew ChartersSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Fyi
Carolyn Timar
Appendix E F0259054
36
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance |
INTERIM PROJECT BOARDPROGRESS REPORT | |||||||
Completed By | Barbara Mueller | Report Date | 25 July 2012 |
Financial Accountant0141 330 3934The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----From Hugh WoodsSent 25 July 2012 0917To Carolyn TimarSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
-----Original Message-----From Caroline WeirSent 25 July 2012 0837To SLP Infra Barry Crozier Patrick NwaozuzuCc Hugh WoodsSubject FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to completesuccessfully )
Are we any closer to getting the problem with the file transfer from Agresso to MyCampus resolved This is happening everyday so the automated interface is becoming very manual and we areapproaching year end so this is a critical problem
Patrick - can you send the file to me manually to load in the meantime
ThanksCaroline
-----Original Message-----From slp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtoslp-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent 25 July 2012 0521To Caroline WeirSubject The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully )
Process Instance 219574Process Name UOG_GL_RESPProcess Type Application Engine
Appendix E F0259054
37
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance |
INTERIM PROJECT BOARDPROGRESS REPORT | |||||||
Completed By | Barbara Mueller | Report Date | 25 July 2012 |
From Barbara MuellerTo Christine Lowther Sandy Macdonald Janice McLellan Michael ArthurSubject DRAFT Interim Project Board Progress ReportDate 27 July 2012 104545Attachments Interim PB Progress Report 20120725doc
Draft report is attached
Please let me have any comments
Thanks Barb
Barbara Mueller SLP Project Manager Level 2 Fraser Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ
Telephone 0141 330 7482 Email BarbaraMuellerglasgowacuk httpwwwglaacuk
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
38
Confidential ndash For SLP Use OnlyPage 2 of 3
Printed copies are uncontrolled
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance |
INTERIM PROJECT BOARDPROGRESS REPORT | |||||||
Completed By | Barbara Mueller | Report Date | 25 July 2012 |
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 1 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
INTERIM PROJECT
BOARD PROGRESS REPORT
Completed By Barbara Mueller Report Date 25 July 2012
Admissions Direct Admissions end to end user acceptance testing was conducted the week of 9 July Students and admissions processers participated at various stages throughout the testing cycle to ensure a complete end to end test was executed for a range of applications across a variety of programs and plans All Graduate Schools PGT and ErasmusStudy Abroad testers passed the system subject to some additional testing in August once additional functionality is available and some minor changes have been implemented EFL testers would not sign off UAT as they were unhappy with the design and usability Their concerns will be addressed through training and it was agreed they would conduct further testing in August In preparation for the go-live on Tuesday 4th September key members of the SLSD and IT Services teams are meeting week commencing 6 August to discuss the cutover strategy including determining when DAS and DOAS will be switched off and agreeing who will have responsibility for manually transferring documents into MyCampus All open applications will be migrated programmatically Academic Advisement The progression process was run in report mode on 2nd July and queries were made available to nominated members of staff to review results for their SchoolCollegeResearch Institute This exercise produced no major issues but did provide an opportunity to tidy up some of the plan data prior to publishing results to students The progression process was then run in update mode on Sunday 8 July for all full time UG students If students met the plan criteria to progress to the next level their academic standing code was updated to PROG For those who did not meet the criteria their academic standing code was changed to REVIEW Advisers should now be looking at their advisees reviewing those that have not progressed and updating their academic standing accordingly The final draft of the Advising Handbook has been reviewed by the Advising SUG and CASC and both groups are happy with both the content and the format Related job aids are currently being reviewed for accuracy and once complete will be made available along with the handbook on a website for Advisers of Study Training classes for advisers have been offered throughout July and classes are scheduled in August Student Records Changes to the student self-service enrolment pages were moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July and are undergoing testing by the SLSD team to ensure everything works as expected Online guidance materials have been created and will be published on the website prior to the opening of registration and enrolment Enhancements to administrative enrolment functions were also moved into the live system on Wednesday 25 July Improvements to the Quick Enrol process as well as a new page to process lsquoExams Onlyrsquo enrolments will simplify these procedures and prevent errors in subsequent processes Term activation has been run and created records for the 201213 term This process will run nightly so students will be term activated as they become eligible Tuition calculation has also been run and will run nightly Once the 201213 records are created they are available for School and College staff to
Appendix E F0259054
39
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 2 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
