[404] in Project_DB
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert V. Ferrara)
Wed Dec 23 15:51:01 1998
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:50:27 -0500
To: tjm@MIT.EDU, wdc@MIT.EDU, ganderso@MIT.EDU, mbarker@MIT.EDU, azary@MIT.EDU
From: "Robert V. Ferrara" <rferrara@MIT.EDU>
Cc: project-db@MIT.EDU
Hello from Chicago,
This is a response to item 2 of Mike Barker's 12/15 memo. My action item
from that memo was to produce a list of recommended field changes. The list
below is offered for discussion only (not action) at this time. The
progress we make toward a direction will be reported by Susan, Greg, and I
at the 1/7/1999 ITLT.
I have reread Tim McGovern's earlier message on eliminating fields and
agree that many, at least 6 of the current 22, serve no current purpose and
could be deleted forthwith. We also agree that the "real content" of most
projects should be found in the on-line project notebook. But I would also
add that there are a few other fields that at least this director finds
very useful for getting a sense of our workload.
The current 22 fields are listed below in order of appearance on the
Modify screen, followed by the recommendation. Also, several fields have
been marked Mandatory, to indicate that an entry is highly prized. Finally,
there is a trailing section on other fields that have been suggested but
never implemented.
1. Project name. Keep, Mandatory.
2. Project headline. Keep
3. Contact Info. Keep, Mandatory, usually project leader.
4. Sponsor. Keep, Mandatory
5. Implementor/Owner. DELETE. TJM and I agree. Any special arrangements
can be noted in the Description (field 19).
6. Start Date. Keep, Mandatory, but show on Project View Screen. Now it
never displays.
7. Scheduled end date. Delete. TJM and I agree. Also it does not appear on
either the View Project Page or the Summary Report. It never displays!
8. Actual end date. Keep, but show on Project View Screen. Now it never
displays
9. Process. Keep, Mandatory. See field 24 below for possible exctension of
meaning.
10. Practice. Keep, Mandatory.
11. Status. Keep, Mandatory. Not sure I yet see desirability of TJM's
limiting selections to just 5.
12. Priority. Keep, Mandatory. Director should assign. It's real and helpful.
13. Commitment. Keep. TJM would rather eliminate, but a few find it useful.
14. Description. Keep, but fix Internal Server error bug on longer ones.
15. Current Quarter Achievement. DELETE. TJM and I agree. The quarterly
reporting is not useful and really does not save time. It actually causes
confusion. Much prefer use of date/originator stamped Comments (field 19).
16. Next Quarter Goal. . DELETE. Reasons same as above.
17. Customers. DELETE. TJM and I agree. Target customers should be
included, where appropriate in the Description (field 14).
18. Team Leaders. Keep, Mandatory. This is useful and also serves as
authorization mechanism.
19. Comments. Keep. These are useful, especially if quarterly reporting
items disappear. Put in bigger text block in Modify screen and allow
deletion like Tasks (or Bill's Milestones).
20. Documents. Keep. Tim proposes limiting this to just the Project
Notebook, but many are finding this a very useful field for other link types.
21. Issues. Keep, but simplify per Bill and Tim's ideas.
22. Tasks. Keep. See Bill Cattey message on making these Milestones as in
E-Reserves project. In any case, this is a useful for many projects.
OTHER SUGGESTIONS. The purpose of the first two would be allow easy
extension of the Project Database to non-IS groups.
23. Clickable Link. This is the mentioned Mike's item 1 in his 12/15 memo.
24. Phase. This would be used to describe phase as opposed to the "Owning"
process. Values could be (small d) discovery, delivery, (upgrade?), or
production.
25. Performing Organization. This is the one doing the work. In IS, one of
the Processes. For non-IS, the organization, like MR or CAO. Another
alternative is to extend the Process field above.
In Dani's 12/3 ITLT agenda, several possible other fields were listed and
are discussed here for completeness sake.
Staus Summary. Covered by status and comments.
Progress. Same as above but details in Project Notebook.
Attention Areas. Same as Issues.
Schedule. Detailed schedule in Project Notebook.
Deliverables. These would usually be included in the description and also
in the notebook, but maybe this merits its own field?
Technology. Resources,Goals for next Review. If captured, some of this
material would be found in the Description and more in the notebook.
---END OF DISSERTATION-----
Cheers, Bob
