IN THIS ISSUE:
May TUG Meeting of Members
(Annual General Meeting)
... with Guest Speaker Jim Buck will be held at the Living Arts Centre Mississauga on Weds. May 24th.
ADMISSION: Free to all TUG members
||4:00 - 5:00 pm - Registration
5:00 - 6:00 pm - Session 1: Failure to Modernize – The Real Cost
In 2008; Jim wrote an article for COMMON called the “A Perfect Storm” This article discussed the low enrollment rates for Information Technologies classes in North America. Fast forward to 2016...
||6:00 - 7:00 pm - Buffet Dinner
||7:00 - 8:45-pm - Session 2: DARN... CURSORED AGAIN! - Using SQL & CURSORS in Your Programs
This session demonstrates the use of SQL in your programs. After a short discussion of the differences between Dynamic and Static SQL in your programs...
Speaker: Jim Buck
Jim Buck’s career in IT has spanned more than 35 years, primarily in the manufacturing and healthcare industries. A thirteen-year president of the Wisconsin Midrange Computer Professional Association (www.wmcpa.org) Jim has served on a number of teams developing IBM and COMMON certification tests.
Register for the next TUG MoM at: www.tug.ca/reg.html
Back To Top
TUG Golf Tournament 2017
On Wednesday June 21st, 2017 we are back at St. Andrews Valley Golf Club in Aurora for the 29th Annual TUG Charity Golf Classic.
Register now at: www.tug.ca/reg_golf.php
Proceeds to Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Back To Top
[article] Project risk case study:
Scarce Resource Management
By Debbie Gallagher
Technology projects are heavily dependent on expert resources from the IT team and the business. Managing people whose work is critical to the success of the project is essential and managing their time can be challenging.
This case study is a situation where a business expert was proving to be unable to deliver to the timeline.
The project was development of custom reports. When engaging resources for the work, the project manager did the usual things to ensure availability of the resource: for example, arranged for dedicated team members, and obtained commitments from their managers that they would be free to concentrate on the project. For those who were not vendors, the project manager arranged for the individuals’ jobs to be filled by other workers so the project team could concentrate on the project work.
The development work proceeded but there were challenges and issues along the way (perhaps a case study for another time). Due to the development issues, there were quite a large number of problems found in the testing phase.
However, just as problematic, it was taking a very long time for the business expert doing the testing to identify the issues on the reports, and to re-test as defects were corrected. As time went on, it became clear that the tester was a significant bottleneck in the process.
The project manager discussed the pace with the tester, who confirmed that he was concentrating on the testing tasks, and had not been pulled away to work on other non-project work. The tester claimed that it was just a temporary delay due to learning curve on what needed to be done, and that he would have no problem catching up.
Unfortunately, the tester’s prediction of increasing speed did not come true. The testing continued to take much longer than planned. In addition, the tester claimed, and his manager agreed, that no one but himself was qualified to examine the reports and determine whether they were right or wrong.
Evaluation of the problem
The project manager decided to see for herself what was causing the delay, so she arranged to sit in the tester’s office while he worked. She did some other work, but by sitting close by was able to observe the tester’s process.
What she observed was that there were many time-consuming steps to complete the tester’s work. He printed the legacy report; then printed the new report. Then, he went through every line and checked every heading, description, and number for accuracy. Then, when he found a difference between the legacy and new report, he had to determine whether the difference was acceptable. If it was not acceptable, he had to log the defect in the tracking software.
The project manager realized that much of the work could actually be done by others. The only part of the work that the business expert tester really had to do for himself was to evaluate whether a difference was acceptable or not.
The project manager arranged to add two junior staff to the project. They were assigned to print the legacy and new reports, compare every heading, description, and number, and mark differences with highlighters and tape flags for review.
The business expert was now able to focus on the one thing that no one but himself could do. He focused on evaluation of the differences between the legacy and new reports, and decided whether the difference was acceptable or
The project manager also arranged for someone else to log the defects for the tester, so he could concentrate on just the evaluation.
The project manager’s observation was essential to resolving the work bottleneck. Each report was taking two to four hours to test, but the portion that only the business expert could do was really only fifteen to thirty minutes.
By re-allocating much of the work to other resources, the business expert was freed up to complete the evaluation for many more reports.
Although their participation is critical to a project’s success, business experts can become a bottleneck on a project. In order to ensure the proper participation of the expert while also eliminating the bottleneck, it was necessary for the project manager to evaluate the work and break it down into its component parts. Then many of the steps could be completed by others, freeing up the expert to focus on the task for which he had the expertise.
Debbie Gallagher is a project manager and business analyst.
She can be reached by email at firstname.lastname@example.org. Previous project management articles are archived at http://debbiespmtales.blogspot.ca.
Back To Top
TUG Board Election Reminder
The poll will close on Friday May 12th 2017 at 11:59 pm. Results will be announced at the May 24th 2017 Meeting of Members (AGM).
Click www.tug.ca/election to meet the candidates and cast your vote.
NOTE: IF YOU HAVE ALREADY VOTED, PLEASE ACCEPT OUR SINCERE THANKS AND DISREGARD THIS MESSAGE.
Back To Top
Stay Connected with TUG
The Toronto Users Group is committed to providing you with communications that are timely, relevant, and insightful.
Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL), which became effective July 1st 2014, requires that we receive your permission to continue sending you emails.
You may have already given us your consent. If you haven't done so yet, or if you're not sure, please click on the following link to indicate that you would like to continue receiving electronic communications from TUG.
Should you change your mind, you can unsubscribe at any time, by clicking on "manage your subscription" at the bottom of our messages.
The Toronto Users Group for Power Systems (TUG) is a user group/forum for the exchange of ideas, and specializes in providing affordable education relating to the IBM iSeries, AS/400, System i, and Power Systems platforms. TUG is in its 32nd year of operation.
TUG is the proud recipient of a 2016/ 2017 Maxava iFoundation grant.