Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

IDRosesThornsBudsFertilizer
MG-1What went well?What could have gone better?What opportunities can we explore?Improvements on existing processes, support for new ideas.
JK-1Staged testing and rollout yielded are relatively painless transition from the user perspective.


JK-2
Testing coordination could have been better.We could reuse more of the SRDP process even though this was a mostly internal effort., could use a test plan in advanceThere is a balance to be struck between planning and doing.  Do we think we got that correct this time around?
JK-3A lot of cleanup and transition to CIS supported infrastructure was accomplished.Effort required was greater than anticipated.
Was there scope creep with this effort?  Were we intentional about allowing it?
ML-1Reconfiguration of profiles in the production areas resulted in a more logical test/production directory structure.Communication of this change to the operations team needed to be better.Could look into ways to improve communications with entire Ops+DA team (both sites) for issues affecting SRDP Ops.
SW-1
Process was made more complicated by 'overloaded' development system.We could split the development system up into two (or more) systems, focused on specific projects.
SW-2
Many services were very out of date, bringing them up to date took longer than anticipated.We could factor service updates into our schedule on a periodic basis.
SW-3SSA software is fairly well decoupled from its configuration and OS, adapting to changes in both was much easier than it could have been.


SW-4
A number of the CIS processes/policies that should be standardized across the sites are not, and are not documented.

SW-5
Several of our systems use very old frameworks that tie us to old versions of essential services.











...