The document discusses process maturity and the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework. It explains that CMMI was developed to address software project failures and defines five levels of process maturity for organizations, from initial/ad hoc processes at level 1 to optimized continuous improvement at level 5. The document provides examples of characteristics and processes typical of lower and higher maturity levels. It argues that technology management should be a core competency for all organizations to help ensure project success and avoid failures resulting from a lack of technology expertise or defined processes.
Beyond the Knowledge Base: Turning Data into Wisdom - an ITSM Academy WebinarKaren Skiles
Many organizations live perceiving Knowledge Management begins and ends with a Knowledge Base. However, a more robust Knowledge Management process exists. The KM process is a pipeline to Continual Service Improvement. This presentation provides insight and methods for developing and implementing a more comprehensive Knowledge Management process leading to improvement throughout the enterprise. This presentation covers design of the KM process, DIKW and its usages, the KM-CSI connection, knowledge repositories and much more.
Beyond the Knowledge Base: Turning Data into Wisdom - an ITSM Academy WebinarKaren Skiles
Many organizations live perceiving Knowledge Management begins and ends with a Knowledge Base. However, a more robust Knowledge Management process exists. The KM process is a pipeline to Continual Service Improvement. This presentation provides insight and methods for developing and implementing a more comprehensive Knowledge Management process leading to improvement throughout the enterprise. This presentation covers design of the KM process, DIKW and its usages, the KM-CSI connection, knowledge repositories and much more.
Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly VirtuesBrian Sullivan
People usually remember the seven deadly sins, but they forget the seven Heavenly virtues. The seven virtues actually deflate the seven sins. It is about balance with your family, friends, and work. Enjoy.
Know the 7 deadly sins which are root sins that give rise to other sins. Be aware of the different forms these sins take in our lives and learn how to fight them with the 7 heavenly virtues.
Lightweight processes are beginning to replace more formal methods. The motivation for this transition is based on many factors. The Internet, time to market, cost reduction, quality increases, market pressures, as well as the popularization of these programming methods. This series of articles will investigate the various lightweight methods, their impact on the management of software development projects and the processes by which managers can determine the appropriateness and usefulness of
the various processes.
The waterfall, a commonly misapprehended methodological conceptAxel Vanhooren
Waterfall as methodological concept; right usage of methodologies; purpose of phases; possibilities for flexibility, continuous improvement, scalability, fast delivery, iterations, continuous testing, advantages & disadvantages, ...
PM Chapter on Agile IT Project Management MethodsGlen Alleman
The nations prosperity depends of information technology (IT) software. The nation’s IT software industry depends on the timely delivery of high quality products to eager customers. This industry is slipping further behind in quality and timely delivery every year. The gap continues to grow.
A Global Web Enablement Framework for Small Charities and Voluntary Sector Or...Tom Robinson
With more people gaining access to the internet every day, the web enabling of core services and business processes is becoming essential. There is a great deal of existing research covering techniques and approaches to web enablement for commercial and public sector organisations, but very little that is aimed specifically at small charities and voluntary sector organisations. Numerous studies have shown that charities often lag behind commercial organisations when it comes to their internet infrastructure and the extent of web enablement. This dissertation investigates the needs and issues which charities face, in order to define a number of key web enablement aims and objectives. Some problems are unique to the charitable sector whilst others apply to all types of organisations.
As most web applications can be accessed from anywhere in the world, globalisation is an inherent web development issue. A number of the most common issues associated with globalisation are examined and current best practice solutions suggested.
The Foundations, Fundamentals, Features and Future (F4) Framework is the outcome of the research into the situation, needs and issues faced by charitable organisations. It offers a simple but detailed framework designed specially for web enablement projects within charitable organisations. The framework is broken down into four key stages of web enablement – foundations, fundamentals, features and future possibility. Through the four layers, the framework covers key business drivers, internet access and security, error-handling techniques through to global database access and undeveloped future technologies.
The framework was developed and refined through research and work undertaken with GAP Activity Projects, a worldwide gap year charity. To demonstrate the implementation of the framework, GAP is used as a case study. A number of web and related applications are developed and evaluated including an online application system, mass mailing tools and an extranet application. The case study demonstrates a number of novel techniques that have been developed to solve some of the problems which were faced, including the use of XML as a data storage method and a unique form validation technique.
Although the evaluation of the framework shows that it meets well the objectives it set out to achieve, there are opportunities for improvement and future work. A number of future expansions possibilities are examined including the use of mobile technology and content management systems.
Today’s IT investments require bottom-line, quantifiable truths and Unified communications (UC) is no exception. This whitepaper covers best practice tips on building a comprehensive business case for UC systems
Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on SysDaliaCulbertson719
Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999
Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999
Five Reasons for Scenario-Based Design
John M. Carroll
Department of Computer Science and
Center for Human-Computer Interaction
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0106
Tel: 1-540-231-8453
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Scenarios of human-computer interaction help us to
understand and to create computer systems and
applications as artifacts of human activity Ñas things to
learn from, as tools to use in one's work, as media for
interacting with other people. Scenario-based design of
information technology addresses five technical
challenges: Scenarios evoke reflection in the content of
design work, helping developers coordinate design action
and reflection. Scenarios are at once concrete and flexible,
helping developers manage the fluidy of design situations.
Scenarios afford multiple views of an interaction, diverse
kinds and amounts of detailing, helping developers
manage the many consequences entailed by any given
design move. Scenarios can also be abstracted and
categorized, helping designers to recognize, capture, and
reuse generalizations, and to address the challenge that
technical knowledge often lags the needs of technical
design. Finally, scenarios promote work-oriented
communication among stakeholders, helping to make
design activities more accessible to the great variety of
expertise that can contribute to design, and addressing the
challenge that external constraints designers and clients
often distract attention from the needs and concerns of the
people who will use the technology.
1. Introduction
Designers of information systems and applications face
a disturbing reality. While there is plenty of opportunity
to do things that make a difference, it is never unequivocal
just what should be done, or even just what the real
problems are. The problems can only be definitively
analyzed by being solved; the appropriate solution
methods must typically be executed in order to be
identified; the solutions must be implemented in order to
be specified. All the while, the designer faces convoluted
networks of tradeoff and interdependency, the potential of
0-7695-0001-3/99 $10
untoward impacts on people and their social institutions,
and the likelihood that changing cultural and technological
circumstances will obviate any solution before it can be
deployed.
Most software engineering methods belong to a
methodological tradition that seeks to control the
complexity and fluidity of design through techniques that
filter the information considered and decompose the
problems to be solved. A complementary tradition seeks
to exploit the complexity and fluidity of design by trying
to learn more about the structure and dynamics of the
problem domain, by trying to see the situation in many
different ways, and by interacting intimately with the
concrete elements of the situ ...
Micro Instructional Design for Problem-Based and Game-Based LearningAndy Petroski
The slides are from a webinar that I facilitated on March 30, 2015. The webinar recording can be viewed at http://www.training-pros.com/newsroom/trainingpros-webinars
Micro ID for Problem-Based and Game-Based Learning
Instructional design is both a process (macro) and a strategy (micro). Micro instructional design models should provide a formula for designing user experience, engagement and interaction that supports learning. Join this online session to explore David Merrill’s Pebble in the Pond (PiP) instructional design model for problem-based learning and consider how it can also be applied to game-based learning design.
Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly VirtuesBrian Sullivan
People usually remember the seven deadly sins, but they forget the seven Heavenly virtues. The seven virtues actually deflate the seven sins. It is about balance with your family, friends, and work. Enjoy.
Know the 7 deadly sins which are root sins that give rise to other sins. Be aware of the different forms these sins take in our lives and learn how to fight them with the 7 heavenly virtues.
Lightweight processes are beginning to replace more formal methods. The motivation for this transition is based on many factors. The Internet, time to market, cost reduction, quality increases, market pressures, as well as the popularization of these programming methods. This series of articles will investigate the various lightweight methods, their impact on the management of software development projects and the processes by which managers can determine the appropriateness and usefulness of
the various processes.
The waterfall, a commonly misapprehended methodological conceptAxel Vanhooren
Waterfall as methodological concept; right usage of methodologies; purpose of phases; possibilities for flexibility, continuous improvement, scalability, fast delivery, iterations, continuous testing, advantages & disadvantages, ...
PM Chapter on Agile IT Project Management MethodsGlen Alleman
The nations prosperity depends of information technology (IT) software. The nation’s IT software industry depends on the timely delivery of high quality products to eager customers. This industry is slipping further behind in quality and timely delivery every year. The gap continues to grow.
A Global Web Enablement Framework for Small Charities and Voluntary Sector Or...Tom Robinson
With more people gaining access to the internet every day, the web enabling of core services and business processes is becoming essential. There is a great deal of existing research covering techniques and approaches to web enablement for commercial and public sector organisations, but very little that is aimed specifically at small charities and voluntary sector organisations. Numerous studies have shown that charities often lag behind commercial organisations when it comes to their internet infrastructure and the extent of web enablement. This dissertation investigates the needs and issues which charities face, in order to define a number of key web enablement aims and objectives. Some problems are unique to the charitable sector whilst others apply to all types of organisations.
As most web applications can be accessed from anywhere in the world, globalisation is an inherent web development issue. A number of the most common issues associated with globalisation are examined and current best practice solutions suggested.
The Foundations, Fundamentals, Features and Future (F4) Framework is the outcome of the research into the situation, needs and issues faced by charitable organisations. It offers a simple but detailed framework designed specially for web enablement projects within charitable organisations. The framework is broken down into four key stages of web enablement – foundations, fundamentals, features and future possibility. Through the four layers, the framework covers key business drivers, internet access and security, error-handling techniques through to global database access and undeveloped future technologies.
The framework was developed and refined through research and work undertaken with GAP Activity Projects, a worldwide gap year charity. To demonstrate the implementation of the framework, GAP is used as a case study. A number of web and related applications are developed and evaluated including an online application system, mass mailing tools and an extranet application. The case study demonstrates a number of novel techniques that have been developed to solve some of the problems which were faced, including the use of XML as a data storage method and a unique form validation technique.
Although the evaluation of the framework shows that it meets well the objectives it set out to achieve, there are opportunities for improvement and future work. A number of future expansions possibilities are examined including the use of mobile technology and content management systems.
