Leanne McGiveron Development Team Leader Marilyn Moore Web Design & Developer Agriculture Information Technology (Ag

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/agit lmcgiver@purdue.edu  mjmoore@purdue.edu

2. The Agenda • The Disclaimer • AgIT’s 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. 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.

4. AgIT’s 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) Optimal Development Team (mid-2001)

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 & ProceduresWeb 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/agit lmcgiver@purdue.edu  mjmoore@purdue.edu