project report edweb collaboration and development framework · programme manager project services...

University of Edinburgh _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ of 27

Project Report

EdWeb Collaboration and Development Framework

University Web Programme (UWP)

UWP012

Document Version: 1.1

Date: 19/09/2016

EdWeb Collaboration and Development Framework – Project Report [Version: 1.1] _____________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

Contents

1 DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 4

1.1 Contributors .............................................................................................. 4

1.2 Version Control .......................................................................................... 5

1.3 Approvals .................................................................................................. 5

2 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 6

2.1 Background ............................................................................................... 6

2.2 Project Description .................................................................................... 6

2.3 Workshop Summary .................................................................................. 6

3 ANALYSIS OF WORKSHOP THEMES ................................................... 8

3.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Summary of Positives / Opportunities ........................................................ 8

3.3 Summary of Negatives / Risks .................................................................... 8

3.4 All Themes by Group .................................................................................. 9 3.4.1 Developers – Positives ............................................................................. 9

3.4.2 Digital Professionals – Positives ............................................................... 9

3.4.3 Services – Positives ................................................................................ 10

3.4.4 Developers – Negatives ......................................................................... 10

3.4.5 Digital Professionals – Negatives ........................................................... 10

3.4.6 Services – Negatives ............................................................................... 11

4 ANALYSIS OF WORKSHOP COMMENTS ........................................... 12

4.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 12

4.2 Positives ................................................................................................... 12 4.2.1 University community and ownership ................................................... 12

4.2.2 Quality of end website ........................................................................... 12

4.2.3 Improved efficiency of development ..................................................... 12

4.2.4 Collaboration .......................................................................................... 13

4.2.5 Personal development and knowledge transfer ................................... 13

4.2.6 Agility ..................................................................................................... 13

4.2.7 Community support and engagement ................................................... 14

4.2.8 Communities .......................................................................................... 14

4.2.9 Quality of CMS ....................................................................................... 14

4.2.10 External community ............................................................................... 15

4.2.11 Process and code quality ....................................................................... 15

4.2.12 System and business benefits ................................................................ 15

4.2.13 Clear view of future direction ................................................................ 15

4.2.14 Planning .................................................................................................. 16

4.2.15 Training and documentation ................................................................. 16

4.3 Negatives ................................................................................................. 16


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

4.3.1 Funding / Finance ................................................................................... 16

4.3.2 Developer resource ................................................................................ 17

4.3.3 Development constraints ....................................................................... 17

4.3.4 Development process management ...................................................... 18

4.3.5 Lack of speed .......................................................................................... 18

4.3.6 Devolved institution ............................................................................... 18

4.3.7 Technology ............................................................................................. 18

4.3.8 Expectations ........................................................................................... 19

4.3.9 Future view ............................................................................................ 19

4.3.10 Support and training difficulties ............................................................ 19

4.3.11 Framework support ............................................................................... 19

4.3.12 Priority and comeback ........................................................................... 20

4.3.13 Quality of development ......................................................................... 20

4.3.14 Conflicting requirements ....................................................................... 20

4.3.15 Business needs ....................................................................................... 20

4.4 Combined Positives and Negatives ............................................................ 21 4.4.1 Support ................................................................................................... 21

4.4.2 Communication ...................................................................................... 21

4.4.3 Standards ............................................................................................... 22

5 CAUSE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS ........................................................ 23

5.1 Summary .................................................................................................. 23

5.2 Funding / finance ...................................................................................... 23 5.2.1 Developer resource ................................................................................ 24

5.2.2 Development constraints ....................................................................... 24

6 AS-IS AND TO-BE PROCESS MAPPING ............................................. 25

6.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 25

6.2 As-Is and To-Be Process Map ..................................................................... 26

6.3 Action Plan ............................................................................................... 27


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

1 Document Management

1.1 Contributors

Role Unit Name

Project Manager (Owner)

Project Services Chris Copner

Head (acting) of IS LTW Website & Communications

Learning, Teaching and Web

Stratos Filalithis

User Experience Manager


Neil Allison

Project Manager - University Website Programme


Bruce Darby

Senior Developer Development Services Mairi Fraser

Programme Manager Project Services Tim Gray

Consultation workshop attendees

ROSS Steven; SYMMERS Nicola; BLACK Natasha; COULMAN Shawn; HUNTER Susan; GALLOWAY Mark; BUCKINGHAM Susan; WARDROP Billy; BELL Kenneth; THOMPSON Steven; POXON Gareth; ROSENDALE Billy; PARK Gavin; LAW Steven; MCKAIN David; ELSMORE David; BROWN Neil; MACGRUER Duncan; WILSON Arthur; HEYN Ana; HOBDEN Andrew; ANDERSON Gavin; WILLIAMSON David; PLACE Chris


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

1.2 Version Control

Date Version Author Section Amendment 17/8/16 0.1 Chris

Copner - Created

18/8/16 0.2 Chris Copner

Various Updated following review


Various Updated following review 23/8/16. Inclusion of process map.


