Workflow Prioritization (Value/Feasibility)

In the middle of November, 2015 the WVU Libraries Systems Office development team facilitated a structured request and workflow experiment, using a design management/thinking strategy.

SOME CONTEXT The majority of the development team’s projects come simultaneously from

internal systems work, the WVRHC, the Web Team, various committees, and individual requests.

There are a myriad of different projects and tasks that range from web applications, usability testing, digital collections, third-party applications, custom development, custom design, custom website development, and special projects (gamification, OAT, etc.).

… and there’s a lot more.

THE PROBLEM Often the loudest voices get their work completed.

We don’t know what is truly important to stakeholders, personnel, or patrons/users.

We seem to be in a waterfall workflow wherein deadlines are decided without our input.

There is no order of what projects we should work on and what projects should slide.

• Personnel are largely unaware of each other's projects, what others are doing, oreven the Systems Office development team’s priorities.

• We are a staff of three.

GOALS & OUTCOMES We need to move away from the backlog table.

We must move from a waterfall to an agile workflow.

We needed a way to get multiple stakeholder's input, while being aware of each other's projects.

We need to focus on value to users and personnel in regards to viability and feasibility.

MANAGEMENT/THINKINGThe WVU Libraries Systems Office development team employed a strategy from UX Intensive, a four-day workshop series for UX professionals/design managers that examines:

Design Strategy

Design Research

Service Design

Interaction Design

1/3 Get similar stakeholders together.

Have them make a list of major tasks and projects for the next six months that require the involvement of the development team.

Count the number of tasks.

Multiply the number of tasks by three

…that is their number of total points.

THE STRATEGY 2/3:

The stakeholders then discuss the tasks and assign points to each task in regards to their:• IMPORTANCE/VALUE to both the users/patrons and the

library/personnel, where the most valuable are higher numbers.

• VIABILITY/FEASABILITY where the least effort, cost, or maintenance are higher numbers .

* Stakeholders are limited by the total number of points, and every task has to have at least one point.

3/3From these results the Systems Office development team can:

visualize projects and tasks for everyone.

ensure that different teams and stakeholders have the same opportunity to set priorities based on value and feasibility.

know where to start working based on what takes the least amount of time, and what is most important to stakeholders, personnel and users.

know what is least important, and takes a large amount of time to complete.

MEETING TIMEWe called for separate meetings that incorporated all of the members of the Web Team, the WVRHC, and the Systems Office.

WEB TEAM

Anna Crawford, Hilary Fredette, Jane LaBarbara, David Roth, Genifer Snipes, Jessica Tapia, and Alyssa Wright.

TASKS

Project/Task

IMPORTANCE/VALUE (to Clients/Library): mostvaluable are higher numbers

VIABILITY/FEASABILITY: least effort, cost, or maintenance are higher numbers

Archive Intranet CommitteesHomepage Quick LinksNews RedesignAlert BoxDirectory/Hours/Maps IntegrationDatabase UpdatesAvailable ComputersEngine CMSRoomMe UpdatesCollections RedesignPlagarism Tutorial RedesignMobile UX TestWVRHC UX TestNew Searchbox v.2 UX Test

IMPORTANCE/VALUE

Project/Task



Archive Intranet Committees 1 5Homepage Quick Links 1 4News Redesign 2 3Alert Box 3 5Directory/Hours/Maps Integration 2 2Database Updates 5 3Available Computers 1 2Engine CMS 4 1RoomMe Updates 3 3Collections Redesign 5 3Plagarism Tutorial Redesign 4 2Mobile UX Test 3 3WVRHC UX Test 4 3New Searchbox v.2 UX Test 4 3

VIABILITY/FEASIBILITY

Project/Task



Archive Intranet Committees 1 5Homepage Quick Links 1 4News Redesign 2 3Alert Box 3 5Directory/Hours/Maps Integration 2 2Database Updates 5 3Available Computers 1 2Engine CMS 4 1RoomMe Updates 3 3Collections Redesign 5 3Plagarism Tutorial Redesign 4 2Mobile UX Test 3 3WVRHC UX Test 4 3New Searchbox v.2 UX Test 4 3

PROJECT PRIORITY

Archive

Homepage Quick Links

News

Alert

Directory/Hours/Maps Integration

Database Updates

Available Computers

Engine CMS

RoomMe Updates

Collections Redesign

Plagarism Tutorial

Redesign

Mobile UX Test

WVRHC UX Test

New Searchbox v.2 UX Test

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

FE

ASA

BIL

ITY

VALUE

FOCUS

CONSIDER

NEGLECT

WVRHC

John Cuthbert, Lori Hostuttler, Danielle Emerling, Laura Bell, Anna Schein, Michael Ridderbusch, and Jane LaBarbara.

