final report - webassign

Improving Department-Wide Efficiencies

within Content Development

Marie Erickson

Nicole Hamilton

Kelly Pomeroy

WebAssign Senior Design Team

Executive Summary

WebAssign is an online instructional system used by professors to enhance learning in

both high school and university settings. Professors submit original content or content

from textbook publishers to WebAssign to be created into question and quiz form for

their students to utilize. WebAssign is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina on

North Carolina State University’s Centennial Campus.

Last summer, the Content Development department at WebAssign changed aspects of

the workflow and working environment and had not yet measured the impacts. The

Director of Content Development, Anna Milner, saw an opportunity within the Content

Development workflow for efficiency improvements and reached out to receive help

from an Industrial and Systems Engineering senior design team at North Carolina State

University. The purpose of our project is to analyze and improve department-wide best

practice efficiencies.

We conducted Stakeholder Interviews to determine three major areas of improvement.

These three areas are 1) scrums, 2) data analysis and 3) continuous education. From

these ideas, we created three main deliverables for WebAssign’s Content Development

department. The first deliverable is a new agile scrum procedure to increase project

team communication. The second deliverable is a data analysis tool for management to

measure process time and throughput. The third deliverable is a continuous education

plan that highlights resource awareness and professional development.

The three main deliverables help solve the problem of department-wide inefficiencies by

highlighting major areas of improvement. Making these changes will help the Content

Development department work together more efficiently, which affects the process

workflow time. This overall increase in efficiency will also ultimately allow for more

capacity for projects to take on and, therefore, a greater profit for WebAssign.


1. Overview

a. Project Purpose, Objectives and Success Criteria

Originally, when our team started this project, the purpose presented to

us dealt with efficiency of the Content Development (CD) process.

Management told us the purpose was to:

Decrease total time of the Content Development workflow in order

to increase total throughput

They wanted us to be a new set of eyes for the process and make sure

it was as efficient as possible. This purpose aligns with the business

needs of WebAssign because it allows them to have more capacity

with their current resources and take on more projects, which will

ultimately lead to higher revenue. The project did not have any specific

limitations, except for budget. No budget was laid out for us. However,

neither WebAssign management or our Senior Design team foresaw

there being any expenses for this project since most work that would

be done would be observations and individual or team analysis.

Our first order of business was to investigate the current Content

Development process and its stakeholders. Stakeholders in this

process include management and employees. We conducted official

Stakeholder Interviews with Content Development Managers (CDMs),

Web Content Editors (WCEs), Technical Content Developers (TCDs),

and Proofers/Team Leads. For reference, all positions previously listed

are explained in detail in the glossary. There were a total of 15

interviews. Every employee was asked the same set of questions that

were centered around communication, training, process and

environment. As a team, we met after all interviews were conducted

and organized answers into like categories. Categories included

common themes, possible suggestions, and areas of improvement.

After analyzing these common ideas, we were able to come up with

possible solutions and deliverables for WebAssign. The cause and

effect diagram that we used to develop ideas for solutions is located in

the appendix.

After presenting these common themes, management decided not to

pursue these ideas. The consensus was that since change to the

physical CD process happened recently (within the last six months),

they have not yet had time to fully adapt to the new changes and

analyze their improvement. After much discussion, it was decided that


the original purpose of decreasing total time of the CD process in order

to increase throughput was not what management had in mind for our

team’s project.

From the discussion that took place after the Stakeholder Interviews

and themes presentation, our team was able to come up with a new

purpose for WebAssign that seemed to better align with their business

needs and current situation. This new purpose was to:

Improve overall department-wide efficiency through best practice

developments

Even though this purpose is slightly broader than the original, it still

encompasses their original goals and objectives of becoming more

efficient and decreasing total time. As noted above, a major issue

within the CD process, according to stakeholders, was communication

and issue resolve time. This lack of communication and delay in

resolve time equates to non-value added steps within the process and

is a red flag for possible improvement. Our new, evolved project ideas

centered around this issue and will assist the CD team in becoming

more efficient with one another, which will eventually affect the process

time. As a business, WebAssign is always looking to grow. Our

objectives will allow them to reach this path to continue improvement in

order to take on more projects.