6.2 Final version


2.2 Updated to create Project Report

1.3 Approvals

Name Role Date Signed-Off

Stratos Filalithis Head (acting) of IS LTW Website & Communications

6/9/16


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

2 OVERVIEW

2.1 Background

Digital Transformation and Data is a priority theme for the University. The University aims to make a sustained and enhanced global impact through an approach shaped by innovations and excellence. The University's Strategic Vision 2025 will see many more students benefiting from the Edinburgh experience supported by world-leading online distance learning. EdWeb is a key enabler of the Vision and there is a requirement to ensure that all parts of the University web community can work together effectively and collaboratively using the EdWeb framework. There is a significant amount of knowledge of Drupal - the open source software used in EdWeb - within the University web community. We have already successfully demonstrated during the recent EdWeb code sprint (for innovation project INV011) that developers from around the University can contribute to the EdWeb codebase. The pilot code sprint clearly demonstrated that there is a need to ensure that we evolve our processes for collaboration into a clear framework, allowing us to maximise the benefit to EdWeb from the Drupal knowledge and experience around the University.

2.2 Project Description

Project UWP012 (‘EdWeb Collaboration and Development Framework’) delivered a framework document with the aim of:

1. holistically mapping the different aspects of collaboration regarding EdWeb and related services;

2. defining areas that could benefit from further work and prioritised actions. A consultation workshop was undertaken with a number of stakeholders from across the EdWeb community on 9th August 2016. The framework document was developed based on an analysis of themes and comments from the consultation workshop and presents a mapping of current (‘as is’) processes, future (‘to be’) processes and actions to allow moving to the future state. The framework document will contribute to:

1. improved clarity within the University web community regarding communication, collaboration, contribution of code, obtaining support and prioritising items for inclusion on the development road map;

2. improved transparency of EdWeb governance - by having clearer definitions around roles and responsibilities;

3. improved EdWeb documentation.

2.3 Workshop Summary

The purpose of the workshop on 9th August was to:


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

1. bring a cross section of skills and roles together;

2. allow stakeholders to highlight, discuss and prioritise potential opportunities

and risks;

3. enable a better understanding of what a development framework needs to

deliver.

Workshop participants were grouped into three groups:

1. developers

2. digital professionals

3. services staff

The three groups were asked to consider the following within two exercises:

the current operation in a complex environment;

code development landscape;

EdGEL design guidelines;

EdWeb roadmap;

the currently fragmented experience;

how might things be in the future

1. Exercise 1 – Positives / Opportunities

Consider the positive aspects of this potential future

What interests or engages you about the prospect of a development framework?

What is exciting?

Where are the opportunities?

2. Exercise 2 – Negatives / Risks

Think about the negative aspects of this potential future

What concerns you about the prospect of a development framework?

Where are the barriers?

Where are the risks? All workshop participants were asked to rank positives / opportunities and negatives / risks arising from the two exercises across all the three groups according to priority or level of interest.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

3 Analysis of Workshop Themes

3.1 Overview

This section summarises the main themes arising from the three groups. The detailed outputs from the workshop can be found here.

3.2 Summary of Positives / Opportunities

The following themes relating to positives / opportunities were ranked by workshop participants as those with the highest priority or level of interest across the three groups (top three positives from each of the three groups):

Theme Priority / Level of Interest

Originating Group

University community and ownership 13 Developers

Quality of end website 8 Digital Professionals

Improved efficiency of development 7 Digital Professionals

Collaboration 7 Services / Digital Professionals

Personal development and knowledge transfer

6 Developers

Communication 6 Developers

Agility 4 Services

Standards 4 Services

Community support and engagement 4 Digital Professionals

3.3 Summary of Negatives / Risks

The following themes relating to negatives / risks were ranked by workshop participants as those with the highest priority or level of interest across the three groups (top three negatives from each of the three groups):

https://uoe-my.sharepoint.com/personal/nallison_ed_ac_uk/Documents/EdWeb%20collaborative%20framework%20workshop/Post%20its%20-%20EdWeb%20Collaborative%20framework%20workshop