Today’s IT investments require bottom-line, quantifiable truths and Unified communications (UC) is no exception. This whitepaper covers best practice tips on building a comprehensive business case for UC systems
Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on SysDaliaCulbertson719
Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999
Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999
Five Reasons for Scenario-Based Design
John M. Carroll
Department of Computer Science and
Center for Human-Computer Interaction
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0106
Tel: 1-540-231-8453
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Scenarios of human-computer interaction help us to
understand and to create computer systems and
applications as artifacts of human activity Ñas things to
learn from, as tools to use in one's work, as media for
interacting with other people. Scenario-based design of
information technology addresses five technical
challenges: Scenarios evoke reflection in the content of
design work, helping developers coordinate design action
and reflection. Scenarios are at once concrete and flexible,
helping developers manage the fluidy of design situations.
Scenarios afford multiple views of an interaction, diverse
kinds and amounts of detailing, helping developers
manage the many consequences entailed by any given
design move. Scenarios can also be abstracted and
categorized, helping designers to recognize, capture, and
reuse generalizations, and to address the challenge that
technical knowledge often lags the needs of technical
design. Finally, scenarios promote work-oriented
communication among stakeholders, helping to make
design activities more accessible to the great variety of
expertise that can contribute to design, and addressing the
challenge that external constraints designers and clients
often distract attention from the needs and concerns of the
people who will use the technology.
1. Introduction
Designers of information systems and applications face
a disturbing reality. While there is plenty of opportunity
to do things that make a difference, it is never unequivocal
just what should be done, or even just what the real
problems are. The problems can only be definitively
analyzed by being solved; the appropriate solution
methods must typically be executed in order to be
identified; the solutions must be implemented in order to
be specified. All the while, the designer faces convoluted
networks of tradeoff and interdependency, the potential of
0-7695-0001-3/99 $10
untoward impacts on people and their social institutions,
and the likelihood that changing cultural and technological
circumstances will obviate any solution before it can be
deployed.
Most software engineering methods belong to a
methodological tradition that seeks to control the
complexity and fluidity of design through techniques that
filter the information considered and decompose the
problems to be solved. A complementary tradition seeks
to exploit the complexity and fluidity of design by trying
to learn more about the structure and dynamics of the
problem domain, by trying to see the situation in many
different ways, and by interacting intimately with the
concrete elements of the situ ...
Micro Instructional Design for Problem-Based and Game-Based LearningAndy Petroski
The slides are from a webinar that I facilitated on March 30, 2015. The webinar recording can be viewed at http://www.training-pros.com/newsroom/trainingpros-webinars
Micro ID for Problem-Based and Game-Based Learning
Instructional design is both a process (macro) and a strategy (micro). Micro instructional design models should provide a formula for designing user experience, engagement and interaction that supports learning. Join this online session to explore David Merrill’s Pebble in the Pond (PiP) instructional design model for problem-based learning and consider how it can also be applied to game-based learning design.
A powerful tool to manage new product development projects for innovation-driven companies.
In cooperation with: Cranfield University and Johnson & Johnson Santé Beauté France SAS
Module 4 SLP, we return our focus from the specifics of informat.docxhelzerpatrina
Module 4 SLP, we return our focus from the specifics of information technologies and the formulation of ideal strategies to the wider world of real corporate behavior. Our emphasis now shifts to the actual implementation of information technologies and the sociotechnical dynamics that implementation not infrequently founders upon. No technical solution—however brilliantly designed or competently backstopped or elegantly integrated with other corporate plans—is any better than its implementation at the lowest levels of the system to which it is addressed. All too frequently, plans and solutions are developed in a vacuum apart from the context within which they are to be deployed and used. It is hard to overestimate the quantity of corporate resources that have been squandered on poor IT implementations over the years—to say that it would exceed the GNP of many third world countries would probably not be an exaggeration. Implementation is by no means an all-or-nothing proposition; even though the full measure of system changes may not be as successful as desired, there can often be positive local results, particularly if the implementation process is oriented toward learning as well as doing, or even more so, doing unto others. The one sure way to implementation failure is to assume that all knowledge resides in IT management—or even in management generally. Success is inevitably based on user involvement in varying degrees, generally more rather than less.
All modules in the course draw on everything that you have learned in the program; however, this module most specifically draws on your courses in computer-human interaction, systems development, and project management as well as on your general introductory courses. Implementation is a drawn-out process requiring effective collaboration among many different kinds of specialists and generalists, extended over time and across space, and requiring explicit attention to both the social and technical systems of the organizational units affected. Above all, implementation must be sensitive to feedback, resilient enough to deal with changing circumstances, personnel, and goals, and focused much more on the users than on the technologists. Effective implementation always embraces the fundamental sociotechnical criterion of "incompletion"—that is, the idea that no change process is ever "finished" as such, but that change is an ever-flowing river in which one set of adjustments is merely the prelude to another set. Sociotechnical life in organizations is a soap opera, not a novel. There is never a "happily ever after," just an ever-evolving and constantly reconfiguring cast of players and problems. Sometimes things get better; sometimes they get worse—but they will always be different.
Videos of Interest… Something to Think About…
Andrew McAfee discusses an array of revolutionary technologies that are replacing routine jobs with machines that can speak, understand, translate, and hear. McAfee bel.
Microsoft Dynamics RoleTailored Business ProductivityCRMreviews
http://bit.ly/SalesforceVSmsCRM - - - - - Comparison Webinar: Microsoft CRM 2011 vs Salesforce.com
Overview
Businesses don’t garner insights or make decisions. Businesses don’t close deals, invent new products, or find new efficiencies.
People do.
Companies excel when they empower their people to drive the business forward.
Strategies, organization, motivation, and leadership all set the stage for business success. But to see results, you also have to give your people the right tools, information, and opportunities—because success ultimately comes down to your people. We call a business that fosters a winning environment a “people-ready business.”
Software is instrumental to the people-ready business. Software is increasingly how we harness information, the lifeblood of business today. Software enables people to turn data into insight, transform ideas into action, and turn change into opportunity.
Microsoft is building the next generation of breakthrough business applications designed to amplify the impact of your people. MICROSOFT
Similar to Good Projects Gone Bad: an Introduction to Process Maturity (20)
Shaking Hands with the Future: Culture and Heritage at a Moment Full of ChangeMichael Edson
Keynote for the congress of the Network Oorlogsbronnen (Netherlands WWII data network), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 November 2021.
Note that some of the text/callouts seem hard to read w. SlideShare's new compression scheme — sorry about that! Probably best to download the show and view it in PowerPoint, or, I've put a link to a PDF version on slide 2 (and the links work on the PDF version too!)
(This is the second version of these slides. The previous version was for some reason flagged as suspicious by SlideShare and made irrevocably un-shareable.)
Digital Culture and the Shaking Hand of ChangeMichael Edson
The presentation shows how to create and use a "problem space" to organize complex challenges. The central metaphor for the talk is the "civic handshake" — a process by which different parts of society cooperate through the informal exchange of information and the sharing of responsibilities.
Ignite talk for the Museum Computer Network 2019 conference.
Annotated script with links and references.
A video of the talk: https://youtu.be/Psf-1C3ocDA
A blog post with some context and links: https://www.usingdata.com/usingdata/2019/11/5/the-web-we-want
Keynote for the Prague Platform on the Future of Cultural Heritage, convened by the European Commission, October 7-8, 2019. The Prague Platform talks about
“Enhanced digitally enabled cultural heritage participation for all citizens.”
But what do these words mean? And how might we approach them — as practitioners, communities, governments and institutions, and citizens?
Michael Peter Edson — Robot vs. Human: Who Will Win?Michael Edson
Presentation for the VIII St. Petersburg International Cultural Festival, St. Petersburg, Russia. 16 November 2019. See https://usingdata.com for updates and new versions.
Conference: https://culturalforum.ru.
Panel: https://culturalforum.ru/event/1565208895246-robot-vs-chelovek-kakie-navyki-pobedyat
An overview of how change works, and what can be done to accelerate transformational change in an industry. Created for the Openlab Workshop, December 1-2, 2015 in Washington, DC.
Think Big, Start Small, Move Fast: Digital Strategy in a Changing WorldMichael Edson
Keynote for MMEx digital strategy symposium, Randers, Denmark, August 2015. This presentation discusses the shortcomings of traditional strategy processes and suggests alternatives that emphasize speed, iteration, and a bias for action.
Dark Matter - - the dark matter of the internet is open, social, peer-to-peer...Michael Edson
Keynote for Europeana Creative, Kulturstyrelsen - Danish Agency for Culture, Internet Librarian International (London), Southeastern Museum Conference (USA), Library of Congress Reference Forum, St. John's University Library Forum, University of Oklahoma Digital Humanities Presidential Lecture, Smith Leadership Symposium (Balboa Park, USA)...
The Dark Matter of the Internet - - the dark matter of the internet is open, social, peer-to-peer and read write...and it's the future of libraries, museums, archives, and institutions of all kinds.
Also see the essay on which this talk is based: Dark Matter - - https://medium.com/@mpedson/dark-matter-a6c7430d84d1
And a video of me presenting these slides at the 2014 Southeastern Museums Conference (USA): http://youtu.be/-tdLD5rdRTQ
Boom: Openness and Sharing in the Cultural Heritage SectorMichael Edson
My essay for the book Sharing is Caring: Openness and sharing in the cultural sector, Merete Sanderhoff, editor, published by the National Gallery of Denmark, 2014.
Free download at http://sharingiscaring.smk.dk/en
"Michael opens this anthology by establishing why it is crucial for the cultural heritage sector to seize the opportunity offered by the Internet and digitization to reach global populations and make a difference in their lives. Through many years of pioneering efforts within the field of digital technologies, and generous sharing of expertise and advice, Michael has inspired institutions worldwide to dare working more openly and inclusively with the users’ knowledge and creativity."
Try Not: Do (New Zealand National Digital Forum, Closing Remarks)Michael Edson
Text from a short video for the closing plenary of the 2013 New Zealand National Digital Forum. This was cooked up - - improvised - - with no advanced planning a few hours before Andy Fenton's conference wrap-up.
