In the middle of November, 2015 the WVU Libraries Systems Office development team facilitated a structured request and workflow experiment, using a design management/thinking strategy.

SOME CONTEXT  The majority of the development team’s projects come simultaneously from internal systems work, the WVRHC, the Web Team, various committees, and individual requests.  There are a myriad of different projects and tasks that range from web applications, usability testing, digital collections, third-party applications, custom development, custom design, custom website development, and special projects (gamification, OAT, etc.). … and there’s a lot more.

THE PROBLEM  Often the loudest voices get their work completed.  We don’t know what is truly important to stakeholders, personnel, or patrons/users.  We seem to be in a waterfall workflow wherein deadlines are decided without our input.  There is no order of what projects we should work on and what projects should slide. • Personnel are largely unaware of each other's projects, what others are doing, or even the Systems Office development team’s priorities. • We are a staff of three.

GOALS & OUTCOMES  We need to move away from the backlog table.  We must move from a waterfall to an agile workflow.  We needed a way to get multiple stakeholder's input, while being aware of each other's projects.  We need to focus on value to users and personnel in regards to viability and feasibility.

MANAGEMENT/THINKING The WVU Libraries Systems Office development team employed a strategy from UX Intensive, a four-day workshop series for UX professionals/design managers that examines: Design Strategy Design Research Service Design Interaction Design

1/3  Get similar stakeholders together.  Have them make a list of major tasks and projects for the next six months that require the involvement of the development team.  Count the number of tasks.  Multiply the number of tasks by three …that is their number of total points.

THE STRATEGY 2/3: The stakeholders then discuss the tasks and assign points to each task in regards to their: • IMPORTANCE/VALUE to both the users/patrons and the library/personnel, where the most valuable are higher numbers. • VIABILITY/FEASABILITY where the least effort, cost, or maintenance are higher numbers . * Stakeholders are limited by the total number of points, and every task has to have at least one point.

3/3 From these results the Systems Office development team can:  visualize projects and tasks for everyone.  ensure that different teams and stakeholders have the same opportunity to set priorities based on value and feasibility.  know where to start working based on what takes the least amount of time, and what is most important to stakeholders, personnel and users.  know what is least important, and takes a large amount of time to complete.

MEETING TIME We called for separate meetings that incorporated all of the members of the Web Team, the WVRHC, and the Systems Office.

WEB TEAM Anna Crawford, Hilary Fredette, Jane LaBarbara, David Roth, Genifer Snipes, Jessica Tapia, and Alyssa Wright.

TASKS Project/Task IMPORTANCE/VALUE (to Clients/Library): most valuable are higher numbers VIABILITY/FEASABILITY: least effort, cost, or maintenance are higher numbers Archive Intranet Committees Homepage Quick Links News Redesign Alert Box Directory/Hours/Maps Integration Database Updates Available Computers Engine CMS RoomMe Updates Collections Redesign Plagarism Tutorial Redesign Mobile UX Test WVRHC UX Test New Searchbox v.2 UX Test

IMPORTANCE/VALUE Project/Task IMPORTANCE/VALUE (to Clients/Library): most valuable are higher numbers VIABILITY/FEASABILITY: least effort, cost, or maintenance are higher numbers Archive Intranet Committees 1 5 Homepage Quick Links 1 4 News Redesign 2 3 Alert Box 3 5 Directory/Hours/Maps Integration 2 2 Database Updates 5 3 Available Computers 1 2 Engine CMS 4 1 RoomMe Updates 3 3 Collections Redesign 5 3 Plagarism Tutorial Redesign 4 2 Mobile UX Test 3 3 WVRHC UX Test 4 3 New Searchbox v.2 UX Test 4 3

VIABILITY/FEASIBILITY Project/Task IMPORTANCE/VALUE (to Clients/Library): most valuable are higher numbers VIABILITY/FEASABILITY: least effort, cost, or maintenance are higher numbers Archive Intranet Committees 1 5 Homepage Quick Links 1 4 News Redesign 2 3 Alert Box 3 5 Directory/Hours/Maps Integration 2 2 Database Updates 5 3 Available Computers 1 2 Engine CMS 4 1 RoomMe Updates 3 3 Collections Redesign 5 3 Plagarism Tutorial Redesign 4 2 Mobile UX Test 3 3 WVRHC UX Test 4 3 New Searchbox v.2 UX Test 4 3

PROJECT PRIORITY Archive Homepage Quick Links News Alert Directory/Hours/ Maps Integration Database Updates Available Computers Engine CMS RoomMe Updates Collection s Redesign Plagarism Tutorial Redesign Mobile UX Test WVRHC UX Test New Searchbox v.2 UX Test 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 FEASABILITY VALUE FOCUS CONSIDER NEGLECT

WVRHC John Cuthbert, Lori Hostuttler, Danielle Emerling, Laura Bell, Anna Schein, Michael Ridderbusch, and Jane LaBarbara.

