$30 off During Our Annual Pro Sale. View Details »

Workflow Prioritization (Value/Feasibility)

Workflow Prioritization (Value/Feasibility)

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.

Tim Broadwater

March 21, 2018
Tweet

More Decks by Tim Broadwater

Other Decks in Technology

Transcript

  1. 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.

    View Slide

  2. 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.

    View Slide

  3. 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.

    View Slide

  4. 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.

    View Slide

  5. 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

    View Slide

  6. 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.

    View Slide

  7. 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.

    View Slide

  8. 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.

    View Slide

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

    View Slide

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

    View Slide

  11. 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

    View Slide

  12. 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

    View Slide

  13. 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

    View Slide

  14. 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

    View Slide

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

    View Slide

  16. 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

    View Slide

  17. 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

    View Slide

  18. 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

    View Slide

  19. 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

    View Slide

  20. SYSTEMS OFFICE

    View Slide

  21. 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

    View Slide

  22. ALL TOGETHER…

    View Slide

  23. 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

    View Slide

  24. 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.

    View Slide