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

Theme Priority / Level of Interest

Originating Group

Funding / Finance 22 Developers / Digital Professionals / Services

Developer resource 8 Digital Professionals

Development constraints 7 Developers

Development process management 6 Developers

Support challenges 6 Services

Lack of speed 4 Digital Professionals

Devolved institution 4 Digital Professionals

Standards 3 Services

3.4 All Themes by Group

3.4.1 Developers – Positives

These were the positives identified by the Developers group (top three themes identified by workshop participants are highlighted):

Id Theme Priority / Level of Interest

1 University community and ownership 13

2 Personal development and knowledge transfer 6

3 Communication 6

4 Process and code quality 2

5 System and business benefits 1

6 Training and documentation 1

7 Design 0

8 External community 0

3.4.2 Digital Professionals – Positives

These were the positives identified by the Digital Professionals group (top three themes identified by workshop participants are highlighted):


1 Quality of end website 8

2 Improved efficiency of development 7

3 Community support and engagement 4

4 Quality of CMS 3

5 Clear view of future direction 2

6 Collaboration 2

7 Funding efficiency 1


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

3.4.3 Services – Positives

These were the positives identified by the Services group (top three themes identified by workshop participants are highlighted):


1 Collaboration 5

2 Agility 4

3 Standards 4

4 Planning 3

5 Support 2

6 Communities 1

7 Training 0

3.4.4 Developers – Negatives

These were the negatives identified by the Developers group (top three categories identified by workshop participants are highlighted):


1 Funding 10

2 Development constraints 7

3 Development process management 6

4 Priority and comeback 3

5 Complexity 1

6 Technology 1

7 Design constraints 1

8 Communication 0

9 Expectations 0

3.4.5 Digital Professionals – Negatives

These were the negatives identified by the Digital Professionals group (top three categories – including a joint third - identified by workshop participants are highlighted):


1 Funding 8

2 Developer resource 8

3 Lack of speed 4

4 Devolved institution 4

5 Communication 2

6 Quality of development 1


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

7 Conflicting requirements 0

8 Support and training difficulties 0

9 Lack of continued buy in 0

3.4.6 Services – Negatives

These were the negatives identified by the Services group (top three categories identified by workshop participants are highlighted):


1 Support challenges 6

2 Finance and resources planning 4

3 Standards 3

4 Business needs 2

5 Future view 2

6 Framework support 2


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

4 Analysis of Workshop Comments

4.1 Overview

This section details some of the comments from the three groups, listed by priority (as prioritised by the workshop participants) and grouped into positives, negatives and combined positives and negatives. Not all comments are listed - the complete set of comments can be found here.

4.2 Positives

4.2.1 University community and ownership

University Community and Ownership was identified by participants within the developers group as a positive. This was also ranked by workshop participants as a category with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 13). The following comments were made by the group:

Development of specialist community

Shared experience

Community development contributing to EdWeb development

Sense of ownership

Sense of community

Drupal community (University)

Shared ownership of the tools we use to build our websites

Actively involved in the University developer community

Seen to be team players

People supporting / have more enthusiasm to explain to colleagues

4.2.2 Quality of end website

Quality of end website was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a positive. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 8). The following comments were made by the group:

Better product overall for website users

Clear University wide statements on what is allowed and what is desirable in terms of corporate branding

4.2.3 Improved efficiency of development

Improved efficiency of development was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a positive. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 7). The following comments were made by the group:

https://uoe-my.sharepoint.com/personal/nallison_ed_ac_uk/Documents/EdWeb%20collaborative%20framework%20workshop/Post%20its%20-%20EdWeb%20Collaborative%20framework%20workshop


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

Grow and adapt more easily / stay current

Easier / simple routes to change / improvement

Improved efficiency of development

Innovation from a strong innovation base

4.2.4 Collaboration

Collaboration was identified by participants within the digital professionals group and services group as a positive. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 7). The following comments were made by the groups:

