Feedback on Process of Project Review. Refer request 8/27/09
Following on from the steering committee notes, I'd like to inject a related issue to how we staff the Type A and B functions. This is a critical part of the project decision making / funding process we need to further develop.
The assumption is that any new project (type-B) will need to be supported after the project has completed. This support would either be performed by the staff associated with the program (IST) or managed by the museum who benefited from the project. In either case, there would be an implicit acceptance of the type-A ongoing workload as a result of moving forward with the project. That incremental workload also needs to be considered as well to ensure we have the ability to manage a growing legacy code-base.
In the event that IST was expected to maintain the systems after they were developed (type A operations, bug fixes, small enhancements, etc.), we would want them to be developed in such a way that they met the technical/supportability goals and standards, as well as functionally scoped so that (where possible) the projects could be leveraged by more than one museum or integrate with other parts of our platform.
For that reason, for any of the work that would be ultimately supported within the BNHM-IST partnership, I'd like to make the following recommendations:
- The IST team contribute to the design and estimates of new projects (and related support effort) to be performed within the context of the partnership (including if IST will be expected to support the system). This should ideally happen before the grant is submitted and during other important planning and design stages, and obviously requires some good communication and coordination.
- We have strong technical oversight from Patrick Schmitz and team to set a technical roadmap and standards.
- We have functional oversight from Chris Hoffman and the BNHM-IST advisory committee and technical representatives on what gets built and how we can coordinate development to impact as many groups as possible.
- Chris and Patrick's teams monitor the development of the projects and are involved in handoff processes as appropriate. The BNHM-IST Advisory Committee and technical representatives should also have better visibility into project status.
- Chris will be keeping his team capacity/forecast up to date and posted on the web, as well as the list of project requests. We should therefore be able to monitor the impact of successive new workload of type-A functions.
- Ideally, because the IST will be heavily involved in supporting the systems, it makes strong sense to also have them involved in development activities which sounds like a creative blending of funding sources for the team.
I'd like to get your reactions to this so we can agree to an approach and then send a communication out. Please send me comments via email and we can touch base on it again at the next steering committee meeting.
Decision: Need to discussion further, for communication to researchers.