There are three main objectives that were approved by management.

They are listed below:

1. Improve scrum efficiency

2. Develop a data tool for evaluating process time per question

and total questions completed

3. Develop a proposal for continuous education

These main objectives are explained in detail below in the “Project

Deliverables” section.

Success metrics for each of these objectives include:

1. Improve scrum efficiency

a. Decrease in issue resolve time

b. Increase team communication and overall success

evaluated through surveys


2. Develop a data tool for evaluating process time per question

and total questions completed

a. Management approval and usage

3. Develop a proposal for continuous education

a. Increase awareness of resources

b. Increase professional development satisfaction

b. Project Deliverables

Our major project deliverables, aligning with our main objectives

above, are as follows:

1. An agile scrum plan for the CD team that is adaptable to all

teams and project types

Not only does this deliverable lay out ideas and explanations

for agile scrums, but it also has a plan for phased

implementation into the CD team. Together, management

and our team decided that we are implementing the new

agile scrum plan in a small batch of three project teams and

are measuring the success of the batch and making

improvements as needed before implementing the plan into

the entire department.

2. A data tool to evaluate process time per question and total

questions completed

This tool will be used by management in order for them to

easily quantify process times, and be able to highlight areas

of improvement both now and in the future. The data tool is

an Excel document that consists of (1) clear directions, (2)

assumptions, and (3) reports that output selected metrics

regarding process time and throughput. Inputs for this tool

include data from JIRA (management tool that tracks

projects) and Intacct (time management tool where

employees manually input task time).

3. A proposal for continuous education

This involves a proposal for management as well as an initial

rollout of seminar days. These seminar days consist of

multiple hour-long sessions that cover various topics that

employees are interested in learning about. These topics

include professional development, resource allocation, and

communication methods within the workplace.


All three deliverables will be turned over to management through a

final presentation that clearly explains the objectives, components and

explanations of each one. Official documents will be sent via email and

shared through Google Drive. Management will choose whether or not

to pursue the plans and utilize the tool.

In the long run, these deliverables will lead to overall department-wide

success. They will decrease non-value added time and increase

efficiency of employee work.

c. Assumptions, Dependencies and Constraints

Tables 1, 2, and 3 below explain the assumptions, dependencies and

constraints for the three main deliverables of this project.

Agile Scrum Plan

Assumptions All teams use the same (or similar) current scrum

procedure

Issues are clearly and consistently communicated by every

employee during the scrums

Dependencies Employees are open to scrum policy changes

Employees and management carry out new procedure

when our team is not present

Employees honestly answer satisfaction survey questions

Constraints Not all teams will be observed

Phased implementation does not allow all teams to utilize

new procedure at once

Impacts Evaluation of the current state and future state of scrum

methods will consider variability in honest answers and

commitment from employees.

Table 1: Agile Scrum Assumptions, Dependencies, Constraints


Data Tool

Assumptions Raw data will be exported from company databases in a

consistent manner

Employees accurately log task time in Intacct

Analysis will only be conducted on questions that have

gone “Live” (published on WebAssign’s website)

Dependencies Management has a general knowledge of how to use

Excel

Documentation in JIRA and Intacct does not change

Constraints Our team does not have access to JIRA and Intacct

Impacts The data tool will be easy to use for all levels of

management. We will troubleshoot possible ways users

could misinterpret directions or interpretation of output and

prevent these issues from happening.

Table 2: Data Tool Assumptions, Dependencies, Constraints

Continuous Education

Assumptions Attendance is consistent at sessions and all teams are

present

Implementation will continue post-project

Dependencies Employees participate and listen to main objectives of

sessions

Constraints Sessions will result in small loss in project work time

Space in office for whole department is limited

Impacts Sessions will optimally utilize time available and be interactive

and interesting to be the most effective for the employees.