view and update as necessary (eg confirm fees apply fee discounts change academic load or mode of study etc In preparation for opening registration and enrolment on the 1st August lsquoboot camprsquo classes have been on offer from the 17th of July and uptake has been very high The central support team as well as support staff from each of the Colleges have or will have attended These classes take staff members through the student self-service processes as well as administrative functions Finance User acceptance testing for the new financial registration process was conducted Thursday 5th July and results captured electronically Feedback was generally positive and no major issues were identified Comments and suggestions will be collated for future consideration Development of guidance materials is underway and once complete will also undergo student UAT New students (UCASGTTR applicants made Unconditional Firm and Direct Applicants made Unconditional Accept) are now being matriculated on a daily basis which creates a programplan record for them in MyCampus Fund administrators should now be applying financial aid to these students records The uptake for training on miscellaneous charges continues to be slow and there is concern that those responsible for posting bench fees and other charges to studentsrsquo accounts prior to registration will not be in a position to do so Training In addition to the courses discussed above the training team continue to offer MyCampus Fundamentals and Lunch amp Learn sessions every Monday The full calendar of training events can be found online at httpwwwglaacukservicesstudentlifecyclemycampustraining Technical In addition to conducting the load testing for the online application the infrastructure team is beginning preparations for the application of Campus Solutions bundles 25 amp 26 As both of these bundles contain critical fixes they will need to be applied prior to the end of September and will require MyCampus to be down for a short period of time SLSD will work with the Colleges to arrange a suitable time for this maintenance
Appendix E F0259054
40
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Confidential ndash For SLP Use Only Page 3 of 3 Printed copies are uncontrolled
Appendix E F0259054
41
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 105638
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I have
Appendix E F0259054
42
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
contacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
43
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Andrew ChartersTo Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 110033
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry Crozier
Appendix E F0259054
44
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Sent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
45
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Caroline WeirTo Andrew Charters Barry CrozierCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 111108
Hello
Our process will only load files for the current date so anything already loaded manuallywont be affected
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Andrew ChartersSent 27 July 2012 1101To Barry Crozier Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Barry ndash thanks for this Not sure about the issue on the real files I will let Carolynanswer that
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1057To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Irsquove run a full end-to-end test of the process manually and everything looks to be inorder The transfers in both directions are working as expected Irsquove scheduled anautomated test at 1100am this morning which will run in exactly the same way as theovernight jobs so hopefully this will give us more information Irsquove been using test filesso as not to affect Finance or SLP so the results may not be completely reliable
If I understand correctly there are a set of files waiting at the Finance end that havenrsquotbeen automatically uploaded to SLP but have been transferred manually If I get thescheduled task working with the real files again and the backlog is cleared (ie uploadedto SLP) will this cause problems at the SLP end
Barry
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 0924To Barry Crozier Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Appendix E F0259054
46
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Hello all
Please see attached emails sent
Caroline
ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 219574 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed tocomplete successfully ) gtgt ltlt Message FW The Process Instance ( 216855 - Process (UOG_GL_RESP) failed to complete successfully ) gtgt
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
47
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Barry CrozierTo Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 112832
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folderThis causes the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that fileswere being transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in theother direction
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
48
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
49
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Caroline WeirTo Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115024
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in both
Appendix E F0259054
50
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
directions but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx so
Appendix E F0259054
51
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
that if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
52
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Andrew ChartersTo Caroline Weir Barry Crozier Sandy Macdonald Patrick NwaozuzuCc Christopher EllisSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 115751
Hi Patrick ndash are you ok with what is being proposed below
Thanks Andrew
_____________________________________________From Caroline WeirSent 27 July 2012 1150To Barry Crozier Andrew Charters Sandy MacdonaldCc Christopher EllisSubject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hello
See below our infrastructure would prefer that we went with Option 1 ndashIrsquom not surewho would authorise the change
Caroline
_____________________________________________From Christopher EllisSent 27 July 2012 1140To Caroline WeirSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline
Option 1 is by far the best solution As Barry says Option 2 is flawed a copy as opposed to amove will do exactly that and leave a copy at source Too much of an overhead
Cheers
Chris
_____________________________________________
From Caroline Weir
Sent 27 July 2012 1130
To Christopher Ellis
Subject FW AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
Could you have a look over this and advise the best solution
Caroline
Appendix E F0259054
53
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 1129To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi
The scheduled file transfer at 1100am worked correctly and transferred files in bothdirections but it gave me the information I needed to identify the cause of theproblem
The configuration of the new server is not the same as on the previous server and I nolonger have permissions to remove any files from the Agresso ldquoData Exportrdquo folder Thiscauses the ldquomoverdquo of the files to SLP to fail From this I am assuming that files werebeing transferred from SLP to Finance but nothing was being transferred in the otherdirection