Greater engagement with EdWeb – University wide

Allow stakeholder contribution to improve the service

We can deliver more functionality to a wider group

Open engagement is happening

Collaborative process to fix bugs

Allow sharing of Dev experiences

Develop locally, share and use centrally

Greater understanding of users / service

Encouraging each other to think about best practice

Remove duplicated effort and external spending

Developing is part of a community

Tapping into expertise around the University to aid innovation

An open process for collaboration with other units as well as the central UWP

4.2.5 Personal development and knowledge transfer

Personal development and knowledge transfer was identified by participants within the developers group as a positive. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 6). The following comments were made by the group:

Improve skills by learning from each other

Get input from range of experienced professionals

Improve Drupal knowledge / skills

4.2.6 Agility

Agility was identified by participants within the services group as a positive. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 4). The following comments were made by the group:

Specific process to introduce code into EdWeb


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

A road map that reflects changing real-life business needs

Consistent Dev experience – easier / quicker

Training in possibilities and methodology

Potential for green-lighting of development ideas

Enable continuous service enhancement

Opportunity to develop skills

Flexibility to maintain EdWeb

Built in constraints (could be negative too)

4.2.7 Community support and engagement

Community support and engagement was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a positive. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 4). The following comments were made by the group:

Sharing information and advice

Knowing who to talk to in other units

Building a University wide web community

Improved support networks

Improved communication for end users

Encouraging each other to think about best practice

4.2.8 Communities

Communities was identified by participants within the services group as a positive. The following comments were made by the group:

Open up to create a University web community

More engagement within community

Better communication enabling faster feedback and changes in Dev being made more quickly

4.2.9 Quality of CMS

Quality of CMS was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a positive. The following comments were made by the group:

A product (website) better suited to business needs

EdWeb should reflect needs of range of users


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

4.2.10 External community

External community was identified by participants within the developers group as a positive. The following comments were made by the group:

Open source

Drupal community (world)

4.2.11 Process and code quality

Process and code quality was identified by participants within the developers group as a positive. The following comments were made by the group:

Streamline our development processes more generally

Write code to set standards and guidance

Change culture of how we develop our services, not just EdWeb

More brains – better quality as more QA of code

Significant skill sets can be tapped into if community development is expanded

Efficiencies of Dev effort

4.2.12 System and business benefits

System and business benefits was identified by participants within the developers group as a positive. The following comments were made by the group:

Be able to set realistic timescales for bug fixes

In control – at least potentially (open source)

Technology evolves to what is being used not what is imposed

Opportunity to fund solutions that meet requirements for a range of business areas

Being able to fix bugs in EdWeb

Changes made quicker when appropriate

4.2.13 Clear view of future direction

Clear view of future direction was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a positive. The following comments were made by the group:

Clear understanding of short and medium term goals


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

Visibility of plans means that users are able to plan

Better understanding of what is possible (for / by me)

Clear view of future developments and direction

Improved knowledge of long term picture

Clarification of processes

Clarity of process when engaging with development

Shared standards and QA

4.2.14 Planning

Planning was identified by participants within the services group as a positive. The following comments were made by the group:

Transparency in planning

Easier planning at programme level

Collaborative and focused planning

Increased funding for new developments

Clearer prioritisation of requirements

Our web not yours

4.2.15 Training and documentation

Training and documentation was identified by participants within the developers group as a positive. The following comments were made by the group:

CMS user documentation

Training evolves with discussion

Support and training provided centrally

4.3 Negatives

4.3.1 Funding / Finance

The risk ranked highest by workshop participants was funding / finance (assigned a priority of 22). This was seen to be the most important issue by all workshop participants and was discussed and noted within all three groups. The following are some of the comments that were made by the groups around this theme:

Lack of funds to support the framework

Lack of time and skills to contribute effectively

Lack of resources to support the framework

Value for money – unwillingness to accept the cost


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

High cost of building successful community

Over-abundance of good ideas that then end up not being possible due to budget contraints

Can / will people invest in development?

Some departments get a free ride

Lack of funding impacts on website quality

No money – no development?

May encourage University to reduce funding and rely on community

Lack of resource for development

Lack of a funding model

Should the web project be funded on a project basis

Full community development plans fail due to lack of central funding

Lack of funding for EdWeb team – shouldn’t underestimate how key web presence is

4.3.2 Developer resource

Developer resource was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a negative. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 8). The following comments were made by the group:

Lack of resources

Development is driven solely by funding and not by real priority

Not enough resources to deliver improvements

Difficulty in supplying devolved resource / developer time

Lower business priority for web development

Are there sufficient skilled developers for the model?

