Applications Development Scheduling

Technology innovation has played a major part in WBS reputation for innovative programmes, and pressures on our small applications development team are huge. We urgently needed to reduce decision-making time and improve the quality and transparency of the process at PROD (Process Review and Operational Development Group) for scheduling the time of our applications development team.

Improvement Champion
Vicki Stott, Director of Academic Services, WBS

Facilitators
Darren Wallis, Jane Miller

This project was completed in Spring term 2009. Since then, we have reduced PROD meeting time by 50%, introduced a transparent workflow process with simplified and accessible documentation and improved monitoring and reporting back.

Below is a summary of why we needed to improve this process and progress to date. More details are available from the workshop output (PDF Document)

PROD PROCESS IMPROVEMENT	DESCRIPTION
Process Issue(s)	The demands on ISSU development time were increasing and WBS’ Process Review and Operations Development group (PROD) was struggling to prioritise these in a coherent, consistent manner. Although PROD was useful for highlighting volume of demand, facilitating inter-user and user-developer discussions, the laxity of the specification regime and a lack of clarity over prioritisation methodologies meant that PROD was finding it difficult to compare project requests and maintain consistency in prioritisation decisions.
Planned Improvement	Reduce decision-making time and improve the quality and transparency of decision-making by reviewing the specification requirements and workflow. Additionally, use the workshop to flesh out general questions about functioning and effectiveness of committees in WBS.
Benefits	Release of work capacity for PROD members and ISSU development team; Improved customer service for project proposers through well-defined, easy –to-follow project proposal requirements and clear decision criteria; Improved customer service for the ISSU development team, through clear priority list and development pipeline and improved communication with project sponsor; Cost savings for the School, through reduced PROD meeting times and more consistent and productive allocation of scarce development resources
Key process changes	Sponsors take ownership and responsibility for progress of project Adoption of two stage approval process: 1) approval in principle prior to final detailed specification, 2)approval of signed off delivery specification to go forward for prioritisation Review and rationalise prioritisation criteria Creation of fully-documented approval process All PROD materials available on my.wbs Transparent on-going process for allocating central Technology Innovator (TI) capacity Direct linkage of PROD to WBS’ central resource allocation function through Ass. Dean (Finance) Widening of PROD remit
Progress	Project completed 2008-9
Successes	PROD meeting time reduced by 50% Improved documentation & workflow Renewed engagement by function heads Wider participation (inside and outside the School)
Improvement Team	Paul Dawson, Michael Eardley, Trixie Gadd, Simon Harper, Jenny Hocking, Abigail Meadows, Jane Miller (Co-facilitator), Jane Naul, Simon Peatfield, Sue Philpott, Julie Rawlinson, Lorna Slack, Vicki Stott (Improvement Champion), Darren Wallis (Co-facilitator), David Wright (Project Manager).