Many thanks to Andy and everyone at the #ndfnz for allowing me to be there with you, if only for a few minutes, virtually.
The Tortoise and the Hare, Netherlands Museum CongresMichael Edson
Remarks to the Netherlands Museum Congress, October 3, 2013 plenary session keynote. Footnotes and citations are coming later, in an edited version, but let me know if you need sources/links. - - Mike
"Scope, Scale, Speed" -- for the Journal of the American Association of Schoo...Michael Edson
Text (and a few, adapted/simplified graphics) of an article in the May/June 2013 issue (Volume 41, No. 5) of Knowledge Quest, the journal of the American Association of School Librarians. I have included a few adapted /simplified graphics from the article, and I have added hyperlinks and an update/note or two. The original publication was sent to 7,000 school libraries and members of the American Association of School Librarians, and it is also available via several research databases.
The article is published in Knowledge Quest as CC-BY
Keynote for Wikimedia UK GLAM-WIKI conference, British Library, London, April 12, 2013.
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_2013
Also presented at the National Museum, Denmark; Danish Broadcasting; Danskkulturarv.dk; the FIAT/IFTA conference; National Museum Congress, the Netherlands; Arts Council Norway annual conference; J. Boye, Copenhagen
Scope, scale, and speed are the focus of most of my work this year.
"Click to Add Title"/ Thoughts on PresentingMichael Edson
Short presentation for the Museums and the Web Speaker Training webinar.
The session was lead by Loic Tallon and Nancy Proctor, and Peter Samis, Dana Mitroff-Silvers, Amy Heibel and Susan Chun all gave short talks that are well worth looking at ;)
http://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2013-speaker-training-free-webinars/
Are museums a dial that only goes to 5? Michael Edson
For Social Media Week, Washington, D.C., "Defining and measuring social media success in museums and arts organizations." http://socialmediaweek.org/blog/event/are-you-remarkable-defining-and-measuring-social-media-success-in-museums-and-arts-organizations/#.US4XyOtARCQ
Super-Successful GLAMs (Text version with notes)Michael Edson
Opening remarks for The Commons and Digital Humanities in Museums
Sponsored by the City University of New York Digital Humanities Initiative, November 28, 2012
Organized by Neal Stimler and Matt Gold, with Will Noel and Christina DePaolo.
http://cunydhi.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2012/11/07/wednesday-november-28-the-commons-and-digital-humanities-in-museums/
Jack the Museum (Museums in the Age of Scale) -- Text versionMichael Edson
Ignite talk (text version with footnotes) for the Museum Computer Network 2012 annual conference, November 7, 2012, Seattle, WA.
Slides at Slides at
http://www.slideshare.net/edsonm/jack-the-museum-museums-in-the-age-of-scale-15089314
Transcript: Selling digital books in 2024: Insights from industry leaders - T...BookNet Canada
The publishing industry has been selling digital audiobooks and ebooks for over a decade and has found its groove. What’s changed? What has stayed the same? Where do we go from here? Join a group of leading sales peers from across the industry for a conversation about the lessons learned since the popularization of digital books, best practices, digital book supply chain management, and more.
Link to video recording: https://bnctechforum.ca/sessions/selling-digital-books-in-2024-insights-from-industry-leaders/
Presented by BookNet Canada on May 28, 2024, with support from the Department of Canadian Heritage.
GDG Cloud Southlake #33: Boule & Rebala: Effective AppSec in SDLC using Deplo...James Anderson
Effective Application Security in Software Delivery lifecycle using Deployment Firewall and DBOM
The modern software delivery process (or the CI/CD process) includes many tools, distributed teams, open-source code, and cloud platforms. Constant focus on speed to release software to market, along with the traditional slow and manual security checks has caused gaps in continuous security as an important piece in the software supply chain. Today organizations feel more susceptible to external and internal cyber threats due to the vast attack surface in their applications supply chain and the lack of end-to-end governance and risk management.
The software team must secure its software delivery process to avoid vulnerability and security breaches. This needs to be achieved with existing tool chains and without extensive rework of the delivery processes. This talk will present strategies and techniques for providing visibility into the true risk of the existing vulnerabilities, preventing the introduction of security issues in the software, resolving vulnerabilities in production environments quickly, and capturing the deployment bill of materials (DBOM).
Speakers:
Bob Boule
Robert Boule is a technology enthusiast with PASSION for technology and making things work along with a knack for helping others understand how things work. He comes with around 20 years of solution engineering experience in application security, software continuous delivery, and SaaS platforms. He is known for his dynamic presentations in CI/CD and application security integrated in software delivery lifecycle.
Gopinath Rebala
Gopinath Rebala is the CTO of OpsMx, where he has overall responsibility for the machine learning and data processing architectures for Secure Software Delivery. Gopi also has a strong connection with our customers, leading design and architecture for strategic implementations. Gopi is a frequent speaker and well-known leader in continuous delivery and integrating security into software delivery.
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...DanBrown980551
Do you want to learn how to model and simulate an electrical network from scratch in under an hour?
Then welcome to this PowSyBl workshop, hosted by Rte, the French Transmission System Operator (TSO)!
During the webinar, you will discover the PowSyBl ecosystem as well as handle and study an electrical network through an interactive Python notebook.
PowSyBl is an open source project hosted by LF Energy, which offers a comprehensive set of features for electrical grid modelling and simulation. Among other advanced features, PowSyBl provides:
- A fully editable and extendable library for grid component modelling;
- Visualization tools to display your network;
- Grid simulation tools, such as power flows, security analyses (with or without remedial actions) and sensitivity analyses;
The framework is mostly written in Java, with a Python binding so that Python developers can access PowSyBl functionalities as well.
What you will learn during the webinar:
- For beginners: discover PowSyBl's functionalities through a quick general presentation and the notebook, without needing any expert coding skills;
- For advanced developers: master the skills to efficiently apply PowSyBl functionalities to your real-world scenarios.
Accelerate your Kubernetes clusters with Varnish CachingThijs Feryn
A presentation about the usage and availability of Varnish on Kubernetes. This talk explores the capabilities of Varnish caching and shows how to use the Varnish Helm chart to deploy it to Kubernetes.
This presentation was delivered at K8SUG Singapore. See https://feryn.eu/presentations/accelerate-your-kubernetes-clusters-with-varnish-caching-k8sug-singapore-28-2024 for more details.
Connector Corner: Automate dynamic content and events by pushing a buttonDianaGray10
Here is something new! In our next Connector Corner webinar, we will demonstrate how you can use a single workflow to:
Create a campaign using Mailchimp with merge tags/fields
Send an interactive Slack channel message (using buttons)
Have the message received by managers and peers along with a test email for review
But there’s more:
In a second workflow supporting the same use case, you’ll see:
Your campaign sent to target colleagues for approval
If the “Approve” button is clicked, a Jira/Zendesk ticket is created for the marketing design team
But—if the “Reject” button is pushed, colleagues will be alerted via Slack message
Join us to learn more about this new, human-in-the-loop capability, brought to you by Integration Service connectors.
And...
Speakers:
Akshay Agnihotri, Product Manager
Charlie Greenberg, Host
Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey 2024 by 91mobiles.pdf91mobiles
91mobiles recently conducted a Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey in which we asked over 3,000 respondents about the TV they own, aspects they look at on a new TV, and their TV buying preferences.
JMeter webinar - integration with InfluxDB and GrafanaRTTS
Watch this recorded webinar about real-time monitoring of application performance. See how to integrate Apache JMeter, the open-source leader in performance testing, with InfluxDB, the open-source time-series database, and Grafana, the open-source analytics and visualization application.
In this webinar, we will review the benefits of leveraging InfluxDB and Grafana when executing load tests and demonstrate how these tools are used to visualize performance metrics.
Length: 30 minutes
Session Overview
-------------------------------------------
During this webinar, we will cover the following topics while demonstrating the integrations of JMeter, InfluxDB and Grafana:
- What out-of-the-box solutions are available for real-time monitoring JMeter tests?
- What are the benefits of integrating InfluxDB and Grafana into the load testing stack?
- Which features are provided by Grafana?
- Demonstration of InfluxDB and Grafana using a practice web application
To view the webinar recording, go to:
https://www.rttsweb.com/jmeter-integration-webinar
GraphRAG is All You need? LLM & Knowledge GraphGuy Korland
Guy Korland, CEO and Co-founder of FalkorDB, will review two articles on the integration of language models with knowledge graphs.
1. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08302
2. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG paper and a review paper on various uses of knowledge graphs:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/graphrag-unlocking-llm-discovery-on-narrative-private-data/
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !KatiaHIMEUR1
Today, after several years of existence, an extremely active community and an ultra-dynamic ecosystem, Kubernetes has established itself as the de facto standard in container orchestration. Thanks to a wide range of managed services, it has never been so easy to set up a ready-to-use Kubernetes cluster.
However, this ease of use means that the subject of security in Kubernetes is often left for later, or even neglected. This exposes companies to significant risks.
In this talk, I'll show you step-by-step how to secure your Kubernetes cluster for greater peace of mind and reliability.
Key Trends Shaping the Future of Infrastructure.pdfCheryl Hung
Keynote at DIGIT West Expo, Glasgow on 29 May 2024.
Cheryl Hung, ochery.com
Sr Director, Infrastructure Ecosystem, Arm.
The key trends across hardware, cloud and open-source; exploring how these areas are likely to mature and develop over the short and long-term, and then considering how organisations can position themselves to adapt and thrive.
Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024Tobias Schneck
As AI technology is pushing into IT I was wondering myself, as an “infrastructure container kubernetes guy”, how get this fancy AI technology get managed from an infrastructure operational view? Is it possible to apply our lovely cloud native principals as well? What benefit’s both technologies could bring to each other?
Let me take this questions and provide you a short journey through existing deployment models and use cases for AI software. On practical examples, we discuss what cloud/on-premise strategy we may need for applying it to our own infrastructure to get it to work from an enterprise perspective. I want to give an overview about infrastructure requirements and technologies, what could be beneficial or limiting your AI use cases in an enterprise environment. An interactive Demo will give you some insides, what approaches I got already working for real.