TASKSProject/Task

IMPORTANCE/VALUE (to Clients/Library): most valuable arehigher numbers


Rockefeller Finding Aid Web Site 6 3Jerry West Digital Collection 6 2IAI migration to Hydra 2 5OnView Migration to Hydra 5 4PEC Migration to Hydra 3 5George Bird Evans in Hydra 3 3Overall Hydra Head 3 1MFCS Documentation 1 4MFCS Usability Testing 2 5Hollow Website Update 1 1A&M Guide Migration to Hydra 3 4A&M Guide Migration to Archives Space 1 1Art & Artifacts in Hydra 2 2Folk Music in Hydra 3 1WVRHC Watermarks, Banner, & Logo 4 6Rockefeller Photographs in Hydra 6 3GEO Explorer Rebuilding 1 1Strother Digital Collection 2 3

IMPORTANCE/VALUEProject/Task




VIABILITY/FEASIBILITYProject/Task




PROJECT PRIORITY

Rockefeller

Jerry West Digital Collection

IAI migration to Hydra

OnView Migration to Hydra

PEC Migration to Hydra

George Bird Evans in Hydra

Overall Hydra Head

MFCS Documentation

MFCS Usability Testing

Hollow

A&M Guide Migration to Hydra

A&M Guide Migration to

Art & Artifacts in Hydra

Folk Music in Hydra

WVRHC Watermarks, Banner, & Logo

Rockefeller Photograph

GEO Explorer Rebuilding

Strother Digital Collection

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FE

ASA

BIL

ITY

VALUE

FOCUS

CONSIDER

NEGLECT

SYSTEMS OFFICE

Web Search SSL Bypass

SUMA

Help Desk

QR / RSS Feed RoomMe

MFCS Improvements

eNotification Updates

eReserves for Potomac State

Hydra Interface UX Testing

Ansible

Backups

Webalizer Across Servers

Upgrade Servers to

Software Website

Camel

OAI PMH Compliance

Server Maitennace

Nagia Updates

MySQL Modifications

GitHub/Automate Pull to

Automation of eReserves

Resident Borrower Updates

Security Center

UpdateseReserves Updates

Squid

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FE

ASA

BIL

ITY

VALUE

FOCUS

CONSIDER

NEGLECT

PROJECT PRIORITY

ALL TOGETHER…

Archive Intranet Committees

Homepage Quick

News

Alert Box

Directory/Hours/M

Database

Availabl

Engine CMS

RoomMe Updates

Collecti

Plagarism

Tutorial

Mobile

WVRHC UX

New Searchbox

Rockefeller

Finding

Jerry West Digital

IAI migration to Hydra

OnView Migration to

PEC Migration to

George Bird Evans in Hydra

Overall Hydra Head

MFCS Documentat

MFCS Usability Testing

Hollow Website



Art & Artifacts in

Folk Music in Hydra

WVRHC Watermarks,

Rockefeller

GEO

Strother Digital

Web Search SSL Bypass

SUMA

Help Desk

QR / RSS Feed RoomMe

MFCS Improvemen

eNotification UpdateseReserves

Hydra Interface UX

Ansible

Backups

Webalizer

Across

Upgrade

Software

Camel

OAI PMH Complian

Server

Nagia Updates

MySQL

GitHub/Automate Pull to

Automation of eReserves

Resident

Security eReserves Updates

Squid

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FE

ASA

BIL

ITY

VALUE

FOCUS

CONSIDER

NEGLECT

PROJECT PRIORITY

▪Web Team ▫WVRHC ▪Systems

FORWARDWe would like to use this strategy going forward - possibly on a every-six-months basis - to gauge major project/task importance, involvement, management, and priority. All participants seemed very happy with the results and information, but some concerns were:

Who are the stakeholders for rogue projects, and how do value and feasibility get decided (i.e. MDID Help Pages, Agnic Collection, DPI, My Library Portal, Appalachian Bibliography, Library Game, etc.)?

Do we meet biannually or quarterly?

* This data is now three months old.

Workflow Prioritization (Value/Feasibility)

Education

Transcript of Workflow Prioritization (Value/Feasibility)