4.3.3 Development constraints

Development constraints was identified by participants within the developers group as a negative. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 7). The following comments were made by the group:

Potential QA bottlenecks (sign-off by business)

Longer development times

Documents need to evolve at speed of development – coordination tricky

Potential code review bottlenecks (tech sign-off)

Poorly implemented Dev framework causes delay

Keeping automated testing suites up to date

Layers / bureaucracy

Too many interruptions on main developers

Will I have the time / skills to be able to contribute effectively


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

4.3.4 Development process management

Development process management was identified by participants within the developers group as a negative. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 6). The following comments were made by the group:

No clarity on who’s working on what

No development deadlines for deployments

Lack of clear development process

Fragmentation – fork if one group doesn’t agree with main direction

4.3.5 Lack of speed

Lack of speed was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a negative. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 4). The following comments were made by the group:

Process for change becomes slow / difficult (not agile)

Can UWP support process (devolved development)?

Lengthy forms to request developments (complicated processes)

Bottlenecks where the process stalls

4.3.6 Devolved institution

Devolved institution was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a negative. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a priority of 4). The following comments were made by the group:

Potentially more difficult for units to express their unique identity within the corporate brand

Corporate branding not acceptable to all in all circumstances

Danger of a one-size fits all approach, less flexibility. Standard functionality imposed inappropriately or just because it will have to do

Functionality has to reflect expectations of modern website

4.3.7 Technology

A number of technology related risks were identified by participants within the developers group as a negative. The following comments were made by the group:

PHP vulnerabilities

Consider new acquired 3rd party systems integration

Failure to integrate existing systems (causes duplicate effort)


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

Drupal security vulnerabilities

PHP generally slower than Python libraries

Need to move with the framework – migration to next Drupal version in time for de-support of Drupal 7

4.3.8 Expectations

Expectations was identified by participants within the developers group as a negative. The following comments were made by the group:

Moving red lines

Unmet requirements specifications

Unrealistic expectations – ‘why can’t you just do X?’

4.3.9 Future view

Future view was identified by participants within the services group as a negative. The following comments were made by the group:

EdWeb distribution lags behind Drupal

LAMP vulnerabilities

Support and development cycles don’t sync or have different purposes

After Drupal?

4.3.10 Support and training difficulties

Support and training difficulties was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a negative. The following comments were made by the group:

There is an unmet need for online training courses

Staff skills nor advanced enough to help

4.3.11 Framework support

Framework support was identified by participants within the services group as a negative. The following comments were made by the group:

Audience level

Paying only lip service to collaboration

Stakeholders understanding and accepting the project process

Lack of engagement from funders

Lacking a streamlined framework

Not completing process of establishing collaboration


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

Getting the right message to the right people

Processes not communicated enough – do people know / are aware?

Things take so long to plan

4.3.12 Priority and comeback

Priority and comeback was identified by participants within the developers group as a negative. The following comments were made by the group:

Who has the final say on things – transparency

Disagreement about Dev priorities

Disagreement over the right answer to a problem or the correct solution

Potential lack of clarity on process

Funding model gives preference to units with money

Who is the contact point for issues

Competing priorities in different business areas

Some requirements may not be approved

4.3.13 Quality of development

Quality of development was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a negative. The following comments were made by the group:

Consistency of user experience in CMS – will this suffer with multiple devolved developments?

Quality of development – will it suffer?

System becomes too complex if all developments are introduced

Product does not develop its potential

4.3.14 Conflicting requirements

Conflicting requirements was identified by participants within the digital professionals group as a negative. The following comments were made by the group:

Process needs to be clear – what will be accepted? Who else is working on this before developers invest time

Lack of a central resource to make decisions on grey areas of the process

4.3.15 Business needs

Business needs was identified by participants within the services group as a negative. The following comments were made by the group:


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

Silos

Local development focuses on isolated needs and does not reflect University requirements

Mismatching business priorities

Competing priorities

4.4 Combined Positives and Negatives

4.4.1 Support

Support and support challenges were identified by participants within the services group as both a positive and a negative. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a combined priority of 8). The following comments were made by the group:

Not enough documentation for support team

Speed of development leaves average user behind

Lack of understanding of necessary consistency (editorial, design)