Good Projects Gone Bad: an Introduction to Process Maturity
1. Introduction to Process Maturity
AAM Annual Conference
April 27, 2008
Michael Edson
Director, Web and New Media Strategy
Smithsonian Institution
From the session
Good Projects Gone Bad
Managing and Delivering Complex Technology Projects
Michael Edson Nik Honeysett
Director, Web and New Media Strategy Head of Administration
Smithsonian Institution J. Paul Getty Museum
2. Table of Contents
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................................................1
Projects in Trouble .........................................................................................................................................................2
Technology management as core competency .........................................................................................................3
Process Maturity and Capability Maturity Model Integration .......................................................................................5
Understanding different levels of capability maturity ..............................................................................................6
Using CMMI ...................................................................................................................................................................9
First, figure out where you are ..................................................................................................................................9
Ratchet up one level at a time ................................................................................................................................11
Don’t try to skip levels .............................................................................................................................................11
Don’t slip back .........................................................................................................................................................12
Pick projects appropriate for your level ..................................................................................................................13
Assign responsibility and measure measure measure ............................................................................................13
Some Practical Ways to increase process maturity .....................................................................................................14
Classic mistakes avoidance......................................................................................................................................14
Transparency through standardized reporting .......................................................................................................21
Governance Structure .............................................................................................................................................23
Consequences and phenomena ..................................................................................................................................24
Web 2.0: Lightweight Development Frameworks ...................................................................................................24
Governance and Control .........................................................................................................................................26
Capability mismatch ................................................................................................................................................24
Real World Examples ...................................................................................................................................................27
Capability Mismatch: Smithsonian Multimedia Guide ............................................................................................27
Lightweight Software Development: SAAM’s Eye Level Blog .................................................................................29
Matching goals to capacity and maturity: SAAM “Findability” project ...................................................................30
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................31
Smithsonian Web and New Media Strategy .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. Abstract
Museum Web and New Media software projects offer tantalizing rewards, but the road to success can
be paved with uncertainty and risk. To small organizations these risks can be overwhelming, and even
large organizations with seemingly limitless resources can flounder in ways that profoundly affect staff
morale, public impact, the health and fitness of our partners in the vendor community, and our own
bottom lines. Something seems to happen between the inception of projects, when optimism and
beneficial outcomes seem clear and attainable, and somewhere down the road when schedules,
budgets, and outcomes go off course. What is it? And what can we do to gain control?
This paper, created for the 2008 annual conference of the American Association of Museums, describes
some common ways that technology projects get into trouble. It examines a proven project-process
framework called the Capability Maturity Model and how that model can provide insight and guidance
to museum leaders and project participants, and it tells how to improve real-world processes that
contribute to project success. The paper includes three brief case studies and a call-to-action which
argues that museum leaders should make technology stewardship an urgent priority.
The intended audience is people who are interested in understanding and improving how museum-
technology gets done. The paper’s primary focus is Web and New Media software projects, but the core
ideas are applicable to projects of all kinds.
A note on style and formatting
I decided write this paper, instead of just creating PowerPoint slides, to force myself to delve deeper
into these ideas, tie them together, and give them a home on the Web where others can find them, use
them, critique them, and improve them. I’m not a trained academic writer and I haven’t benefited from
editorial assistance, so I ask for the reader’s forgiveness for the errors in consistency and style that they
will certainly find. I suppose my paper-writing process maturity is “evolving”—a joke that will be funnier
when you’ve reached the final page.
1
4. Projects in Trouble
Back in the 1980’s the Federal Government had a problem. Software projects were failing—expensively,
painfully, publicly failing.
The US General Services Administration in a report titled “Mission-Critical Systems: Defense Attempting
to Address Major Software Challenges” 1 observed:
As systems become increasingly complex, successful software development
becomes increasingly difficult. Most major system developments are fraught with
cost, schedule, and performance shortfalls. We have repeatedly reported on costs
rising by millions of dollars, schedule delays of not months but years, and
multibillion-dollar systems that don’t perform as envisioned.
The problem wasn’t just that the government couldn’t complete software projects on time or on
budget, or that it couldn’t predict which projects it was currently working on would succeed or fail—
though these were both significant and severe problems—but most worrisome from my perspective is
that it couldn’t figure out which new projects it was capable of doing in the future. If a business case or
museum mission justifies an investment in technology that justification is based on the assumption that
the technology can be competently implemented. If instead the assumption is that project execution is a
crap shoot, the business case and benefit-to-mission arguments crumble and managers are stuck,
unable to move forward (because of the risk of failure) and unable to not move forward because
business and mission needs still call.
The pace of change in foundational technologies and assumptions (or dreams) about what could be
done with software makes it very difficult for managers to know what skills, competencies, and
capacities they need to ensure success.2 There’s little in most museum employees’ training or
experience to prepare them for making technology decisions, and there are few patterns to follow.
Unlike the building-construction and maintenance trades, software engineering is a relatively new
profession in museums and doesn’t benefit from generations of established practice, training,
certification, standards, and lessons learned through trial-and-error. One wouldn’t try to run a museum
building without a building manager and building engineer—your insurance company would probably
cancel your policy if you tried, yet few people would raise a red flag if you ran a museum without the
equivalent technology expertise.
1
General Accounting Office, 1992, IMTEC-93-13 Mission-Critical Systems: Defense Attempting to Address Major
Software Challenges, http://archive.gao.gov/d36t11/148399.pdf accessed 4/21/2008
2
At the 2006 Gilbane Conference on Content Technologies in Government (Washington, DC. June 2006) CIO’s
confessed that they had given up multi-year planning because the pace of change in the industry was just too
great. (I attended and presented at this conference.)
2
5. Technology management as core competency
As a case-in-point, the AAM accreditation process requires museums to provide detailed information
about the operation and maintenance of physical facilities—including detailed documentation of
physical security, health and safety programs, grounds and land-management plans, and something
called an “RC-AAM Standard Facility Report for the museum’s buildings”—but there are no questions
about information-technology beyond a single item on “Internet-related interpretive activities.” It would
appear that a museum can become AAM certified without an exploration of its information-technology
operations, or at the very least that the process does not draw museums’ attention to IT best practices
in the same way that it does for buildings and grounds.3 I expect this sends a message to museum
leaders that that information technology is not significantly important to their long-term success.
But it is important—critically so. Even if you’re a small museum with fewer than ten employees,
somebody is involved in software development. They’re making Excel spreadsheets, Access databases,
collections of word documents and forms. Maybe they’ve got you involved in YouTube, Flickr, or
Facebook. And if you staff isn’t doing this, your visitors are. I’d be surprised to find an AMM member
museum that doesn’t have single technology initiative, and I’m sure that you could not find a museum
whose audiences were ambivalent about technology.
And museums can’t choose not to focus on technology. Witness the story of Doug Morris, Chair and CEO
of Universal Music Group, which I offer as a cautionary tale.
Doug Morris, Chair and CEO Universal Music Group (Photo: Getty Images)4
Mr. Morris, by all appearances, is a successful tycoon, running a $7 billion-a-year pop culture empire 5
and hobnobbing with the rich-and-famous—he would be recognizable and comfortable as a donor and
3
Based on the AAM Accreditation Self-Study Questionnaire (2007) and the author’s recent experience with the
AAM Accreditation process.
4
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-12/mf_morris, accessed 4/26/2008
5
Universal's CEO Once Called iPod Users Thieves. Now He's Giving Songs Away, Wired, 11/27/2007,
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-12/mf_morris accessed 4/21/2008
3
6. member on museum boards. (He was Director of the Rock-and-Roll Hall of Fame6.) Mr. Morris is also a
creative person: he wrote quot;Sweet Talkin' Guy for The Chiffons in 1966 and produced quot;Smokin' In the
Boys Roomquot; for Brownsville Station in 19737.
But at the helm of his $7 billion-a-year business Mr. Morris chose to opt-out of the technology business
in the 1990’s, just when digital music and the Internet went supernova. The awkward stumbling of the
music business in the last 15 years, the acrimony caused by the relentless pursuit of its customers, and a
cascade of technology failures, missed boats, and squandered opportunities was the result.
From a Wired Magazine interview:
quot;There's no one in the record company that's a technologist,quot; Morris explains. quot;That's a
misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They
didn't. They just didn't know what to do. It's like if you were suddenly asked to operate
on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?quot;
quot;We didn't know who to hire,quot; he says, becoming more agitated. quot;I wouldn't be able to
recognize a good technology person — anyone with a good bullshit story would have
gotten past me.8quot;
As New York Entertainment’s blog Vulture observed this about Mr. Morris’s confession:
Even though we shouldn't be, we're actually a little shocked. We'd always assumed the
labels had met with a team of technology experts in the late nineties and ignored their
advice, but it turns out they never even got that far — they didn't even try!
New York Entertainment continues:
Understanding the Internet certainly isn't easy — especially for an industry run by a
bunch of technology-averse sexagenarians — but it's definitely not impossible. The
original Napster hit its peak in 1999 — kids born since then have hacked into CIA
computers. Surely it wouldn't have taken someone at Universal more than a month or
two to learn enough about the Internet to know who to call to answer a few questions.
They didn't even have any geeky interns?9
6
Vivendi board bio http://www.vivendi.com/corp/en/governance/dir_morris.php accessed 4/21/2008
7
Universal's CEO Once Called iPod Users Thieves. Now He's Giving Songs Away, Wired, 11/27/2007,
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-12/mf_morris accessed 4/21/2008
8
Universal's CEO Once Called iPod Users Thieves. Now He's Giving Songs Away, Wired, 11/27/2007,
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-12/mf_morris accessed 4/21/2008
9
Apropos of Nothing, New York Entertainment
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/11/universal_music_ceo_doug_morris.html accessed 4/19/2008 .
4
7. So what’s the headline here? It’s that large and small businesses have a lot to gain from focusing on how
to get good and stay good at technology, nobody is immune from failure, and nobody gets to opt-out.
The irony is that many museums are drawn to complex technology initiatives and the risks of getting in
over their heads just as they reach the point where successful technology projects can have a positive
impact.10
Process Maturity and Capability Maturity Model Integration
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), was developed by the Software Engineering Institute
(SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University (http://www.sei.cmu.edu) in 1991 to help the Federal Government
understand the capabilities of its software vendors and deal proactively with the problem of out-of-
control software projects. It became and remains a best-practice software-development framework11
and its core ideas can help organizations of all kinds escape from, as Steve McConnell puts it in his
software development bible Rapid Development (Microsoft Press, 1996), the Gilligan’s Island cycle of
under-performing projects.