Table 3: Continuous Education Assumptions, Dependencies, Constraints

2. Design Project Roadmap

a. Approach

As mentioned before, the first order of business was to conduct

stakeholder interviews to get a grasp on the current environment at

WebAssign within Content Development. From the interviews and


analysis using the Fishbone Diagram located in the appendix, we were

able to come up with the three main areas to improve upon and their

respective deliverables. These areas and deliverables are also

mentioned in the Overview section above. Below are the separate

approaches we took for each deliverable.

i. Agile Scrum Plan

First, we were able to observe the current state of scrums, or

team meetings, through a satisfaction survey, personal

observation, and tracking meeting progress. Using results from

these three measurement methods, we were able to make a

conclusion on the current state of scrum. Through this analysis,

we were able to conclude that the bi-weekly team meetings that

were happening did not fall under the official definition of agile

scrum meetings. Management was able to confirm our

conclusion and gave us the green light to follow through with

developing a new plan to improve communication within the

teams. After conducting research, we were able to modify the

traditional agile scrum framework to fit the small software

environment that is at WebAssign.

ii. Data Tool

Currently, there is no standard method in place to measure the

amount of time it takes to complete a single question or project.

We were able to, first, collect raw data from two separate

databases (JIRA, Intacct) that track the critical information

needed to evaluate time to complete questions. Using this

information and management’s wishes and suggestions for what

they would like to see within the tool, we were able to create a

mock tool that used VBA within Excel to analyze the raw data.

After conducting a meeting to verify and validate the mock tool,

we were able to enhance the tool to be visually appealing,

dynamic, and easy to use.

iii. Continuous Education Plan

Using information gathered from the original stakeholder

interviews, and separate meetings with management dedicated

to training within Content Development, we were able to fully

understand the current state of continuous education for the

department. We conducted satisfaction surveys to see how


employees felt about the current state and what they might want

to see in the future regarding training. Pairing this with

information from management, we were able to brainstorm new

ideas to propose, adjustments to be made to the current state,

and what to keep the same.

b. Data Used

Due to the nature of our project’s objectives, we were not provided with

any data regarding Content Development’s current state. The

information used was qualitative, and collected by us.

c. Data Collection Plan

i. Agile Scrum Plan

WebAssign management was able to provide to us the general

framework for the Content Development team meetings. The

current framework is laid out below.

Required two meetings per week

30 minutes per session

Located in conference room

Topics include: HR/Admin, benchmarking, issue

resolution (blockers)

People present include: team members, Team Lead,

Coach

Additional information regarding team meetings was gathered

via a Google Survey sent out to the entire Content Development

department. Questions focused around communication,

duration, issue resolution, location, and participation. Team

Leads were also asked to fill out a template regarding

documentation methods during their weekly team meetings.

Information from this template included team participation, issue

resolution and subject distribution during the meetings. The

specific questions asked and template used can be referenced

in the appendix. From collecting the information from the

surveys and templates, we were able to conclude that:

HR and benchmarking dominated meetings

Employees had an average 4.0/5.0 satisfactory rating

towards weekly team meetings


Team members showed interest in change of meeting

structure

Team Leads utilized inefficient documentation methods

using large Google Doc files

ii. Data Tool

In an initial meeting with management, we were able to discuss

the requirements for the output that was desired for the analysis

tool. The requirements are as follows:

Analyze time per task organized by project

Analyze time per task organized by sub discipline

Visually display time information

Show average time per question per task

The raw data used for calculations was collected from two

different sources, JIRA and Intacct. These sources summarize

information regarding questions per project and sub discipline,

as well as time allocated to certain tasks.


WebAssign management was able to explain to us the current

structure for continuous education and training. There are three

main types of continuous education currently in use:

Show and Tell

o Optional monthly session

o Topics vary (ex. Agile Scrum Presentation, Perl

Best Practices, Making Awesome Comments)

o Meeting structure varies (ex. Discussion, formal

presentation)

o If nothing planned two weeks prior, session is

cancelled

Training sessions led by peers

o Optional sessions

o Any employee can lead a session on a topic of

their interest

o Multiple sessions within one week per topic

o Past topics include: Mathematica Graphing,

Leadership Development, Notepad++


Professional Development (PD) in weekly HR meetings

o HR Manager leads weekly meetings

o PD topics covered by discretion of manager

o Methods of presentation include TED talks, article

discussions, and formal presentations

We also sent out a Google Survey to the entire department to gather

more information about continuous education. Information gathered

included satisfaction ratings, and more details about each of three

separate types of education. Specific questions from the survey can be

referenced in the appendix. We did not find out any new information

about the three categories of education, but we were able to find

satisfaction ratings related to each. All ratings are out of a total

possible 5.0, 5.0 being “Very Satisfied.” They are as follows:

