Attention: Confluence is not suitable for the storage of highly confidential data. Please ensure that any data classified as Highly Protected is stored using a more secure platform.
If you have any questions, please refer to the University's data classification guide or contact ict.askcyber@sydney.edu.au
Project Phoenix - Post Implementation Review
- Brad Fernandes (Unlicensed)
Date | Feb 5, 2021 |
|---|---|
Team | Phoenix Project team |
Participants | @Brad Fernandes (Unlicensed) @AlainGasquet @Jules Levin@Manpreet Sidhu @Monica Kluegel @Sidra Zafar @Rachel Forbes @john.humphreys @Yeng Sembrano @The Ho Trang @apirami.kumaradevan @Vinay Kumar T M (Unlicensed) @Rakesh Thobula Ramulu @alexia nicholson (Unlicensed)@LachlanCahill @Lori Stirling (Deactivated) @Griffin Homan (Deactivated) lachlan.cahill@sydney.edu.au; james.werner@affinaquest.com |
Copy to | @Byron Chu @Rakesh Thobula Ramulu @Kiran Mudigonda (Unlicensed) @Farah Mustapha adil.sethna@sydney.edu.au; ann-christin.frank@sydney.edu.au; richard.oconnor@sydney.edu.au |
Background
Project Phoenix kicked off on 1 Jun’20 with Data analysis, Salesforce training and Product demos. The project implementation was structured using Agile Scrum methodology and the workload was organised into multiple Sprints. The first sprint commenced with a Data Conversion Sprint on 26 Aug'20 and included all the Scrum ceremonies which included Sprint Planning, Daily Stand-ups, Sprint Reviews, Sprint Retrospectives, and Backlog Refinement.
Over the next 10 sprints, the team launched Jarvis on 21 Jan'21 as an MVP product to deliver business value to the Advancement Portfolio.
Statistics - Jarvis MVP
Cumulative Flow Diagram
Post Implementation Review
Due to external vendor and COVID-19 protocols, the PIR was conducted using IdeaBoardz to collaborate and gather feedback. Participants were given an opportunity to vote on the feedback for discussion.
The meeting was structured as follows -
1. Procurement (tender process, tender documentation, timing and timeline) [5 mins]
What went well? | |
Point | Votes |
Functional requirements were well-defined which provided a good scope for the RFT. | 1 |
Tender responses in a short time over Christmas period | 0 |
What can be improved? | |
Point | Votes |
Initial tender had to be cancelled and re-issued. Should the original tender have been more prescriptive? | 0 |
Provide additional business context for requirements so responses are more aligned with need | 0 |
Action Items | |
Point | Votes |
N/A |
|
2. Project implementation (i.e. Sprints, timeline, user story prioritisation, tools {teams, SP, Jira}) [20 mins]
What went well? | |
Point | Votes |
One team culture across AQ, TAP, ICT worked collaboratively to achieve outcome with no barriers across boundaries | 4 |
Decisions were often quick and whole team was very responsive | 2 |
AQ responsiveness to USYD requirements | 1 |
Ability to delivery a solution with 7 months | 1 |
Sprint approach | 1 |
Embedding ICT with TAP enabled business agility | 0 |
Mindset & enthusiasm of TAP team who had no SF experience at the outset and embraced the challenge to learn in very short time to configure | 0 |
Good use of tools where Jira was well setup with up to date dashboards providing leading indicators of bottlenecks | 0 |
CSM, Monica and Alain had been very responsive and helpful in providing clarification of user stories to help faster implementation. | 0 |
well organized and run stand ups and sprint planning meetings | 0 |
whole team flexible and cooperative approach meant that any issues that came up were identified and dealt with quickly | 0 |
Use of Teams and multiple channels to communicate remotely worked well. | 0 |
Team have an agile mentality and approach towards project implementation | 0 |
Team work and collaboration are key to success. Willingness of sharing knowledge and supporting each other are important. | 0 |
Asking for help where needed | 0 |
What can be improved? | |
Point | Votes |
Prioritisation of stories and factoring in Development resources availability | 1 |
Would a longer implementation have resulted in a better outcome particularly around process transformation for gift implementation? | 0 |
Data quality and functionality available for UAT. This put pressure on PVT and post launch | 0 |
Data mapping briefings so all team have a clear understanding of what is in and what is out of scope | 0 |
Should be involve the Champion at the early stage to have better understand and helping with data conversion testing. | 0 |
some teams have been left waiting for there data at go live, could this have avoided by clarifying exactly what each team was getting | 0 |