Figure 1. Use CMMI to help your team escape from Gilligan's Island
CMM posits that organizations, or groups or processes within organizations, function at one of five
levels of process maturity, with level 1 being the lowest or least mature level, and level 5 as the highest
or most mature level.12
10
Edson, Michael, Data Access Strategy, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2006:
Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 1, 2006 at
http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/edson/edson.html
11
Gartner Research: CMMI Remains the Standard for Software Process Frameworks. ID Number: G00156315.
Published 4/18/2008.
12
The descriptions from this list are from Paulk, M., et al (1995). The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for
Improving the Software Process, New York: Addison-Wesley Professional, but the names of the five levels show the
updated terminology established by the Software Engineering Institute in 2003.
5
8. 1. Initial – Processes, if they are defined at all, are ad hoc. Successes depend on individual
heroics and are generally not repeatable.
2. Managed – Basic project management practices are established and the discipline is in place
to repeat earlier successes with similar projects.
3. Defined – Processes are documented and standardized and all projects use approved, tailored
versions of the standard processes.
4. Quantitatively Managed – The performance of processes and the quality of end-products are
managed with quantitative measurement and analysis.
5. Optimizing – Continuous process improvement is enabled by quantitative feedback from the
process and from piloting innovative ideas.
Capability Maturity Model
5. Optimizing
4. Quantitatively Managed
3. Defined
2. Managed
1. Initial
Figure 2. The five levels of the Capability Maturity Model
The five levels should be understood as a kind of staircase, lowest maturity on the bottom and highest
on the top, with each level serving as the foundation for the level above (figure 1).
Understanding different levels of capability maturity
Paulk et. al. in The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process (New York:
Addison-Wesley Professional, 1995) lay out a very useful chart that helps bring into focus how the model
relates to our own organizations and what our work worlds would look like if capability and maturity
were improved. (See Table 1.)
Typical in the low-maturity column (Level 1) are phrases like
success depends on individual heroics
and,
few stable processes exist or are used
Typical in the high-maturity column are phrases like
6
9. strong sense of teamwork exists across the organization
and,
everyone is involved in process improvement
I myself, have worked on more than a few projects that functioned at level 1. At level 1, not much is
written down, nobody is sure who is doing what or who “owns” various parts of the project, nobody can
really tell what the schedule is or whether you are on schedule or running late, meetings are held but
nobody takes notes or records actionable assignments, and products are often only partially finished,
with lots of surprises and defects discovered at the last minute before “completion.”
This isn’t to say that you can’t have successes at level 1. I worked for a museum that produced several
award-winning technology projects this way, but the successes were built on individual heroics and the
effort almost killed them. (Just after winning awards for a major Web site this organization spent over
two years trying to complete what was to have been a six-month redesign.) Functioning at this maturity
level certainly diminished their willingness to stay together as a team or build on their success, and it
bread a distrust of technology-content initiatives in general that made it difficult to get buy-in for urgent
and necessary new projects.
7
10. Table 1. Implications of advancing through CMM levels. Which columns best describe your organization? (This table was very slightly modified to
enhance clarity for non-software professionals.)
Level 1. Level 2. Level 3. Level 4. Level 5.
Success depends on Success depends on Project groups work Strong sense of teamwork Strong sense of teamwork
People
individual heroics individuals together, perhaps as an exists within each project exists across the
integrated team organization.
“Fire fighting” is a way of life Commitments are
understood and managed Training is planned and Everyone is involved in
Relationships between provided according to roles process improvement
disciplines are People are trained
uncoordinated, perhaps even
adversarial
Few stable processes exist or At the individual project Integrated management and Processes are quantitatively Processes are continuously
Processes
are used level, documented and stable engineering (how things get understood and stabilized and systematically improved.
estimating, planning and built) processes are used
“Just do it!” Sources of individual Common sources of
commitment processes are across the organization
problems are understood and problems are understood and
used
Problems are anticipated and eliminated eliminated
Problems are recognized and prevented, or their impacts
corrected as they occur are minimized
Data collection and analysis Planning and management Data are collected and used Data definition and collection Data are used to evaluate
Measurement
are ad hoc data used by individual in all defined processes are standardized across the and select process
projects organization improvements
Data are systematically
shared across projects Data are used to understand
work processes quantitatively
and stabilize them
Introduction of new Technology supports New technologies are New technologies are New technologies are
Technology
technology is risky established, stable activities evaluated on a qualitative evaluated on a quantitative proactively pursued and
basis basis deployed
8
11. Using CMMI
Using the CMMI can be a relatively informal process that involves understanding and applying process-
improvement best practices to your organization. Or, it can be a formal process that involves extensive
training, creation of a process improvement infrastructure, appraisals, and more.
To avoid confusing people who are familiar with heavy-duty process-improvement efforts I must draw a
distinction between the formal CMMI process defined by the Software Engineering Institute and what
I’m talking about here. In this paper I argue that many organizations can benefit from what CMMI has to
offer, but I am not advocating a full-fledged CMMI program which typically involves formal assessment
teams, rigid interpretations of CMMI, a great deal of work: these kinds of efforts don’t deliver good
return-on-investment for organizations at emerging maturity levels.13 What I advocate is a kind of
CMMI-Lite in which organizations borrow the most useful aspects of CMMI without becoming overly
bound to the formal doctrine. As Gartner, Inc. says, “Organizations should use CMM as a guidebook, not
a ‘cookbook.’ Results-based improvement should be the key.”14
First, figure out where you are
Unless you’re working with a formal CMM assessment team the first step to understanding and
improving your capability maturity is to look at Table 1 and identify the statements that best describe
how your team does work. You don’t have to think across every kind of project your organization does:
pick one or two projects or activities that you think would benefit from some improvement. Note that
it’s not uncommon for organizations to have some processes that are very mature and some that are
very immature. CMMI orthodoxy recognizes this and encourages a methodology of continuous
improvement at varying levels of maturity.
You may find it useful to modify table 1 or the overarching CMMI levels of maturity listed above and to
cast them in terms that better describe your organization, or your project.
13
Phone interview with Sanjeev Sharma, CMM specialist and IT Manager Safety & Mission Assurance, NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. 3/11/08
14
Gartner Research, CMMI Remains the Standard for Software Process Frameworks. Article ID #G00156315,
4/16/2008. The exact quote is “Internal development organizations should use CMMI as a guidebook, not a
‘cookbook.’ Results-based improvement should be the key.”
9
12. Capability Maturity Model
Figure out 5. Optimizing
where you
are? 4. Quantitatively Managed
3. Defined
2. Managed
1. Initial
Figure 3. Figure out where you are on the Capability Maturity Model
For example, in 2006 I modified the out-of-the-box CMM level definitions to be more meaningful to a
data-strategy project at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.15 The definitions shown below helped
me understand the roadmap and projects that were needed to get us from where we were (level 2) to
where we wanted to be (levels 3 and 4).
Level 1 – Limited data federation; often with redundant and inconsistent data. Data strategy is
not even on the organizational radar.
Level 2 – Limited data consolidation; documenting redundancies and inconsistencies. Some
isolated departments are trying to raise awareness and initiate projects.
Level 3 – Data integration initiated; new ‘disintegration’ is discouraged. Multi-departmental
teams begin working on policies and procedures to advance a data strategy.
Level 4 – Data integration widely adapted; ‘disintegration’ is penalized. All projects in the
organization adhere to data integration policies and managers are held accountable for
variances.
If you conclude that you’re at a low level of maturity, you’re not alone. Gartner research finds that most
organizational software development teams function at Level 1 or Level 2, “which means that, at best,
they have some reasonably good project management practices,” and less than 25% of teams function
at level 3 or higher (Hotle, 'Just Enough Process' for Applications). Taken at face value, this means that
most software development efforts can be expected to produce inconsistent results with little control of
budget and timelines. Though this is appauling, the good news is that basic process improvement
initiatives could have a dramatic effect on the productivity and predictability of a great many software
projects.
15
Edson M., Data Access Strategy, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2006: Proceedings,
Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 1, 2006 at
http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/edson/edson.html. I’m not sure why I described four levels instead
of five.
10
13. Ratchet up one level at a time
If you’re at level 1, what small steps can you take to get to level 2? The Software Engineering Institute
says that you can get from level 1 to level 2 just by establishing sound project management practices
(CMMI for Acquisition, 2007). Such practices might include activities such as tracking and communicating
project status, measuring effort and outcomes, or ensuring roles-and-responsibilities are adequately
defined.
Capability Maturity Model
5. Optimizing
Ratchet up
gradually 4. Quantitatively Managed
over time
3. Defined
2. Managed
1. Initial
Figure 4. Improve maturity gradually, one level at a time
These process-improvement efforts don’t need to take a lot of time and effort. Matt Hotle of Gartner
says that he very seldom sees an basic process improvement effort that takes more than a couple of
weeks” (interview with the author, 4/24/08).
The Software Engineering Institute notes that improvements that move a group from level 1 to level 2
may depend on “heroics” of individual staff members until the concepts of process improvements are
more widely understood and supported (CMMI for Acquisition, 2007).
Don’t try to skip levels
It’s very tempting to try to skip from low levels of maturity to high ones without going through the
intermediate steps. For example, if your organization really wants to use new technologies on the
cutting edge, but your current state is that the “introduction of new technology is risky” (Level 1 from
Table 1) then you would be well served to work first on ratcheting your technology adoption capabilities
up to level 2, “technology supports established, stable activities” and see how that goes.
11
14. Capability Maturity Model
Don’t skip steps 5. Optimizing
4. Quantitatively Managed
3. Defined
2. Managed
1. Initial
Figure 5. Avoid the temptation to skip steps. It’s risky.
