Leanne McGiveron

1
ACE/NETC 2003
Leanne McGiveron Development Team Leader Marilyn
Moore Web Design Developer Agriculture
Information Technology (AgIT) Purdue
University http//www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agi
t lmcgiver_at_purdue.edu ? mjmoore_at_purdue.edu
2
The Agenda

• The Disclaimer
• AgITs Situation
• The Need
• The Response
• The Impact
• The Future

3
The Disclaimer

• My background is in Adult Education and private
  sector business management, not computer science.
  
• The jargon that you will hear is often my own
  creation or AgIT specific.
• This is only one piece of the puzzle
• This process has been developed specifically for
  AgIT for use with Purdue Agriculture and Purdue
  Extension faculty and staff it has been modified
  from industry standards.
• This process continues to evolve. Todays
  version will probably change as we continue to
  find additional items that we need to control.
• The credit and success of this process rests with
  the AgIT Development Team.

4

• AgITs Situation
• (The Environment AgIT Development is Working in)

5
The Situation

• Changing Development Environment

Unstructured Development Team (mid-1999)
Enterprise and Rapid Development Teams (mid-2000)
Development Team (mid-2001)
Optimal
6
The Situation

• Changing Development Team

Four Members (mid-1999)
Four to Ten Members (2000)

• Current
• 3 Reoccurring FTE
• 5 Non-Reoccurring FTE
• 8 Students

Sixteen Members (2003)
???? Members (20??)
7
The Situation

• Changing Development Leadership

Department Head (1999)
Department Head Operations Manager (late-1999)
Operations Manager Rapid Development Team
Leader (mid-2000)
Team Leader (mid-2001)
Team Leader Assistant Team Leader (late-2001)
Optimal for 10
Team Leader Assistant Team Leader Project
Coordinator Design Lead Program Lead
(mid-2003)
3 Week Integration
Still being tested tweaked
8
The Situation

• Types of Development Projects
• Application Development (new)
• Infrastructure Support (released)
• Consulting
• Streaming

9
The Situation

• Growing Project Queue
  Application Development

Note Beginning in mid-2000, AgIT works on 5-12
projects simultaneously this does not include
project queue.
Currently 43 in queue
Ran w/little to 0 in queue
01
00
99
02
03
10
The Situation

• Growing Number of Released Projects Infrastructure
  Support

Currently 78 Supported Projects
2 Supported Projects
01
00
99
02
03
11
The Situation

• Growing Number of Consulting Projects
• Web Servers
• 1999 1 Web Server (Unix) 1 Oracle Server
• 2000 2 Web Server (Unix FMPro) 1 Oracle
  Server
• 2003 5 Production Web Servers (3 Windows, 1 Unix
  1 FMPro), 3 Development Testing
  Web Servers, 1 Oracle Server, 1
  SQL Server
• 200? Integration into University Web Servers

12
The Situation

• Growing Number of Consulting Projects, cont.
• Web Hosting
• 1999 Primarily Purdue Agriculture Admin sites
  and CES sites
• 2003 Available to Purdue Agriculture and CES
• Server Access
• Mentoring Program
• Code Review

13
The Need

• The Need
• (Issues that We Were - and Are - Struggling
  with.)

14
The Need

• Areas of Frustration
• Scope Creep
• Documentation
• Client Follow through (lack of)
• Testing
• Maintenance

15
The Need

• Our primary needs
• To gain Control over the development
  process
• To maximize effectiveness and
• To find and push all efficiencies

16
The Response

• The 1st Response
• (Sometimes You have to Try Different Things)

17
1st Response

• 1st Response began in April 2002
• Modifications determined by Leanne and
  Eric Adams (Assistant Team Leader)
• Identified short term solutions
• Required implementation at a
  moments notice
• We just did it!

18
1st Response

• Positioned Team to Maximize Efficiencies
• Determined individual core competencies
• Leadership ? Politics, Run Interference, etc.
• Developers are not Designers Designers are not
  Developers
• DBA responsible for all database development

Bottom line each individual does what they do
best reallocate other responsibilities to those
who enjoy them.
Handout Organizational Chart
19
1st Response

• Position Team to Maximize Efficiencies, cont.
• Reorganized development team responsibilities to
  maximize efficiencies.

