LLWG Faciliation Team "Adoption" Meeting notes

Details

Date: 01/20/09
Time: 10-11:00 am
Place: 135 Maple Ave

Attendees

• Greg Bronson, Graham Hall, Stephanie Herrick, Butch Labrecque, Irina Naydich, Ron Parks, Lisa Stensland

Agenda

• Review LLWG approach https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/LLWG/Home
• Recount Facilitation Team's efforts (ask subteam, round-the-room)
• Review content https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/LLWG/Facilitation+Work+Group+Home
• Get status update: what's outstanding still https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/LLWG/Facilitation+Team+Summary+Recommendations
• Define next steps, assign ownership (group)
• Status update on other groups (Butch & Steph) 

Minutes

Facilitation Team Recounting:

Lisa: 1^st meeting discussed what are the aspects/challenges of Facilitation?  Homework was to post on Confluence what questions would you ask/have asked in/before an LL session.  Session 2 was to review & refine questions (e.g. make sure they were not Y/N questions).  The team focused in a couple different areas: questions and tips for Facilitators.

Greg: used a lot of "pre-existing content" to kickstart us... had a lot of material to start with & discuss as a group in meetings instead of starting from scratch.  Then went off and did work off-line.  Group ended up with some condensed list of bullets that were actionable.  Was skeptical at first about time commitment; in retrospect it was a good way to go since the group interactions were valuable and took less time overall/came out with stronger deliverables in the end.  Looking forward to using these and seeing what the other sub-groups have and come full-circle to using what we initially were seeking.

Ron: first meeting had a lot of good discussion & we took a lot of care with crafting the way questions were asked to result in the most useful responses (especially with the "first group"; recommend we do the same with the "second group" of questions).  We lost a team member (Micci) and everyone else stepped up to fill the gap & give input & share in the work.  It was a good experience.

Irina: meetings, especially the first couple, were very productive; towards the end mostly had just to "polish" deliverables.  All team members made contributions/gave input; good team work.  She feels that their team's work is very complete and well-done.

Graham: felt like a voyeur to the process... missed the sub-team meetings (joined the Facilitation group late).  Was glad to be involved in the overall process - attended large LLWG group meetings and found them and the outcomes to be useful. 

What went well (summary): 

-         LLWG was a high-value process. 

-         People felt the team members participated (so work didn't all fall to one person). 

-         People were empowered and felt motivated and the team delivered quality results. 

-         Were able to start with existing content to get the process going. 

-         Results are such that they are both immediately usable & useful and still can continue to be improved.

Status Update (Facilitation Team Deliverables):

 We decided not to review recommendations, rather, based on the deliverables' "completeness", hand off the recommendations along with the deliverables, & move ahead with defining next steps!

Defining Next Steps:

1.      Lisa - PMO will be new owner and deliverables folded into CPMM (effective immediately).

2.      Lisa - PMO will "take it somewhere else"; they will put Facilitation Team deliverables in to a new Confluence site as new/revised CPMM template.  When new templates exist on the CPMM site & ownership is totally transferred, take care to have only one source of editable "data of record" (early/mid-February).

3.      Steph/Butch - Preserve the LLWG content "As-Is" (remove "edit" capabilities to Facilitation Team pages, still allowing comments, after the official version is posted). 

4.      Lisa - will note on new CPMM Confluence site that ANYONE can use these deliverables (not just for PM's!) & there will be a process where ANYONE can make comments to improve content after we post the "first release" (note: Ron has some stuff he would like to add, but Lisa recommends that we declare victory and publish a first release)

5.      Lisa (& Facilitation Team?) - PMO can reference the Comments at https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/LLWG/Facilitation+Team+Summary+Recommendations and use those to make changes to the new CPMM content (as desired)

6.      Butch/Steph - get future status updates from Lisa.

7.      Ron /Lisa - set agenda for first PM-SIG meeting in late February; we can "socialize" the Facilitation Team deliverables at the first meeting.  Lisa recommended that we present how the LLWG process worked, then share the new content with the PM-SIG.  PM-SIG will probably provide feedback/actionable items, which the LLWG Facilitation Team could act upon.

Status from Other Sub-teams:

Best Practices - Lisa met with RJ to discuss PM-SIG's role in defining "BP" processes.  PM-SIG does not want to become a big bureaucratic organization that exists just to define and put boxes around things.  PM-SIG may be best suited as a place to elevate/highlight/share Best Practices.

Sharing Outcomes - investigation into how best to pilot the Sharing Outcomes team's repository (https://forge.cornell.edu/sf/tracker/do/listArtifacts/projects.cit-is_lessons_learned_project/tracker.lessons_learned) has been taking place.  Jean Gustafson & Chris O'Brien met with RJ in January to discuss choosing a pilot for the IS PM's.  Stephanie and Butch have been piloting the repository using a real LL incident that occurred between their two projects (see https://forge.cornell.edu/sf/go/artf16854?nav=1) and have asked several people for feedback on the usefulness/usability of the repository given a specific, real-life LL and how it may spin off an actionable set of work resulting in a new Best Practice (which in this case it did, a revised PSDeveloper Tech Doc template).