Trying to leapfrog from level 1 to level 4 or five doesn’t give your organization time to establish the core
competencies needed to succeed at high levels of expected performance. The Software Engineering
Institute (SEI) says “Because each maturity level forms a necessary foundation for the next level, trying
to skip maturity levels is usually counterproductive.” (CMMI Project Team, 2007.) The SEI further notes
that “processes without the proper foundation may fail at the point they are needed most—under
stress.” John P. Kotter, in the Harvard Business Review notes that “Skipping steps creates only an illusion
of speed and never produces a satisfying result.” (Kotter, 1995)
Don’t slip back
A recent book on evolution16 stated that Charles Darwin’s greatest contribution was not that he thought
up modification with descent (natural selection), but that his research and writing tied the idea down so
firmly so that it could never drift away. There’s an important lesson here for process improvement: try
to ensure that whatever improvements you do make to software development processes become
codified and formalized so that as staff and managers come and go and teams adapt and change your
hard won progress doesn’t atrophy. Remember that every level is a foundation for the one that comes
next.
16
I read this somewhere recently but have not been able to track down the citation!
12
15. Capability Maturity Model
5. Optimizing
Don’t slip back! 4. Quantitatively Managed
3. Defined
2. Managed
1. Initial
Figure 6. Solidify gains in maturity so that they're permanent.
Pick projects appropriate for your level
This is related to “don’t skip steps” pattern, but is more focused on tailoring what you need to get done
with what you’re capable of doing. Usually, at lower levels of maturity this means breaking ambitious
visions into smaller, less costly, and less risky sub-projects that together, achieve the vision. This
approach is harmonious with a lot of recent thinking, particularly in Web application development, there
are significant beneficial consequences for organizations at all levels of maturity. (More on this later.)
Capability Maturity Model
Pick projects
Appropriate 5. Optimizing
For your
4. Quantitatively Managed
level
3. Defined
2. Managed
1. Initial
Figure 7. Pick projects appropriate for your current
capability maturity level
Assign responsibility and measure measure measure
Matt Hotle, Gartner’s CMMI expert, states that assigning responsibility for process improvement
initiatives is one of the most important highest-value steps an organization can take.17 Gartner strongly
asserts that assigning responsibility for process improvement and measuring efforts are the most critical
steps.
17
Phone interview with the author, 4/24/2008
13
16. Of measurement, Hotle writes
Application people are generally terrible with measurement. This actually may be a
kind statement, because we believe that fewer than 20% of application
organizations have a usable measurement system. From a governance perspective,
it's a sin to have a set of processes that have been defined, but have no feedback
loop to understand whether the processes are doing well. (The 'Seven Deadly Sins'
of Application Governance. ID Number: G00155896, 2008)
So what should you measure at lower levels of maturity? For typical museum Web
development projects, start by measuring staff-hour projections, actual staff-hours spent,
defects (bugs and errors), and the movement of content through development, review, and
approval processes.
Some Practical Ways to increase process maturity
Classic mistakes avoidance
Steve McConnell, in his classic book Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules (Microsoft
Press, 1996) uses the concept of Classic Mistakes to help software developers avoid commonly
encountered, and repeated, errors. Classic Mistakes identify things that often go wrong with People,
Processes, and Technology and they are often related to immature work processes. Avoiding Classic
Mistakes is one of the best ways to move towards successful technology development.
The following list of classic mistakes is adapted from Adapted from Rapid Development (McConnell,
1996.)
14
17. Classic mistakes enumerated
• Process-Oriented Mistakes
– Lack of project management plan
Failure to define, up front, what project management practices will be used
– Failure to follow-through on project management plan
Good plan at start of project but not followed and implemented day-to-day
– Failure to define requirements up front
Team fails to define, in writing, what is to be delivered.
– Failure to accurately estimate time and resources
Related to requirements gathering
– Micro Management
… by project sponsors or managers.
– Failure to define roles and responsibilities
Who is responsible for what?
– Failure to develop creative brief
Lack of codified creative direction leads to stress with sponsors and partners. Related to
requirements.
– Failure to empower creative team
creative team hobbled by unclear sponsorship.
– Failure to maintain project visibility
Related to lack of project management plan
– Wishful thinking
Related to lack of requirements gathering, estimation
– Overly optimistic schedules
Related to wishful thinking, failure to estimate accurately
– Insufficient risk management
Known and obvious risks are not accounted for in management plan
– Wasted time upstream
Most projects waste time in beginning of project
– insufficient quality assurance
Failure to produce and follow a test plan. (Stems from failure to define requirements in advance.)
– Feature Creep
Related to lack of management controls
– Insufficient management controls
Project metrics lacking, deliverables unclear, visibility poor
– Failure to produce a design
15
18. “Design” in the architecture and requirements sense, not graphic design.
– Gold-plating requirements
Unrealistic desire to have all bells & whistles
– Ineffective management of contractors
Related to requirements gathering, management plan.
• People Oriented Mistakes
– Friction within team
Unaddressed problem relationships within team lower productivity and morale for entire project
team
– Friction with customers/partners
#2 complaint of software development teams
– Weak personnel
#1 complaint of software development teams
– Reliance on heroics to complete a project
This is related to wishful thinking and lack of requirements, management controls, etc.
– Unrealistic expectations
“We can just code like hell and get this done.” Related to lack of requirements, management
controls, etc
– Lack of effective project sponsorship
Ambiguous or inconsistent direction/participation from sponsors
– Lack of stakeholder buy-in
Ramming a project down a stakeholder’s throat. Related to sponsorship.
– Lack of user input
Failure to maintain relationship with customers
• Technology Oriented Mistakes
– Switching tools or technologies in the middle of a project
False promise of productivity or performance improvements often derail projects
– Lack of content or source-code control
Developers/authors overwrite each others documents.
– Silver-bullet syndrome
too much faith put in benefits of new technology and not enough thought put into how well they
would do in your organization
– Overestimated savings from new tools or methods
Organizations seldom improve in giant leaps
16
19. In 2004 I surveyed an experienced, award-winning project team about which classic mistakes they felt
were likely to occur during a software project we were initiating. The results were sobering, team
members identified 26 classic mistakes that they thought had a 1:3 or greater chance of occurring
during the course of the project. As a result, the top ten most-likely classic mistakes, and how to avoid
them, were described in the project’s management plan.
Table 2. Top-ten Classic Mistakes, from a 2004 project management plan
Estimated
Rank Classic Mistake Action to Take
Probability of
Occurrence
Lack of content or source-
1 68% Implement source-code control practices
code control
Failure to produce a design Produce a design, Ex Post Facto, starting week of
2 60%
document August 25th
Lack of project management
3 60% Project plan v 1.0 completed August 20th
plan
Failure to maintain project
4 60% Project visibility addressed in project plan.
visibility
5 60% Feature Creep Produce a design. Prioritize feature set.
6 58% Wasted time upstream The cow is already out of the barn on this one!
Reliance on heroics to Define roles and responsibilities. Emphasize
7 57%
accurate estimation. Implement management
complete a project
controls to track progress and anticipate delays.
Address proactively with team members and
8 53% Friction within team
management.
Failure to accurately estimate Related to lack of design. Having a project
9 53%
management plan should help. Managers must
time and resources
ensure staff accurately defines and estimates tasks.
Failure to define requirements
10 50% create requirements doc Ex Post Facto.
up front
Use Spiral Project Plans
If you’re not familiar with any particular project management frameworks then you might want to start
with a Spiral Project Plan. Spiral project plans are described by Steve McConnell as an iterative project-
management approach that is particularly appropriate for times when you’re not exactly sure of scope
17
20. and functionality when you start a project. (This is often the case with small-scale Web development
projects.)
Spiral project plans are organized around loops of increasing effort and complexity. Initial loops are
brief: subsequent loops last longer, take more effort, and have more impact. Each loop includes
activities where requirements are described and analyzed, some tangible product is created, results are
evaluated, decisions are made, and the next loop is planned. In early loops the products created may be
simple purpose statements or paper prototypes that are tested quickly on sample users. Later loops may
involve significant blocks of code and functionality that are tested with automated test scripts or in
usability labs, or, the project may transition into some other project-management framework
(McConnell, 1996).
Spiral Project Plan
Evaluate
Then Design
plan
next
loop
START
Test
Build
Figure 8. Spiral Project Plan, sometimes called
“the cinnamon roll” because of the distinctive
shape of the spiral
The beauty of spiral project plans is apparent in three ways. First, it provides a flexible lightweight
process that practically any team of adults can implement. It doesn’t take a Project Management
Institute certified engineer to work this way. Second, teams can use this process structure projects at
their earliest moments of planning, way before funds are committed and programmers are hired, when
rational processes can have their greatest effect. Third and finnally, they provide a mechanism for reality
checks at the end of each loop where stakeholders can provide input on whether the project is still
aligned with goals. This enables teams to make adjustments before outcomes are set in concrete.
Roles and Responsibilities
Most tasks that fail to get done, fail because of unclear or non-existent ownership, and friction within
projects is frequently caused by ambiguous responsibilities. Conversely, tasks that have clear owners are
likely to get done. One of my favorite techniques for improving basic project management
improvements is to get project teams to define roles-and-responsibilities formally, before work begins in
earnest.
I developed the following list of role definitions to clarify roles-and-responsibilities for Web projects at
the Smithsonian.
18
21. Excerpt from Roles and Responsibilities Definition (Edson, Smithsonian)
• Managerial Roles
– Sponsor
• Internal client(s) for whom we’re producing the project. Defines goals. Supervises
Project Owner and provides resources and direction to Project Owner and team.
Provides “head above the trees” perspective of overall effort.
– Project Owner
• Responsible for,
• high level organization and execution of project.
• requirements analysis
• creative brief
• interface with project sponsors
• team selection
• high-level definition project lifecycle
• monitoring and periodic reviews of content/functionality over entire project
lifecycle
• Usually reports to the Project Management Team
19
22. Sample Roles and Responsibilities Template
Role and Responsibility Assignments
Roles are assigned to individuals for the purpose of a) ensuring that all roles have someone to play them, and b) to
promote clarity for the purpose of project management. Many team members will have more than one role. In
general, individuals are encouraged to participate/collaborate/contribute beyond their strict role assignments! (Table
is partially filled out as an example.)