Show and Tell: 3.4 average rating

Training sessions led by peers: 3.9 average rating

Professional Development in HR meetings: 3.0 average rating

d. Models Generated

i. Agile Scrum Plan

From the weekly team meetings that were observed, and from

the surveys that were completed, we were able to come to a few

conclusions about WebAssign’s current team meeting

framework. We observed that there was an excess of non-value

added step within the team meeting framework. For instance,

entire teams spoke about issues regarding coding, when only

half of the team is affected by coding issues. The other half was

spending extra time on non-relevant information, when they

could be working during that time. Another aspect we observed

about team meetings was the lack of communication. Because

meetings are held only twice a week, some team members are

waiting anywhere from two to three days to ask questions

regarding current work until they can bring it up at a team

meeting. This results in a delay in the process. Other aspects of

the weekly team meetings that brought up red flags were the

strict length of thirty minutes per meeting, the wide range of

topics discussed, and the imbalance of team member

participation within the meeting.


Given the nature of the Content Development department, when

researching better practices for team meetings, we were able to

conclude that a modified version of the Agile Scrum framework

best fit their environment. A portion of the department has

already been trained as Scrum Masters and is familiar with the

efficient meeting style. From our research, we were able to learn

about important aspects of an Agile Scrum framework and

modify it for WebAssign’s Content Development department.

The four main structure elements are listed below (Radigan).

Sprint Planning Meeting

o At beginning of new project or large section of

project

o Coach and Project Manager to be present to lay

out expectations and timelines

Daily Scrums/Standups

o At team desk pods every morning at 10:30am

o Each team member answers these questions:

What did you do yesterday?

What will you do today?

Are there any impedances in your way?

o Impedances will be discussed post-standup with

affected parties

Benchmark/HR

o NOTE: modified from traditional Agile Scrum

framework

o Optional once a week meeting

o 15 to 30 minute duration

o Coach present

o Topics include: benchmarking, HR/Admin

Sprint Retrospective Meeting

o Honest review of the project’s progress

o Team consensus on possible improvements

o Brainstorm a plan to implement improvements in

future sprints

After receiving approval from management to start a trial

implementation on two model teams, management asked us to

open the Scrum Master position to anyone on the team. Once

Scrum Masters were chosen, a short Scrum Orientation was run


by our Senior Design team for the two Scrum Masters from the

model teams. These Scrum Masters were the liaisons between

their CD teams and our Senior Design team.

ii. Data Tool

The Data Tool presented to management was developed

throughout the semester by our Senior Design team. We used

coding in VBA within Excel to manipulate raw data to generate

reports that show desired measurements in a visually appealing

form. A detailed explanation of how the tool works is laid out

below.

The default screen shows detailed directions on how to export

the desired data from JIRA and Intacct, paste it into the tool,

and start the tool. When the “Conduct Analysis” button is

clicked, a User Form pops up that allows the user to choose

how they would like to analyze data, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Data Tool User Form

The user can choose to analyze data either “By Project” or “By

Sub-Discipline.” When either of these options is selected, a

populated drop-down list appears. For “By Project,” the drop-

down shows the list of projects from the data inputted by the

user. There are two separate drop-downs for the “By Sub-

Discipline” option. The first drop-down is populated with all of

the sub-disciplines within the data that was inputted by the user.

The User Form detects the sub-discipline selected and then

populates the next drop-down with the types of questions within

that specific sub-discipline. Once the desired analysis is

selected by the user, they can select the “Submit” button to

complete analysis.


Using a multitude of For and If loops, the code is able to sort

through all of the data to find total time per project, or sub-

discipline, for the four major tasks within the Content

Development process which are Management, WCE, Coding

and Proofing. Using assumptions given to us by the Content

Development team, we are able to sort tasks from Intacct and

relate them to major, broad tasks for each project or sub-

discipline. An example of how the tasks are distributed to major

tasks is shown in the appendix.

