Implementation of 2 IBM Power 7 P770
Systems
1.
Functionality
1.
1.1.
Description/objective of the project.
Migration of
Power5 AIX. Power 6 i5/OS and pSeries LPARS to Power7 LPARS and WPARS
|
1.2.
What is included in the scope of the project?
LPAR and WPAR
sizing and system allocation (Production/Non-Production)
LPAR and WPAR
build
Test Migration
with LPAR AIX14/52
Full Migration
from Power5 to Power7
Full Migration
from Power6 to Power7
Full Migration
from pSeries to Power7
Replication
build and test
Migrate
Non-Prod Power7 to IBM DC for HA/DR
|
1.3.
What is specifically excluded?
1.4. List existing
systems that this project will need to interface to or could impact.
All
current infrastructures may be impacted during migration on a case by case basis as LPARS are
migrated.
|
2.
2.1.
Priority: What is the level of support in the business for starting/completing this
project? Are they seeing this as a strategic top priority or just a “nice to have, what is the current Road Map
priority ranking?”
The road map
priority is 2.
This is a
strategic must have to ensure system performance/capacity and partition control are
optimum.
|
2.2.
Critical Driving Factor, will this project be focused on:
- A key delivery date where scope can flex to suit the date the project must be delivered?
- Delivering a specific set of requirements regardless of delivery date?
- Focused on minimising cost?
Realisation of
savings and soft benefits to operations management with reduced intervention and
housekeeping.
|
2.3.
Can or will the Project be split into distinct business functional phases for
delivery?
Yes – Phased
partition migration
|
2.4.
How is this project affected by the business calendar or IS change control
embargos?
Migration of
non disruptive partitions can be performed during change embargo as the Power7s are not live –
particularly the non-production system.
|
2.5.
Is the project strategic for both the Business and IS, please provide
details?
Tactical for IS to reduce manual intervention of performance and capacity incidents.
Business strategic to provide long term stability and allow growth on the new
platforms.
|
2.6.
Benefits: Quantify and assess the benefits this project will achieve including any
negative impact of not delivering this project? (i.e. Sales growth x%, legislative…)
The new
systems will provide performance and capacity benefits in reducing bottle-necks in
processing.
Not reducing
bottle-necks will prevent ongoing and future projects.
Reduction in
manual intervention for performance and capacity issues.
|
2.7.
Confirm the outline benefits rationale and that it has been discussed and agreed in
principle with both the relevant Finance representative and main Business Sponsor.
2.8.
What are the Success Criteria in Business Terms?
Long term
system performance and capacity
|
3.
3.1.
Who are the likely main stakeholders for this project?
Mark
Hotham
Martin
Draper
|
3.2.
Is a Project Steering Group needed and who is likely to be on it (including Systems
representatives) and who would be the Chairperson?
3.3.
What is the likely frequency that this steering group will meet?
3.4.
Identify if appropriate, internal support teams or external parties that need to be
involved.
Iain Hounsell, Bill
Wyse, James Radford, Steve Williams, John Tyrrell
Computacenter
(Graham Wiggins, Doug Binding, Gary Crowe, Simon Reynolds)
|
4.
Project Organisation:
4.
4.1.
Project Manager: Who is responsible for running the project to
time and budget on the IS side and is a dedicated Project Manager required?
The dedicated
infrastructure PM will be Brent Westbrook
|
4.2.
Design Authority: (if needed) who has been nominated as Subject Matter
Experts?
External Consultancy
‘Computacenter’
|
4.3.
Business Analyst: Who is responsible for detailing and achieving
sign-off for the Business Requirements? (including Business Process diagrams)
4.4.
Development Manager(s): Detail responsibility for delivery of unit tested code and
handover to the Support team?
4.5.
Who is responsible for Testing? Will this be tested by the User Acceptance testing
team, BA team or independently by externals, i.e. IBM?
4.6.
Implementation – Who will sign off production readiness for the
system?
4.7.
Detail the main stakeholders roles and any key other IS roles not detailed
above.
As
principal supplier to the business for infrastructure assurance, Mark Hotham is also the
customer to this project. As sign off for the implementation he is responsible for assuring the
success to the business.
|
4.8.
Identify the person to be accountable for the Benefits Review – for more complex or
larger projects this person should be at Controller level. They must review how benefits will be measured to
ensure accuracy and also they must ensure the review takes place.
Mark Hotham on
behalf of Martin Draper, Production Services Controller.
|
Key Milestones and costs
5.
5.1.
Forecast the duration of the Project Definition stage which must tie up with the
milestone dates provided to question 5.4 and the expected date you will seek Gateway 2
approval.
5.2.
Forecast cost of the Project Definition stage based on not exceeding more than 15%
of Roadmap forecast / Capital plan.
5.3.
Forecast cost of the whole project, to nearest £10k, or £100k, for larger projects,
no need to break down by team. Use the Roadmap forecast if no more accurate view is
available.
5.4.
Identify which standard PDLC milestone documentation will be used and for any
deviations please identify why, i.e. replacing with a third party supplier document.
Document
|
Use
Delete
üorû
|
F/C
milestone
date
|
If not standard use as
per comment below, explain why, i.e using third party supplier
documentation
|
PID
|
|
9/11/2012
|
Required for all projects
|
RACI
|
|
|
Required for all projects, re summary tab on
milestones and gateways, when presenting to the governance meeting
|
BRD
|
û
|
|
Is there any application development functionality
being added or changed? If yes, a BRD MUST be produced to detail any changes
however minor.
|
HLD
|
û
|
|
Are there any Business Process, Application,
Interface, Data , Hardware or Technical Architecture principles changes. If yes an HLD
MUST be produced
|
NFR
|
û
|
|
Are there any changes to SLA’s, maintenance routines
or contracts, information support teams in Production need to be aware
of , impact to DR or BCP, training to end users, etc. If yes an NFR MUST be used
produced.
|
CER
|
ü
|
|
MUST be used unless the project is being funded by
revenue or by an existing approved CER
|
FRS
|
û
|
|
MUST be used for any application development changes
however minor, if a BRD has been produced
|
TEST
STRATEGY
|
û
|
|
MUST be used for any application development project
which is using the Application Test team
|
SDS
|
û
|
|
MUST be used for any application development changes
however minor, if a BRD has been produced
|
SKD
|
û
|
|
MUST be used for detailing support changes re any
application development changes, if a BRD has been produced
|
For any
non application development project where the BRD, FRS and SDS will not be used as indicated
above, the minimum is still an HLD and NFR. Alternatively for very very small projects
complete appendix (a) at the back of the PID providing any information required by Production
Services, instead of completing a full HLD and NFR.
Any deviation from the normal PDLC documentation processes must be approved as part of the PID sign off and
being given Gateway 1 approval at the PDLC weekly governance meeting.
6.
Signoff
|
|
|
Sign off that the Project Initiation meetings were
held & all points within the document have been completed.
|
Project Sponsor
|
Name
Martin Draper
|
Signature
|
Business Systems Controller/Head
Of
|
Name
Martin Draper
|
Signature
|
|
|
|
|
|