(add team members as
Team Members
appropriate)
Dennis
Cathy
Amy
Bob
Sponsor
X
Project Owner
X
Project
Management
X X
Team
Project
X
Managerial Roles
Manager
Technical
X
Director
Quality Control
Manager
Partner
Content
Provider
Creative
Director
Lead
Content Production Roles
Writer/Editor
Creative
Producer
Writer/Editor
Graphics
Producer
Graphic
Designer
Graphical User
Interface
Designer
Information
Architect
Software
Analyst
Programmer
Database
Technical Production Roles
Designer
Image
Production
System
Architect
Web Server
Administrator
20
23. Transparency through standardized reporting
Many projects are only transparent at their inception and completion. The goal of standardized
reporting is to give managers and participants insight into project status and direction so they can make
decisions and manage.
Some examples of simple project reporting methods are shown below.
Example 1, a weekly project status PowerPoint file for general consumption by stakeholders. This
template was filled out weekly by the project manager. The PowerPoint format encouraged brevity and
focus on the most important points.
Figure 9. Two slides showing project status for a Website redesign project
Example 2, a bi- weekly status for parallel projects. This Microsoft Word template was used by 14 senior
managers to report on the status of their projects for the reopening of the Smithsonian American Art
Museum in 2006. Each manager had their own document in a network folder and individual documents
were rolled-up into a “master” document (using Word’s linking feature) for a bi-weekly progress-review
meeting.
21
24. Figure 10. Bi-weekly status reports
Example 3, weekly meeting minutes emphasizing assignments and decisions made. I used this type of
report for a network installation project. Note the use of the term “Action Required” to call attention to
specific assignments. The creation and tracking of Action Items is a highly effective process
improvement. These reports were typed in Microsoft Word’s Outline view as the meeting progressed.
Reports were distributed to team members and uploaded to a project extranet site.
Figure 11. Weekly meeting minutes emphasizing actions required and decisions made
22
25. Governance Structure
Many organizations lack a formal and uniformly understood mechanism for gathering input on proposed
technology projects and determining which should be submitted for consideration and approval by
senior decision makers. It doesn’t take a lot of process to be effective in this area— “just enough” as
Gartner says. At the Smithsonian American Art Museum, I instituted a simple Web site proposal form
that asked people initiating projects to answer basic questions about the goals and processes.
This process had several beneficial outcomes. First, it ensured that everyone involved in a project agreed
on a project’s scope and assumptions before it began. Second, it forced stakeholders to discuss
priorities, content, direction, and timing before resources were committed. Third, it elevated the
discussion of previously under-valued processes such as roles-and-responsibilities and maintenance
lifecycles. And finally, it provided a single, transparent gateway for all recommendations going to the
Director. Was the process perfect? No. But it was “just enough” process to allow Web-development
projects to begin to be managed, rather than ad-hoc.
Sample Document: Web-site proposal form.
Purpose
The purpose of this form is to provide an overview of proposed objectives and production/maintenance lifecycles
for new Web content. This form requires information needed to support the editorial decision-making process. A
completed form serves as a contract between project sponsors, team members, and SAAM decision makers.
Process
This section is written with the project manager/project leader in mind
1. Somebody generates an idea and you take ownership of it: you are the project leader. You discuss the
idea with potential partners, team members, and SAAM management. You define a project and walk it
through the approval process.
2. You discuss the idea/project at the SAAM Web Weekly, and (optionally) at the SAAM Web Quarterly.
3. If the idea passes through informal discussions you formalize the creative and management aspects of the
project and fill out this form.
4. You present the project and this form to the SAAM Web Quarterly and lead a discussion. You can review
simple projects via e-mail: more complex projects require a meeting of the Web Quarterly and may
require several meetings.
5. The SAAM Web Quarterly approves the idea (or engages you in an iterative process of questions,
comments and review) and makes a recommendation to the Director.
6. The Director approves the idea.
7. You begin the next stages of planning and execution.
From this point on project management is handled at a detailed level by a Project Management Plan.
What kinds of projects should use this process?
It is hard to describe this categorically. We’ll be using common sense case-by-case.
Web Site Proposal Form
23
26. 1. Who will be leading this idea though the approval process?
2. Who will be the project sponsor?
3. Who will be the project owner?
4. What other project “roles” are defined?
5. What is the title of the idea?
6. Please give an overview of the idea as you would pitch it to the Director and the Web Quarterly.
7. What deadlines are associated with this idea?
8. What partners (internal or external) will be involved?
9. Please describe the 3-year lifecycle of this idea.
10. What staff resources will be required for the 3-year lifecycle?
11. What financial resources will be required for the 3-year lifecycle?
12. What technological resources will be required for the 3-year lifecycle?
Consequences and phenomena
Three consequences and phenomena related to the pursuit of process-improvements for museum-
technology projects are worth noting. They are capability mismatches, the difficulties of getting buy-in
for governance and control efforts, and what “lightweight” Web 2.0 software development practices
have to offer museums.
Capability mismatch
Capability mismatch describes a situation in which different groups on a project have incompatible
processes or radically different levels of process maturity. For example, capability mismatches often
occur when small to medium sized museums with few defined processes and not much project
management expertise or hire accomplished outside technology companies. Successful technology
companies tend to be very process and results oriented and often have staff with formal training and
advanced certification in project management, software development, measurement and analysis, and
business-process engineering. These people speak a different language than most museum teams,
which is not to say that they are always right, but the disconnect between intuitive decision-making
cultures and structured business cultures can cause problems.
Capability mismatches aren’t found only in internal-external relationships. Mismatches are also found
between work groups within museums. In mature organizations it would be the responsibility of a
Project Management Office (PMO) to establish standard practices and resolve mismatches, but museum
technology projects seldom benefit from this kind of function.
24
27. Capability Maturity Mismatch
When you and your vendor have different capability
maturity levels there can be a disruptive shearing effect
on project processes
Figure 12. Capability maturity mismatches create a disruptive shearing effect
In a mismatched engagement, technology vendors working with museum clients often see behavior on
the museum side such as
conflicting institutional voices/opinions (client doesn’t speak with one voice)
adversarial relationships (“I don’t feel like we’re on the same team”)
wrong people in key positions
unrealistic expectations
content-approval deadlines are not met
undefined decision-making processes
little or no measurement of key performance indicators
insufficient staffing for the task at hand
completed projects are not maintained after delivery
I have interviewed vendors of all sizes to gain insight into this phenomenon. Most say the thing they
want most from their museum clients are unified decision making processes and a willingness for senior
managers to “hear what’s realistic and act accordingly” when confronted with evidence of flawed
internal processes or unrealistic expectations.
I have seen more than one museum technology project struggle, under-perform, or fail because of
capability mismatches, and this is an area where vendors and clients need to help each other out.
Capability Maturity Mismatch
Museum Vendor
Low Maturity Low Maturity
The blind leading the blind
Low Maturity High Maturity
Common: most organizations select industry leaders
High Maturity Low Maturity
Rare, except when there are non-business factors
(like pleasing a VIP)
Figure 13. Mismatches are caused by differences in the way groups approach work
25
28. Governance and Control
Many work groups and departments balk at the idea of new rules, procedures, controls, or governance
structures being imposed on them. As one museum professional I interviewed put it: “Museums workers
often have a kind of entrenched eccentricity that treats all efforts to institute standard procedures as
infringements on creativity.” (Anonymous interview, 4/27/2008.) And museums are not alone. Matt
Hotle writes “Most [software] development organizations seem to have a clear avoidance mechanism
when it comes to ‘process.’ However, using a ‘just enough’ approach to processes enables an
organization's behaviors to match its goals. ( 'Just Enough Process' for Applications, 2007.)
Gartner’s “just enough” approach encourages managers to keep rules and governance to the absolute
minimum required to help get products completed the “right” way, and I have found that use of the
“just enough” phrase itself sends a positive and soothing message to concerned stakeholders.
Governance and control efforts need internal marketing and wise stewardship to get buy-in and
acceptance, but ultimately governance and control will be accepted by teams when they see that the
new rules and procedures benefit their work, reduce errors and rework, and free them up to perform
more creative and rewarding tasks. Most wisdom on this topic asserts that a light hand, “more carrots:
fewer sticks” (positive incentives rather than the threat of punishment) is the most successful way to
bring governance structures into an organization.
Web 2.0: Lightweight Development Frameworks
The way Websites are built and improved has changed dramatically in the last few years, and these
changes are good for small organizations wanting to have a greater impact online. In the client-server or
mainframe computing era, software applications were meticulously planned in excruciating detail
months or years ahead of delivery and the final software product worked for the task it was designed for
(or not) and that was more-or-less the end of the story. If requirements changed or new opportunities
arose not much could be done in the short-term, and end-users had little or no opportunity to add or
change the product’s functionality to suit their own distinctive needs. Making software this way
required large teams working at high levels of process maturity to make a product. It made Microsoft
rich in the 80’s and 90’s, but there are new models now.
There’s a phenomenal amount of hope and hype around the term Web 2.0, which is typically associated
with social networking Web sites, tagging, and user-created content. But publisher Tim O’Reilly sees
something deeper going on here in the way that these kinds of sites are being developed. In his
manifesto on the subject, What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software,18 O’Reilly describes how powerful, effective, and wildly profitable Web
applications can (and should) be built using lightweight, rapid-development processes and continuous
improvement and innovation fueled by interaction with (and contributions by) customers. In contrast
18
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html, accessed 4/27/2008
26
29. with previous practices, these sites go public with basic functionality and are constantly modified,
adjusted, and expanded according to what works and what doesn’t.
O’Reilly writes,
Cal Henderson, the lead developer of Flickr, recently revealed that they deploy new
builds up to every half hour. This is clearly a radically different development model!
While not all web applications are developed in as extreme a style as Flickr, almost
all web applications have a development cycle that is radically unlike anything from
the PC or client-server era. It is for this reason that a recent ZDnet editorial
concluded that Microsoft won't be able to beat Google: quot;Microsoft's business model
depends on everyone upgrading their computing environment every two to three
years. Google's depends on everyone exploring what's new in their computing
environment every day.quot;
I wouldn’t argue that Google doesn’t require mature software development processes—quite the
contrary in fact—but lightweight framework models do demonstrate that valuable software can be built
in small, manageable pieces by small manageable teams. The acceptance and mainstreaming of free and
open source software further lowers the barriers to entry: a team of two or three developers can
produce flexible and high-quality Web applications in small iterative steps at low cost and low risk. (Or,
museums can opt-out of software development altogether and adapt the same blog, wiki, tagging, and
file-sharing software that’s available to the general public right now. )
A full discussion of the Web 2.0 platform is beyond the scope of this paper, but Tim O’Reilly’s article is
required reading for anybody thinking seriously about the future of software development.