Once analysis is completed, a new worksheet is created within

the Excel file. The output shows calculations in both numeric

and graphic form. The tables and graphs shown in the new

worksheet are explained below.

Table showing all types of questions and the amount of

each for the selected project (or projects for the selected

sub-discipline) – See Figure 2

Table showing the total time allocated towards

Management, WCE, Coding and Proofing itemized by

question (or by project) – See Figure 2

Table showing averages of time spent on Management,

WCE, Coding and Proofing per question (or per project) –

See Figure 2

A pie chart showing the distribution of types of questions

(or separate projects) – See Figure 3

A bar chart showing the distribution of time allocated per

question (or per project) – See Figure 4

Figure 2: Tables Output for “By Project” (ASUColPhysMechL2)


Figure 3: Pie Chart for “By Project” (ASUColPhysMechL2)

Figure 4: Bar Chart for “By Project” (ASUColPhysMechL2)


Using what we learned from the meeting with management and

the surveys, we were able to research best practices regarding

continuous education for small tech companies similar to

WebAssign and modify what we learned to fit Content

Development’s environment. We were able to organize our

proposed recommendations and modifications into three

separate categories.

What are we maintaining?

o Professional Development within HR meetings

Relevant career path oriented discussions

Ability for team members to suggest topics

as well as present topics

o Training sessions led by peers

What are we modifying?

o Show and Tell

Sessions catered towards WCE job

description and Coding job description


Each separate job description meets bi-

monthly

Discussion style instead of formal

presentation style to involve employees

What are we proposing?

o Resource Master

One per team

Responsible for keeping track of and

educating employees on scattered

resources

o Mentorship Program

Pairing by career path

Pair more experienced employees (mentor)

with less experienced employees (mentee)

Beginning level is just a mentee

Everyone will have a mentor

Pairing done within sub-discipline across

project teams

e. Key Assumptions

Deliverable Key Assumptions and Limitations

Agile Scrum Plan Employees provided honest feedback on survey

Teams chosen for implementation are good

representation of the department

Teams carried out scrum template provided

Scrum Master embodied their role

Data Tool JIRA and Intacct data is accurate

Associations for major tasks are accurate

Continuous

Education Plan

Employees provided honest feedback on survey

Information provided by management is reflective

of entire department

Table 4: Key Assumptions for Model Generation

3. Recommendations

a. Recommendations and Criteria Used

For the Agile Scrum plan, we were able to complete a small-scale

implementation on two model teams within the Content Development

department. They were presented with the Agile Scrum model and a

Scrum Master was appointed, as mentioned before. We were able to

implement the new framework for one week. At the end of the


implementation week, we facilitated a discussion with the two model

teams that focused on pros and cons of the scrum model. The general

opinion that was expressed in this meeting was that the modified

scrum framework was a great idea for the department that would set

them in the right direction towards efficient communication. However,

for the framework to be implemented, ideas from the teams need to be

considered before further dispersion into the department. The new

ideas are as follows:

A clear definition of an “impedance” needs to be laid out by the

entire department

Requirements of what is expected from answers to the three

questions need to be clearly laid out

Scrum/standups should happen before everyone’s workday has

begun – possibly around 9:30am

Once these three ideas have been approved and there is total

department buy-in to the Agile Scrum framework, formal training

should be conducted for the entire department in addition to Scrum

Master Certification training.

A meeting with management was conducted after the Data Tool was

developed to verify and validate the function of the tool. The tool met

management’s requirements and expectations. If the instructions are

followed correctly, and the VBA code is not altered, the tool should be

able to function correctly. It can be used by management to measure

time per task for projects, and compare time per task between projects

and question types in separate time frames.