There are two solutions to this problem
1 If someone can authorize the change I can grant myself permissions to removefiles from the ldquoData Exportrdquo folder and everything will carry on as on the previousserver
2 I can change the file transfer to copy rather than move the files from Finance toSLP The side-effect would be that no files would be clear out of the ldquoData Exportrdquofolder and they would
a Continue to consume additional resources every day
b Each file would be transferred to SLP every day
If you can let me know how to proceed Irsquoll make the necessary changes Either solutionwould allow the backlog to be cleared at the 307pm run of the scheduled transfer
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for help
Appendix E F0259054
54
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Unfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott BuildingUniversity of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
55
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Christopher EllisTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Barbara Mueller Paul McGlone John Young (MIS)Subject CSOLA - load TestDate 27 July 2012 123328Attachments UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_07_18docx
Hi Sandy
Attached is a copy of last weeks load test report relating to the Admissions Online Application
With the volumes weve received as a comparison then the system indicates that it will perform well with 20 concurrent users at any given time However as you are aware before we move this to Production we are scaling up the infrastructure initially by additional memory at the webserver level
I also want to meet with Admissions next week to confirm volumes and discuss the report with them
ThanksChris
From Christopher Ellis Sent 26 July 2012 1550To Barbara MuellerSubject FW CSOLA - load Test
Hi Barb
Wouldve liked to have given you a summary in this mail just not had the time to review this properly
CheersChris
From Sent 26 July 2012 1509To Christopher EllisCc Paul McGlone John YoungSubject Re CSOLA - load Test
Hi Chris
Here you go Sorry I still had it as a draft
Appendix E F0259054
56
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
By Mick Sear Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Result charts2
1Introduction2
2Test Requirement 1 Course Search2
3Test Requirement 2 Student Applications3
Test runs3
Result charts Figure 1 Course search response times over time3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time5
1
Introduction The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2
Test Requirement 1 Course Search This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
middot ~ 5000 applications per month
middot ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these components should alleviate pressures during peak periods image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
image4png
image1png
image2png
image3png
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Best regards
From Christopher Ellis ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgtDate Thu 26 Jul 2012 144243 +0100To Cc Paul McGlone ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gt John Young ltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gtSubject RE CSOLA - load Test
Hi Could you send me through the load test report today I need to provide feedback to Sandy etc on results CheersChris
Appendix E F0259054
57
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
University of Glasgow
Load Testing Report
Succeed Consultancy July 17-18 2012
Appendix E F0259054
58
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Result charts 2
1 Introduction 2
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search 2
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications 3
Test runs 3
Result charts
Figure 1 Course search response times over time 3
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time 4
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions 4
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time 5
1 Introduction
The tests detailed in this report are part of a wider engagement with Succeed
Consultancy to test areas of Glasgow Universityrsquos implementation of PeopleSoft
Campus Solutions
This engagement started in June 2011 with load testing of student registration
and financial enrolment student navigation through the SharePoint portal and
by association LDAP This area of testing continued through to August due to
system issues and functional process or architecture revisions
This document is a supplement to the report issued as
UOG_Succeed_Test_Report_2012_06_15docx
2 Test Requirement 1 Course Search
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Appendix E F0259054
59
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Figure 1 Course search response times over time
3 Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
This is a re-run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated t
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two
wizard with a total of betwe
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected v
bull ~ 5000 applications per month
bull ~ 40-50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Test runs
Below are results charts from the test runs
1) 20 concurrent
Course search response times over time
Test Requirement 2 Student Applications
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
difference Test results indicated that in fact the deployed code had not
impacted the operation of the test
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
application process The process is quite long consisting of a two-phase form
wizard with a total of between 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
With these tests we are aiming to simulate an expected volume of applications
~ 5000 applications per month
50 concurrent applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Below are results charts from the test runs
run of the earlier test to see if changes to deployed code had made a
hat in fact the deployed code had not
Prospective students applying for study at the university use the online
phase form
en 14 and 16 steps As such although the total
number of applications may be low the potential performance impact is quite
high because a user transaction can take a considerable length of time
olume of applications
Due to an incompatibility between Weblogicrsquos handling of multipart file uploads
and JMeterrsquos adherence to the spec it was not possible to test PDF file uploads
Appendix E F0259054
60
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Figure 2 20 concurrent users response times over time