TASKS Project/Task IMPORTANCE/VALUE (to Clients/Library): most valuable are higher numbers VIABILITY/FEASABILITY: least effort, cost, or maintenance are higher numbers Rockefeller Finding Aid Web Site 6 3 Jerry West Digital Collection 6 2 IAI migration to Hydra 2 5 OnView Migration to Hydra 5 4 PEC Migration to Hydra 3 5 George Bird Evans in Hydra 3 3 Overall Hydra Head 3 1 MFCS Documentation 1 4 MFCS Usability Testing 2 5 Hollow Website Update 1 1 A&M Guide Migration to Hydra 3 4 A&M Guide Migration to Archives Space 1 1 Art & Artifacts in Hydra 2 2 Folk Music in Hydra 3 1 WVRHC Watermarks, Banner, & Logo 4 6 Rockefeller Photographs in Hydra 6 3 GEO Explorer Rebuilding 1 1 Strother Digital Collection 2 3

IMPORTANCE/VALUE Project/Task IMPORTANCE/VALUE (to Clients/Library): most valuable are higher numbers VIABILITY/FEASABILITY: least effort, cost, or maintenance are higher numbers Rockefeller Finding Aid Web Site 6 3 Jerry West Digital Collection 6 2 IAI migration to Hydra 2 5 OnView Migration to Hydra 5 4 PEC Migration to Hydra 3 5 George Bird Evans in Hydra 3 3 Overall Hydra Head 3 1 MFCS Documentation 1 4 MFCS Usability Testing 2 5 Hollow Website Update 1 1 A&M Guide Migration to Hydra 3 4 A&M Guide Migration to Archives Space 1 1 Art & Artifacts in Hydra 2 2 Folk Music in Hydra 3 1 WVRHC Watermarks, Banner, & Logo 4 6 Rockefeller Photographs in Hydra 6 3 GEO Explorer Rebuilding 1 1 Strother Digital Collection 2 3

VIABILITY/FEASIBILITY Project/Task IMPORTANCE/VALUE (to Clients/Library): most valuable are higher numbers VIABILITY/FEASABILITY: least effort, cost, or maintenance are higher numbers Rockefeller Finding Aid Web Site 6 3 Jerry West Digital Collection 6 2 IAI migration to Hydra 2 5 OnView Migration to Hydra 5 4 PEC Migration to Hydra 3 5 George Bird Evans in Hydra 3 3 Overall Hydra Head 3 1 MFCS Documentation 1 4 MFCS Usability Testing 2 5 Hollow Website Update 1 1 A&M Guide Migration to Hydra 3 4 A&M Guide Migration to Archives Space 1 1 Art & Artifacts in Hydra 2 2 Folk Music in Hydra 3 1 WVRHC Watermarks, Banner, & Logo 4 6 Rockefeller Photographs in Hydra 6 3 GEO Explorer Rebuilding 1 1 Strother Digital Collection 2 3

PROJECT PRIORITY Rockefeller Jerry West Digital Collection IAI migration to Hydra OnView Migration to Hydra PEC Migration to Hydra George Bird Evans in Hydra Overall Hydra Head MFCS Documentation MFCS Usability Testing Hollow A&M Guide Migration to Hydra A&M Guide Migration to Art & Artifacts in Hydra Folk Music in Hydra WVRHC Watermarks, Banner, & Logo Rockefeller Photograph GEO Explorer Rebuilding Strother Digital Collection 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 FEASABILITY VALUE FOCUS CONSIDER NEGLECT

SYSTEMS OFFICE

Web Search SSL Bypass SUMA Help Desk QR / RSS Feed RoomMe MFCS Improvements eNotification Updates eReserves for Potomac State Hydra Interface UX Testing Ansible Backups Webalize r Across Servers Upgrade Servers to Software Website Camel OAI PMH Compliance Server Maitennace Nagia Updates MySQL Modifications GitHub/Automat e Pull to Automation of eReserves Resident Borrower Updates Security Center Updates eReserves Updates Squid 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 FEASABILITY VALUE FOCUS CONSIDER NEGLECT PROJECT PRIORITY

ALL TOGETHER…

Archive Intranet Committees Homepag e Quick News Alert Box Directory/Hours/M Databas e Availabl Engine CMS RoomMe Updates Collecti Plagari sm Tutorial Mobile WVRH C UX New Searchbox Rockefell er Finding Jerry West Digital IAI migration to Hydra OnView Migration to PEC Migration to George Bird Evans in Hydra Overall Hydra Head MFCS Documentat MFCS Usability Testing Hollow Website A&M Guide Migration to A&M Guide Migration to Art & Artifacts in Folk Music in Hydra WVRHC Watermarks, Rockefell er GEO Strother Digital Web Search SSL Bypass SUMA Help Desk QR / RSS Feed RoomMe MFCS Improvemen eNotification Updates eReserves Hydra Interface UX Ansible Backups Webaliz er Across Upgrade Software Camel OAI PMH Complian Server Nagia Updates MySQL GitHub/Autom ate Pull to Automation of eReserves Resident Security eReserve s Updates Squid 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 FEASABILITY VALUE FOCUS CONSIDER NEGLECT PROJECT PRIORITY ▪Web Team ▫WVRHC ▪Systems

FORWARD We would like to use this strategy going forward - possibly on a every-six-months basis - to gauge major project/task importance, involvement, management, and priority. All participants seemed very happy with the results and information, but some concerns were:  Who are the stakeholders for rogue projects, and how do value and feasibility get decided (i.e. MDID Help Pages, Agnic Collection, DPI, My Library Portal, Appalachian Bibliography, Library Game, etc.)?  Do we meet biannually or quarterly? * This data is now three months old.