Greetings SIG members:

We will tomorrow, Friday, June 7, at 8:30 ET. Agenda: https://wiki.folio.org/display/RM/2019-06-07+Meeting+notes

In our agenda for tomorrow I’d like to spend some time discussing how to approach a request from the Capacity Planning Team to review features listed in Jira. The Capacity Planning Team (see text of email below from Holly) is concerned about completing all features for institutions that are planning to implement in 2020. In some cases, they are concerned that what institutions are ranking as “Go Live” in the Jira system does not reflect SIG priorities, take into consideration alternative features that may be available, or are for features that are large in scope and many only have a specific subsection required for Go Live. As a SIG, we generally have not looked at Jira features at all, and my main connection with Jira has been through the prioritization exercise in my capacity at Chicago as a FOLIO implementer. I feel like in the SIGs, we have had many conversations from a workflow/UX perspective, and POs have taken those conversations into actionable items in Jira, but this process may have developed a gap. Our SIG composition does not overlap completely with all FOLIO implementers. The recommendation is for the Product Owners to review Jira features to provide clarification and description and then ask the implementers to review changed Jiras.

I am working on how we want to approach this with the RM SIG. We have several groups under us with different areas:

· Acquisitions, with Dennis Bridges

· ERM, with Owen Stephens

· eUsage, with Annika Schröer

Additionally, Khalilah Gambrell has been heading up eHoldings development and Martina Schildt has convened the App Interaction Group.

How we choose to do this review does not have to be the same for all areas. We could use some of the Friday RM SIG time for some areas, or ask the smaller groups to review their own areas, or a combination of both. We could refactor some of our meetings at FOLIO F2F to perform some of this review. We will need to reach out to any institutions that are part of the direct discussions in order for them to re-review the Jiras. We don’t have a hard deadline for completion, but a review prior to the Stakeholder’s meeting July 23-24 will help with project planning.

Please review the links to the presentation and the spreadsheet below in advance of tomorrow’s meeting and come with some ideas about how we can approach this.

Holly’s message:

At this morning’s Product Council meeting I presented the Capacity Planning Results as presented to the Capacity Planning Team on Tuesday morning.  The presentation is available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Og1DQV3wLyOU7mUTqnP-qRI6BObe0F9A/view?usp=sharing.  As you know, the major outcome is that none of the libraries will have all of their go-live features ready when they need them.  Each institution will need to reduce their go-live features if they want to implement as scheduled.   A primary difficulty with our current approach is that the JIRA issues for the features often don’t have enough information to make an informed ranking decision.  Rather than have the institutions go back and review their rankings using the same approach as before, we came up with what seems like a more effective approach.  Please let us know what you (and the other POs think).

We would like the POs to guide the SIG members to understanding each feature so they can determine if the features really are needed at go-live (or the within the first quarter after go-live).  Not all institutions will have the same answer, of course, but everyone will be able to make a more informed decision.   We will need to handle cross-app features with special consideration.

The POs should not have a ton of prep to do—mostly just talk about the features.  The spreadsheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eHmRKUH2mzurOLL7iaaHV65qHpvGnyN8j5YNxocMUJ4/edit?usp=sharing lists of all of the remaining issues sorted by Epic within PO.   The POs will walk the SIG members through the process, which I am thinking would work something like this…

1. Prepare for session

a. Assign someone to update the JIRA features with more details as they are discussed.  This way the PO just needs to talk and someone else will record what they say for everyone to see going forward.

b. Ask all SIG members to have the spreadsheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eHmRKUH2mzurOLL7iaaHV65qHpvGnyN8j5YNxocMUJ4/edit?usp=sharingopen so they can edit the Rank for their institution as the features are discussed (the spreadsheet has both an Original Rank and New Rank field for each institution)

2. You may want to start by looking at the ranking order of the features—or you can just jump to step #3 below

1. a.       Does anything look “off”?   In other words, something is ranked very high/low inappropriately--you may want to address obvious issues immediately

2. b.      Are any dependencies out of order?  Some have already been fixed—you can update the rank in the New PO Rank field, which is to the right of the Original PO Rank field

3. Review features with SIG to clarify what they are (while discussing, assigned person should be updating JIRA issue with clarifying information).

4. SIG members should be discussing these questions

a. Is this really a go-live feature?  (if not, update working spreadsheet for institution)

b. If it is, is there really just a part of the feature that is needed at go-live?  Could we split out that part of it?

c. Is there a reasonable workaround for all or part of the feature?

3. After the feature has been discussed, place a “Yes” in the Processed? column--there is also a column for Comments

4. The results will be shared with the Product Council and the institutions so that any discrepancies can be addressed and resolved ASAP

Kristin E. Martin

Director of Technical Services

The University of Chicago Library

773-834-2702

kmarti@uchicago.edu