Real World Examples
The following brief case studies give concrete examples of how process maturity and an understanding
of capability maturity models can affect the direction and outcome of projects.
Capability Mismatch: Handheld Multimedia Guide
Overview
In 2004 the Smithsonian issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a pilot project for multimedia handheld
tours at six museums, with the hope that the successful system would eventually be extended to all
Smithsonian museums. (Four Smithsonian museums were in the process of implementing their own
handheld-guide pilot projects or had just completed them.)
A press release described the to-be functionality of the device,
Visitors to the Smithsonian will have the option to rent a lightweight, wireless
handheld device that is the heart of the SIguide solution. With the SIguide handheld
device, Smithsonian patrons will be able to take preset tours or customized tours
27
30. that match their interests; view multimedia content such as documents, photos, and
audio and video clips; locate and be directed to exhibits, landmarks or other
members of their group; communicate with someone or everyone in their group;
create a schedule of activities and receive reminders when events are due to begin;
save content, messages, sketches and notes to a scrapbook they subsequently can
access via the Web; and much more.19
The RFP stipulated that the Smithsonian would contribute content and staff-hours to the project, but no
capital funds: development costs would be borne by the vendor and recouped by sharing revenue from
device rentals. Technical specifications and requirements were assembled from needs and wish-lists
submitted by participating Smithsonian museums. The project had executive-level sponsorship and high
visibility throughout the Institution.
The contract was awarded to a small startup with a compelling vision. Company founders demonstrated
a history of successful involvement in museum content/technology deployments, but no track record
delivering the technology required by this project on this scale. The technology specification included
installing multiple wireless networks; developing a system of automated kiosks to distribute, charge, and
synchronize the inventory of handheld devices; a complex database infrastructure; integration with e-
commerce and customer databases; and “wireless positioning” technology to relate the moment-to-
moment location of each handheld device with maps of artifacts and related content.
Process Maturity
To buffer the project from risk, the awardee created a project management office (PMO) through a sub-
contract with a local technology company with a highly mature project management group. The intent
of the PMO was to provide a system of checks and balances that could match the realities of day-to-day
execution and decision making with the idealized vision of the project. However, there was a significant
capability mismatch between the startup’s culture and that of the PMO and after several weeks the
awardee disbanded the PMO (with the Smithsonian’s approval). No similarly mature project-
management expertise was established to replace that which was lost.
Technology development was not vetted through previously defined processes but was fast-tracked.
(Part of the rationale for this was, perhaps, the fact that the Smithsonian did not have capital
investments at risk.) Furthermore, project success was contingent on the on-time delivery and
satisfactory performance of several critical assumptions about a) the accuracy and performance of the
wireless positioning system, b) the performance and reliability of the automated kiosks, c) revenue
projections, and d) operating costs. These assumptions were not rigorously tested and risk-mitigation or
contingency plans, if they existed, were not well known.
19
Press release, labeled as coming from the Smithsonian, http://www.lynx-net.net/web/SIguide.php, accessed
4/26/2008. Also see From the Secretary: Guiding Light at
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/10013371.html, accessed 4/26/2008
28
31. Outcome and Lessons Learned
This was a complex project and a full description of its promise and flaws is beyond the scope of this
paper and the knowledge of its author. But it’s important to try to learn from what went wrong and two
process-maturity mistakes are apparent. Ineffective process controls allowed stakeholders to define a
project that was beyond the process maturity level of both the vendor and the Institution, and the lack
of a PMO (caused by a capability mismatch) allowed early warning signs to go unnoticed or insufficiently
addressed. Given the Smithsonian’s highly mature content-creation processes and the recognizably
bleeding-edge nature of this project’s technology and business models, a better approach might have
been to gradually increase investments in successful museum-based pilot projects to test theories about
audience acceptance, technology, and operations in a more controlled manner. This kind of evolutionary
roadmap has been tried successfully at several other institutions.
Lightweight Software Development: SAAM’s Eye Level Blog
Overview
In May of 2005 Smithsonian American Art Museum’s (SAAM’s) New Media Initiatives department
proposed creating a blog for SAAM’s reopening, which was fourteen months away. The New Media
team knew they needed to establish a new Web site to support the outreach goals of reopening and
build buzz leading up to opening day, but the museum’s normal content-creation teams were pinned-
down with day-to-day tasks pertaining to the bricks-and-mortar museum reopening and money was
tight. In addition, museum managers realized that high-visibility projects (such as Web and kiosk
applications for the Luce Foundation Center for American Art) would leave little capacity for complex
software and content development efforts.
Process Maturity
The blog was identified as an achievable objective specifically because it required a low level of process
maturity, had a very small budget impact, and had a low risk of failure (and not enormous consequences
if it did.) Through a structured governance process the project’s goals, risks, roles-and-responsibilities,
and project management methodology was articulated and reviewed. Some project stakeholders were
uncomfortable with unknowns in the content-creation and editorial process, so the project was
approved for a trial-run in which the blog site available on a password-protected page available only to
SAAM employees. After a short period running internally, stakeholders became comfortable with
production processes and the blog was approved for external publication.
Lessons Learned
This approach was effective for SAAM.
29
32. Matching goals to capacity and maturity: SAAM “Findability” project
Overview
The creation of new Web sites for the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s (SAAM’s) reopening in 2006
also created problems with navigation, branding, and information architecture. Rather than initiate a
redesign, SAAM chose to take an iterative approach to Web site improvement by focusing on findability
(making SAAM’s Web content easier to find) and structuring work so that results would be achieved
through a series of short, low-risk sub projects (rather than one large, monolithic project as SAAM had
done in the past).
Process Maturity
SAAM was extremely focused on conducting a controlled and managed development process that
avoided the pitfalls and distractions of traditional Web redesign projects. The SAAM Web team was
aware of capability and maturity weaknesses and did not have great confidence in its capacity to
manage a large Web redesign. The team was more comfortable and experienced with smaller projects
of two or three month duration so the RFP it issued explicitly required vendors to structure work into
short sub-projects and use processes similar to the Spiral Project Plan. (See text box below.)
Excerpt from RFP
C.1.2. STRUCTURE WORK TO REDUCE RISK
Proposed work plans shall be designed to achieve desired results through a series of contained,
low-risk sub-projects (as opposed to a monolithic, all-or-nothing methodology). Methodologies
should include continuous testing, measurement, assessment, and refinement. As the saying
goes, “teach us to fish” rather than build us some fancy boats and go away. This is especially
important if parts of the work plan include community-building or visitor-created content.
In addition, the RFP that intentionally avoided the term “redesign” and instead focused attention on
making measureable improvements to end-user perceptions of findability, including the performance of
search engines, information architecture, labeling, and overall usability—but only if those facets could
be tied back to findability. Use of the word “redesign” was discouraged in project meetings, documents,
and discussion.
Lessons Learned
The project has not concluded and the outcomes are not clear.
30
33. Conclusion
The road to effienent development town.
Redrawn from Rapid Development, Steve McConnell, Microsoft Press, 1996
31
34. References
Carroll, Sean B. 2005. Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. New York : Norton,
2005.
CMMI Project Team. 2007. CMMI for Acquisition, Version 1.2: Improving Processes for Acquiring Better
Products and Services. Pittsburgh : Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon, 2007.
—. 2006. CMMI for Development, Version 1.2. Pittsburgh : Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie
Mellon University, 2006.
Edson, Michael. 2006. Data Access Strategy. Museums and the Web: Conference Proceedings. [Online] 3
1, 2006. [Cited: 4 22, 2008.] http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/edson/edson.html.
General Accounting Office. 1992. IMTEC-93-13 Mission-Critical Systems: Defense Attempting to Address
Major Software Challenges. [Online] 1992. [Cited: 4 22, 2008.]
http://archive.gao.gov/d36t11/148399.pdf.
Hotle, Matthew. 2007. 'Just Enough Process' for Applications. ID Number: G00145561. s.l. : Gartner, Inc.,
2007.
—. 2007. The Little Big Application Organization: How a Big Organization Can Still Remain Small. ID
Number: G00146962. s.l. : Gartner, Inc., 2007.
—. 2008. The 'Seven Deadly Sins' of Application Governance. ID Number: G00155896. s.l. : Gartner, Inc.,
2008.
Jones, Peter. 2008. We Tried To Warn You, Part 2: Failure is a matter of timing. Boxes and Arrows.
[Online] 3 26, 2008. [Cited: 4 22, 2008.] http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/we-tried-to-warn-
you32.
Keen, Andrew. 2007. The Cult of the Amateur: How today's internet is killing our culture. New York :
Doubleday, 2007.
Kopcho, Joanne and Hottle, Matthew. 2008. CMMI Remains the Standard for Software Process
Frameworks. Article ID #G00156315. Gartner.com. [Online] 4 18, 2008. [Cited: 4 22, 2008.]
http://gartner.com.
Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Kotter, John P. 1995. 1995, Harvard Business Review;
Mar/Apr95, Vol. 73 Issue 2, pp. 59 - 67.
McConnell, Steve. 1996. Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules. Redmond : Microsoft
Press, 1996.
32
35. O'Reilly, Tim. 2005. Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.
O'Reilly.com. [Online] 9 30, 2005. [Cited: 4 24, 2008.]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.
2007. Universal Music CEO Doug Morris Speaks, Recording Industry in Even Deeper Shit Than We
Thought. Aprapos of Nothing. [Online] 11 26, 2007. [Cited: 4 22, 2008.]
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/11/universal_music_ceo_doug_morris.html accessed
4/19/2008.
2007. Universal's CEO Once Called iPod Users Thieves. Now He's Giving Songs Away. Wired.com. [Online]
11 27, 2007. [Cited: 4 22, 2008.] http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-
12/mf_morris.
Vivendi Board Biography of Doug Morris. [Online] [Cited: 4 22, 2008.]
http://www.vivendi.com/corp/en/governance/dir_morris.php.
33