The continuous education plan was created with the employees’ career

paths and interests in mind. We recommend that the Content

Development department implements the adjustments and proposals

suggested above. In order to smoothly follow through with the

mentorship program, research has shown that management should

kick start the program with an activity or paid event. We suggest that

the department assigns mentors to mentees using suggestions from a

possible questionnaire for the employees. Once they are assigned,

management should hold an initial event that explains the structure of

the mentorship program, why it would benefit them, and offer to pay for

lunch for mentor teams that eat together (Kessler). In regards to the

Resource Master component of the continuous education plan, we


suggest that the most knowledgeable employee regarding resources

should be appointed as Head Resource Master. This employee should

conduct a department-wide meeting that educates other employees

about how to find certain resources, as well as a separate Team

Resource Master training to lay out the details of the position.

b. Benefits Associated with Recommendations

The Agile Scrum framework is used by thousands of companies

worldwide. Companies range from small startups to large corporations

in a variety of industries. This modified framework will improve team

productivity and communication. Since team members will be

discussing impedances with relevant, affected parties after the daily

scrums or standups have completed, team members not affected by

the impedance will be able to have more time available to continue

working on their respective tasks. With multiple standups each week,

teams are able to keep tabs on what each team member is doing and

know who to speak with if an issue arises in their own work. The

framework will reduce issue resolve time because issues will be

brought up in the beginning of each workday as opposed to being

tabled for two or three days, thus reducing non-value added time for

the team. The Agile Scrum plan increases accountability because it

allows the team to catch and address bugs or issues before they

become critical situations. This framework creates a goal-oriented

mindset for the teams. It forces team members to think solely about

project tasks, and the end goal for the project (Neeman, 2009).

In the future, with WebAssign’s goal to increase their capacity and

expand as a brand, this Data Tool will be useful for benchmarking.

Management will be able to use the tool to create an educated guess

on future similar projects or questions. With this educated guess,

management can create new goals for the company and provide

backing with the data to set these goals. Using this tool will also help

the department identify potential bottlenecks within the process or

risks. With the comparison graphs and average times per task, they

will be able to analyze areas within the process that might be eligible

for improvements.

Regarding the continuous education plan, it is beneficial to modify the

current Show and Tell framework so that employees feel as if they are

being considered as well as growing from their bi-monthly Show and

Tell experiences. This framework allows for each job description to


have an outlet to discuss together current issues and topics, as well as

share pointers, shortcuts and new ideas with one another. Having a

Resource Master for each team will allow for an expected decrease in

search time and possible issue resolve time. As for the mentorship

program, research has proven that having someone that is not officially

a boss or superior allows an employee to grow both professionally and

personally (Nguyen). A mentee working with a mentor that is a year or

two ahead of them allows them to set goals as to where they might

want to be in a year or two and have someone to lead them in that

direction.

c. Risks Associated with Implementation

Deliverable Risks Associated

Agile Scrum Plan Management and employees might not have total

buy-in

Employees show resistance to change

Proper education might not be provided to

employees and Scrum Master

Data Tool Code might get altered

Different versions might circulate the department

Continuous

Education Plan

Management and employees might not have total

buy-in

Employees show resistance to change

Table 5: Risks Associated with Implementation

4. Next Steps

a. How Should Sponsor Proceed?

WebAssign’s Content Development management team should have a

meeting dedicated towards studying and discussing the three main

plans within this report. Some input can be provided by employees in

order to maintain department-wide satisfaction. Management should

decide from the deliverables in this report what should be implemented

immediately, what should be implemented in the next year, what

should be tabled for discussion, and what they do not want to pursue.

We suggest that total buy-in from management be a prerequisite

before department-wide implementation. A standardized phased

implementation method should be used for each deliverable and

suggestion. A measurement plan for success should be in place in

order to assess the benefits and effects of each deliverable.


b. Other Opportunities to Possibly Pursue

Through our time spent with the WebAssign Content Development

team, we were able to identify a couple areas for possible

improvements in the future. They are as follows:

Organize project documentation platform (CSPS)

Improve upon the current Data Tool to make it more dynamic

and on a universal platform that constantly updates (not Excel)


Appendices

Definitions and Acronyms

CD: Content Development - department within WebAssign that produces and

codes questions and material for publishing on the WebAssign website

CDM: Content Development Manager - person that acts as owner of projects and

makes overall decisions unrelated to the subject matter

WCE: Web Content Editor - team member responsible for creating a question

and maintaining certain style requirements and proper grammar

TCD: Technical Content Developer - team member responsible for coding the

dynamic parts of a question, the grading, and pedagogical elements

Proofer – team member responsible for double-checking the coding elements of

the process

Team Lead – team member responsible for leading meetings, and keeping the

team on track

Coach – an employee’s manager that is not that employee’s direct HR Manager.

