Leanne McGiveron Development Team Leader Marilyn Moore Web Design & Developer Agriculture Information Technology (AgIT) Purdue University - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Slide1 l.jpg
Download
1 / 39

  • 290 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: Industry

ACE/NETC 2003. Leanne McGiveron Development Team Leader Marilyn Moore Web Design & Developer Agriculture Information Technology (AgIT) Purdue University http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agit lmcgiver@purdue.edu  mjmoore@purdue.edu. The Agenda. The Disclaimer AgIT’s Situation

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Leanne McGiveron Development Team Leader Marilyn Moore Web Design & Developer Agriculture Information Technology (AgIT) Purdue University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Slide1 l.jpg

ACE/NETC 2003

Leanne McGiveron

Development Team Leader

Marilyn Moore

Web Design & Developer

Agriculture Information Technology (AgIT)

Purdue University

http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agit

lmcgiver@purdue.edu  mjmoore@purdue.edu


Slide2 l.jpg

The Agenda

  • The Disclaimer

  • AgIT’s Situation

  • The Need

  • The Response

  • The Impact

  • The Future


Slide3 l.jpg

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. Today’s 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.


Slide4 l.jpg

AgIT’s Situation

(The Environment AgIT Development is Working in)


Slide5 l.jpg

The Situation

  • Changing Development Environment

Unstructured Development Team (mid-1999)

Enterprise and Rapid Development Teams (mid-2000)

Optimal

Development Team (mid-2001)


Slide6 l.jpg

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??)


Slide7 l.jpg

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 LeaderProject Coordinator & Design Lead & Program Lead (mid-2003)

3 Week Integration

Still being tested & tweaked


Slide8 l.jpg

The Situation

  • Types of Development Projects

    • Application Development (new)

    • Infrastructure Support (released)

    • Consulting

    • Streaming


Slide9 l.jpg

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


Slide10 l.jpg

The Situation

  • Growing Number of Released ProjectsInfrastructure Support

Currently 78 Supported Projects

2 Supported Projects

‘01

‘00

‘99

‘02

‘03


Slide11 l.jpg

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


Slide12 l.jpg

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


Slide13 l.jpg

The Need

The Need

(Issues that We Were - and Are - Struggling with….)


Slide14 l.jpg

The Need

  • Areas of Frustration

    • Scope Creep

    • Documentation

    • Client Follow through (lack of)

    • Testing

    • Maintenance


Slide15 l.jpg

The Need

  • Our primary needs

    • To gain Control over the development process;

    • To maximize effectiveness; and

    • To find and push all efficiencies


Slide16 l.jpg

The Response

The 1st Response

(Sometimes You have to Try Different Things)


Slide17 l.jpg

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!


Slide18 l.jpg

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


Slide19 l.jpg

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


Slide20 l.jpg

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 ScopeWebsite Example: Microscopy


Slide21 l.jpg

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


Slide22 l.jpg

1st Response

We were gaining control

But, the more control we gained,

the more control we wanted


Slide23 l.jpg

2nd Response

The 2nd Response

(Sometimes You have to Try Different Things … Again)


Slide24 l.jpg

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


Slide25 l.jpg

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


Slide26 l.jpg

2nd Response

  • Documentation of Project Requirements

    • March 2003  Modified Architect Scope to

  • Non-Functional Prototype (Wire Frame)

    • Continued requirement

Handout – County Template Scope


Slide27 l.jpg

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


Slide28 l.jpg

The Impact

The Impact

(The Impact has been Far Greater than We Anticipated)


Slide29 l.jpg

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.


Slide30 l.jpg

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.


Slide31 l.jpg

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.


Slide32 l.jpg

  • 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


Slide33 l.jpg

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.


Slide34 l.jpg

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.


Slide35 l.jpg

The Future

The Future

(We are Not Quite Done Yet ….)


Slide36 l.jpg

  • Inheriting Services

    • Streaming – New in May 2003

  • Integration into Purdue ITaP Resources

    • Co-Development of Projects

    • Servers

    • Security

    • Interwoven

    • WebSphere/J2EE


  • Slide37 l.jpg

    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 & ProceduresWeb Services


    Slide38 l.jpg

    • 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


    Slide39 l.jpg

    ACE/NETC 2003

    Leanne McGiveron

    Development Team Leader

    Marilyn Moore

    Web Design & Developer

    Agriculture Information Technology (AgIT)

    Purdue University

    http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agit

    lmcgiver@purdue.edu  mjmoore@purdue.edu


  • Login