Developments too technical to support

Slow delivery reduces engagement / faith / motivation

Agile development introduces new bugs due to speed

Affected by external change – framework changes may come at bad times

Talk to a Drupal expert when I’m stuck

Support communities for HTML, PHP, CSS

Possibility of creating more efficient and helpful user documentation due to quick collaboration with developers

Good Wiki documentation

4.4.2 Communication

Communication was identified as both a positive and a negative by participants within the developers and digital professionals groups respectively. This was also ranked by workshop participants as a category with one of the highest priorities (assigned a combined priority of 8). The following comments were made by the group:

More engagement with IS

Improved communication and collaboration between IS and schools

Opportunity to work collaboratively across schools / University

Shared language for tagging

Breaking down silo walls

If communication / documentation not kept up to date then duplication could be hidden in the system

Visibility – people may not be aware otherwise


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

Information provided not clear or difficult to find

Assumed knowledge (everyone knows but they don’t)

Committees / decision maker groups contain the wrong people

4.4.3 Standards

Standards was identified by participants within the services group as both a positive and a negative. This was also ranked by all workshop participants as an area with one of the highest priorities (assigned a combined priority of 7). The following comments were made by the group:

Time to get developer code onto live

Multiple developers can lead to difficult to read code

Bottlenecks eg at merge request

Code not following development standards

Quality control of UAT

Not standardised submitted code

Loosely established standards

Frameworks may cause inefficient code

Ideas coming from so many sources run the risk of them being duplicated, not presented in the same way, or overwhelm development team and take too much time to sort through

Develop local rather than use existing modules

Inertia in complexity


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

5 Cause and Effect Analysis

5.1 Summary

The following cause and effect analysis focuses on comments within the top three negatives across the groups (as prioritised by the workshop participants). Ishikawa diagrams are used to show the root causes and the perceived effects.

5.2 Funding / finance

There was a perception across the groups that there is a lack of funds and resources to support and develop the framework, and there was uncertainty about how the framework should best be funded in the future. The effect of this is a potential detrimental impact on the quality of the website (quality of end website is seen to currently be a positive).


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

5.2.1 Developer resource

There was a perception that there is a lack of skilled developers and that web development doesn’t receive a high enough business priority. The effect of this is an impact on the ability to deliver improvements.

5.2.2 Development constraints

QA and code review bottlenecks, keeping automated testing suites updated and bureaucracy were seen to lead to longer development times.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 27

6 As-Is and To-Be Process Mapping

6.1 Overview

Workshop participants identified a number of prioritised areas that could benefit from further focus. The top three negatives across the groups (as prioritised by the participants) were:

1. Funding / finance 2. Developer resource 3. Development constraints and development process management

Other priority areas (combined positives and negatives) included:

1. Support 2. Communication 3. Standards

There were also a number of positives from which lessons learned can be drawn. The top four positives across the groups (including a joint third - as prioritised by the participants) were:

1. University community and ownership 2. Quality of end website 3. Improved efficiency of development 4. Collaboration

Positives, negatives and priorities from the workshop have informed the development of an action plan to develop and implement improved EdWeb framework processes. The current (‘as is’) processes and planned future (‘to be’) processes are show below.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ of 27

6.2 As-Is and To-Be Process Map


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ of 27

6.3 Action Plan

There is a need to ensure that we evolve our processes for collaboration into a clear framework, allowing us to maximise the benefit to EdWeb from the Drupal knowledge and experience around the University. Actions below are based on the identified priority areas and comments from workshop participants.

1. Identify funding streams. 2. Secure baseline funding for framework, developer resources and

development training. 3. Develop communications strategy to engage with funders and to enable

securing of adhoc funding or resources. The communications strategy will ensure visibility of potential business benefits across schools and colleges.

4. Define governance arrangements. 5. Ensure project processes align with framework. 6. Define process and criteria for identifying approved developers. 7. Document and clarify prioritisation processes. 8. Improve module documentation. 9. Consolidate distribution and developer guidance. 10. Develop standards for EdGEL. 11. Clarify corporate standards for use of EdGEL elements. 12. Plan future Technical Peer Group (TPG) events around framework 13. Identify avenues for non-code contribution (eg documents). 14. Streamline, document and communicate development processes. Ensure any

potential bottlenecks are clearly understood and incorporated into the planning process. Include documentation of Agile process and roles and responsibilities.

15. Identify training levels for developers. 16. Produce a resources staffing strategy – ensuring there is scalability and

flexibility when needed.