Functions more as a support system than management position

HR Manager – an employee’s manager responsible for HR needs as well as

employment growth/reviews

Sprint – another term for a short project or section (approx. four weeks)

Impedance – an issue or blocker regarding project content

Figures

Figure 5: Fishbone Diagram from Stakeholder Interviews


Figure 6: Associations Example for Question Types and Tasks

Stakeholder Interview Questions

1. What brought you to Webassign? (Education/Job History)

2. Please describe the content development process in your own words:

a. How many steps are necessary to the process?

b. How long do you think your specific step in the process takes? Whole

process?

3. What responsibilities do you have within the workflow? Please identify the

specific stages.

4. What are the inputs and outputs of your tasks?

5. Did you realize any changes when the new workflow was implemented last

summer?

a. Can you identify those changes?

b. How did they affect your position?

6. Are there any areas of the workflow that you think need improvement? Please

identify potential inefficiencies.

a. Anything in the previous process that you liked, that isn’t in the new

workflow?

7. Do you think there needs to be alternate workflows to account for special

cases? If so, please describe the cases that warrant a separate process.

8. Please describe how you learned about the current workflow? Training

sessions, word of mouth, etc.

9. Who do you report to?

10. Who reports to you?

11. How do you document your process and do you get reviewed on this?

Scrum Satisfaction Survey

1. Please specify your job title.

2. How comfortable are you with participating at team meetings?

3. How likely is it for every group member to speak during a team meeting?


4. How likely are you to get your issues resolved during the team meeting?

5. How likely are you to wait until the team meeting to discuss an issue?

6. How likely are you to solve an issue on your own instead of addressing it at a

team meeting?

7. How satisfied are you with the length of the team meeting?

8. How satisfied are you with the frequency of the team meetings?

9. How satisfied are you with the time of the team meetings?

10. Rate the meeting location on accessibility.

11. Rate the meeting location on comfort.

12. How comfortable are you with the overall conversation at team meetings?

13. How comfortable are you with the conversations between team members at

team meetings?

14. Anything else you would like to share in regards to weekly team meetings?

Continuous Education Survey Questions

1. How many Show and Tell events have you attended in the past year?

2. How much do you feel you benefit from Show and Tell?

3. Have you ever suggested a subject for an Show and Tell event?

4. How satisfied are you with the way Show and Tells are being run?

5. How many Training Sessions have you attended in the past year?

6. Please list some of the Training Sessions you have attended or had an

interest in.

7. How much do you feel you benefit from the Training Sessions?

8. How satisfied are you with the Training Sessions lead by Project Leads?

9. How often do professional development topics come up during HR meetings

each month?

10. What percentage of these meetings cover professional development topics?

11. How often do you propose a topic related to professional development in your

weekly HR meeting?

12. Please list a few professional development topics from your weekly HR

meetings that interested you or inspired you in your professional career?

13. How satisfied are you with the professional development topics and

discussions conducted through your weekly HR meetings?

14. If these professional development sessions were optional, would you attend?

15. If you come across a step in the process in which you are unsure of how to

follow through (coding, style, etc.), how long does it take you to find the

answer? (ex. 45 minutes)

16. If you come across a step in the process in which you are unsure of how to

follow through, what do you do?


17. From your experience at WebAssign, who is in charge of knowing about

resources?

18. Do you have anything to add related to continuous education at WebAssign?

Resources

Kessler, Sarah. "How to Start a Mentoring Program." Inc.com. 6 Apr. 2010. Web. 22

Apr. 2016. <http://www.inc.com/guides/2010/04/start-mentoring-program.html>.

Neeman, Patrick. "Seven Reasons Why Agile And Scrum Works For Web User

Experience." Usability Counts RSS. 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 22 Apr. 2016.

Radigan, Dan. ""Have We Met?" Four Agile Ceremonies, Demystified." Atlassian. Web.

22 Apr. 2016. <https://www.atlassian.com/agile/ceremonies>.

https://www.atlassian.com/agile/ceremonies

final report - webassign

Documents