Should we have given the mapping to the division to view | 0 |
Use of Apsona for Gift implementation could be improved [USYD reach out to Apsona directly] | 0 |
Action Items | |
Point | Votes |
Field history tracking may have performance impacts. Recommendation to review in 3 months | 0 |
Sprints should factor Resource availability and complexity of tickets. | 0 |
Project team should have signed off on data mapping. (Not the TAP division) | 0 |
3. Data conversion (mapping, conversion decisions, number of runs, testing) [15 mins]
What went well? | |
Point | Votes |
AQ responsive to address conversion issues in final data conversion | 4 |
Different time zones worked in the projects favour | 0 |
Jira management of data conversion bugs and questions | 0 |
Griffin helped so much here, thanks for being so responsive. | 0 |
What can be improved? | |
Point | Votes |
Additional briefings & discussions around data mapping prior to testing so everyone has a clear understanding of what is in and out of scope | 1 |
Would an additional data conversion been useful? [Yes, but not possible due to time constraints] | 1 |
Could data conversion testing approach been improved? [Yes, scripts may help, but effort may be required to manage scripts] | 0 |
More unit testing and quality control by AQ to ensure that the data was migrated prior to passing to USYD to validate. | 0 |
it would have been better if data conversion was completed on time [Yes] | 0 |
More time for the data conversion/testing phrase for the better of data conversion quality instead of parallel work with sprint | 0 |
Involve functional expert in early stage of data mapping to assure that the core required data are in on the first attempt | 0 |
Might have helped bringing in the champions for testing early on | 0 |
Action Items | |
Point | Votes |
When raising defects, provide further description and add screenshots | 0 |
4. Integrations [10 mins]
What went well? | |
Point | Votes |
Good collaboration between Integration and TAP teams | 1 |
Proactively raised issues and concerns and get them resolved collaboratively. | 1 |
Listening to business issues and resolving them (e.g. Time zone issue to reconcile) | 0 |
A quick PoC to check the technical feasibility of the approach before build start | 0 |
Integration standups | 0 |
Planned well, estimated well, documented well and implemented successfully. | 0 |
Architecture evolved to deal with business changes and technology limitations | 0 |
What can be improved? | |
Point | Votes |
more funding to deliver target state integration architecture | 2 |
Took time for integration approach and project implementation to synch | 0 |
Test data setup particularly for Integrations testing. | 0 |
Action Items | |
Point | Votes |
Consider only critical changes as new/additional requirements during the development phase | 0 |
share the ICT integration documentation with the team | 0 |
Take the learnings on the success of ICT integrations to other ICT projects | 0 |
5. Change management (comms, training, TAP readiness) [10 mins]
What went well? | |
Point | Votes |
Champions network | 2 |
Keeping TAP engaged through implementation with updates, naming competition | 2 |
Remote training was a concern but it went well | 1 |
Balloons and biscuits :) | 0 |
Training approach and delivery | 0 |
What can be improved? | |
Point | Votes |
Provide increased oversight to the division about their data management and updating responsibilities prior to launch | 0 |
perhaps we could of thought about bring together the focus on each teams day to day here more especially Alumni Relations team | 0 |
Potentially longer lead time of implementation would have increased confidence of champions | 0 |
Action Items | |
Point | Votes |
Continue working with the teams to embed Jarvis in their day-to-day activities | 0 |
Using Champions to embed Jarvis to TAP | 0 |
6. Project Launch/ Go-Live [10 mins]
What went well? | |
Point | Votes |
Prioritisation and commitment of project team including AQ to achieve committed launch time | 2 |
What can be improved? | |
Point | Votes |
Not everything was testable during UAT so more time for PVT | 0 |
we need to mindful of what really is a priority and keep coming back to getting this completed | 0 |
Manage expectations of TAP stakeholders on what is feasible immediately post Go-Live. | 0 |
checking that everyone was able to login to UAT on day before training :) | 0 |
Action Items | |
Point | Votes |
Focus on prioritisation of the backlog for future sprints | 0 |
Brief Champions on the priorities. | 0 |