2) 40 concurrent
Figure 3 40 concurrent response times over time
20 concurrent users response times over time
40 concurrent response times over time - entire transactions
Appendix E F0259054
61
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
Figure 4 40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
requests started to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the sl
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
Conclusion
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
components should alleviate pressures during peak periods
40 concurrent users response times over time
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
memory usage was within an acceptable limit
The delta between the fastest overall transaction time and the slowest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
once provided that there is no heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
alleviate pressures during peak periods
These charts show that with 20 concurrent users the system was under an
acceptable load but when 40 concurrent users was reached many of the ICPanel
tarted to create delays pushing the overall transaction time out
Issues were also observed on the server during this test although overall
owest overall
transaction time was in excess of 400 seconds when using 40 concurrent users
The system should perform acceptably if 20 concurrent users are applying at
heavy background load from other processes
This achieves the goal of supporting 5000 applications per month since a
sustained level of 20 concurrent users results in over 4000 applications per day
The system load mostly hit the app servers and web servers so scaling these
Appendix E F0259054
62
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
63
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
64
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Barry CrozierTo Andrew Charters Caroline WeirCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE AgressoSLP GL InterfaceDate 27 July 2012 152819
Hi
Irsquove made the change to my security rights on the Agresso server and the scheduledrun of the file transfers at 307pm has now completed It looks like all of the backloghas been cleared and the various files are where they should be Someone fromFinance and SLP would need to confirm that from their respective sides
Regards
Barry
_____________________________________________From Barry CrozierSent 27 July 2012 0912To Caroline Weir Andrew ChartersCc Sandy MacdonaldSubject AgressoSLP GL Interface
Hi Caroline Andrew
Sandy has contacted me to let me know that there are some issues with the GLinterface not working properly and that you have been trying to contact me for helpUnfortunately I donrsquot have a record of any emails from Andrew and the last email Ihave from Caroline was dated 12072012 in reference to the Barclaycard URLs I havecontacted the Exchange team to see if there has been a problem delivering emails tomy mailbox
Could you please forward on to me the emails that you sent previously
For future reference please either raise a helpdesk request with the ITS CS ServerTeam or the ITS MIS DBA team or send emails requesting help to xxxxxxxxxxxxx sothat if Irsquom not available someone will still be able to get back to you I am on leave nextweek so the sooner you can get these emails to me the better
Regards
Barry
Barry CrozierBSc (Hons)Database Administrator
Direct line +44 (0)141 330 5373Fax +44 (0)141 330 4953
IT Services (South)Gilbert Scott Building
Appendix E F0259054
65
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
University of GlasgowUniversity AvenueGlasgowG12 8QQ
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
66
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Michael ArthurTo Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 091411
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
67
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From David NewallTo Michael Arthur Sandy MacdonaldSubject RE Progress questions from pre-BoardDate 30 July 2012 092517
Thanks for checking this Mike Thats clear
David
-----Original Message-----From Michael ArthurSent 30 July 2012 0914To Sandy Macdonald David NewallSubject Progress questions from pre-Board
Hi David amp Sandy
You had asked me a couple of questions about progress re-sits during the pre-Board meeting onFriday
Assuming the grade achieved in the course they are re-sitting is causing a student to fail rules thecurrent academic standing will be RVPL (review plan) RVPR (review program) or COMM (refer toProgress Committee) All of these are described to the student as In Review
Before resits a student will only be term-activated if there is manual intervention and the advisermakes the decision to allow the student to progress regardless of the resit result If an improved result at resit is required before the student can progress nothing will happen untilthe student achieves the required grade The progression process will then change academicstanding to PROG and the student will be term-activated OR the adviser chooses to allowprogression and amends the academic standing code to PROG
After the second run of the progression process we can identify students who are still in reviewWe could set up a query to identify students where there has been no change to the academicstanding code since the date the progression process was re-run However no action on a recordmight mean that the student has not yet decided what to do - take a repeat year leave theuniversity transfer to a new prog or plan etc It might also mean that the student has been referredto a Progress Committee and is awaiting the outcome
Also an adviser might be in contact with a student to discuss the next step without any changeappearing in the academic standing record In some cases withdrawal may have already beennotified to Registry
Hope this helps
Mike
Appendix E F0259054
68
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69
From Sharon CookTo Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject FW SLP Project Board - Performance ReportDate 30 July 2012 141110
Hi Sandy
Just a reminder as per email below
Many thanksSharon
-----Original Message-----From Sharon CookSent 24 July 2012 1620To Sandy MacdonaldCc Janice McLellanSubject SLP Project Board - Performance Report
Dear Sandy
Can you please provide a Performance Report for August project board meeting If we can have thisby lunchtime Monday 30th July that would be great
Many thanks
Kind RegardsSharon
Sharon CookProject Support AssistantStudent Lifecycle ProjectTel 0141 330 1681E-mail SharonCookglasgowacuk
wwwglaacukstudentlifecycleproject
The University of Glasgow charity number SC004401
Appendix E F0259054
69