2 Project/2 Project Managers
1 Project/Leanne-50, Eric 50
Handout Leadership Responsibilities
20
1st Response

• Documentation of Project Requirements
• April 2002 ? Developed Architect Scope
• Non-Functional Prototype (Wire Frame)
• July 2002 ? Prototype MUST occur prior to any
  development

Handout ABE Scope Website Example Microscopy
21
1st Response

• Documentation of Development Process
• August 2002 First flow developed
• 7 steps
• October 2002 Second, more in-depth flow
• 9 steps
• December 2002 Third flow
• 18 steps

Handout Process Flows
22
1st Response

• We were gaining control
• But, the more control we gained,
• the more control we wanted

23
2nd Response

• The 2nd Response
• (Sometimes You have to Try Different Things
  Again)

24
2nd Response

• 2nd Response began in January 2003
• Issues were identified during multiple team
  meetings feelings were checked at the door
  and we listed everything!
• Identified long term solutions
• Implementation occurs when a new project
  reaches a point where a solution is ready and
  can be integrated
• Team consensus and buy-in

25
2nd Response

• Positioned Team to Maximize Efficiencies
• Continued to explore individual core
  competencies began to really push the
  efficiencies
• Provide growth opportunities through
  management, research and coordination
• of projects

Handout Team Structure
26
2nd Response

• Documentation of Project Requirements
• March 2003 ? Modified Architect Scope to
• Non-Functional Prototype (Wire Frame)
• Continued requirement

Handout County Template Scope
27
2nd Response

• Documentation of Development Process
• Moved to a comprehensive Life Cycle
• Information Gathering/Features and Design
• System Analysis and Design/Logic Documentation
• Programming
• Testing
• Delivery Maintenance

Handout Development Life Cycle
28
The Impact

• The Impact
• (The Impact has been Far Greater than We
  Anticipated)

29
The Impact

• Control
• When the programming begins, we can be confident
  that we have gathered all requirements thus
  allowing us to fully focus on the product and not
  second-guess ourselves.
• Major customer modifications can be better dealt
  with in a professional manner eliminating any
  tendencies by staff or client for finger
  pointing. We have signed documentation to
  support our processes.

30
The Impact

• Control
• Integration into a full team environment was a
  smooth transition. When new staff join the team,
  we are able to quickly and efficiently organize
  new staff was developing on their first
  afternoon.
• Interpersonal, team building, and communication
  skills continue to increase among staff.
• The team is able to shift priorities and
  direction within minutes.

31
The Impact

• Control
• Clients feel that they have a greater control
  over their project. This leads to greater
  interaction with the process, as well as more
  timely follow through.
• We continue to see a steady customer repeat rate.
• The client knows they are part of the team and
  that their voice counts.

32

• Control
• More positive acceptance of standardization
  (i.e., VSS, written documentation, etc.)
• Faster integration into new technologies, as well
  as team assistance with the learning curve.
• ASP.Net
• SQL Server
• XML
• C Sharp

33
The Impact

• Control
• We have observed lower stress levels, increased
  job satisfaction, decreased absenteeism, an
  individuals willing to put in the extra effort.
• Increased team interaction is very noticeable
  which leads to increased trust among members.
• Turfing among development staff continues to
  decline.

34
The Impact

• Control
• When people feel that they have control, they are
  better able to organize their work have a better
  understanding of the big picture and are more
  willing to work together.
• All of this leads to our ability to provide a
  solid product to the customer in a timely basis.

35
The Future

• The Future
• (We are Not Quite Done Yet .)

36

• Inheriting Services
• Streaming New in May 2003
• Integration into Purdue ITaP Resources
• Co-Development of Projects
• Servers
• Security
• Interwoven
• WebSphere/J2EE

37
The Future

• Continue to get our arms around other issues
• Policies, Procedures and Guidelines
• Standardization
• Management of Consulting Project
• Server Access Form
• Web Hosting Form
• Change Request Form

Website Examples Policies Procedures Web
Services
38

• Continue to get our arms around other issues,
  cont.
• Project Classification
• Maintenance Agreements
• Training for in-house developed applications
• Movement of Support to User Services

39
ACE/NETC 2003
Leanne McGiveron Development Team Leader Marilyn
Moore Web Design Developer Agriculture
Information Technology (AgIT) Purdue
University http//www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agi
t lmcgiver_at_purdue.edu ? mjmoore_at_purdue.edu