bbcon2012 WhatweLearnedFinal
- 1. 1/7/2017 Footer 1 Implementing CMR, What We Learned From Our Project PRESENTED BY KATE BUTLER, WENDY JACCARD, JULIE VARGO
- 2. 1/7/2017 Footer 2 • Presenter Intro/Backgrounds/Overview of The Ohio State University • Implementing BBEC at OSU - Overview of the Project - Customization Management - Project Environment Management - Training - Implementation • Supporting BBEC at OSU - Overview of Production Support - Patches and Upgrades - Support / Phase 2 Environment Management - On Going Training • Questions? AGENDA
- 3. 1/7/2017 Footer 3 INTRODUCTION /BACKGROUNDS/ OSU OVERVIEW
- 4. 1/7/2017 Footer 4 • Kate Butler, Enterprise Solutions Consultant, Blackbaud - Kate.butler@blackbaud.com • Wendy Jaccard, Principal Consultant, Blackbaud - Wendy.jaccard@blackbaud.com • Julie Vargo, Director of Application Development, The Ohio State University - Vargo.64@osu.edu WHO ARE WE?
- 5. 1/7/2017 Footer 5 • $364,822,055 Raised in Fiscal year 2012 • 498,038 of living alumni • 1,394,264 Individuals, 192,377 Organizations, and 266,261 Groups in BBEC • 444,004 of Gift processed Fiscal Year 2012 - 900 Average # of Gifts per Week • 900 System Users THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
- 6. 1/7/2017 Footer 6 IMPLEMENTING BBEC AT OSU
- 7. 1/7/2017 Footer 7 • Project Goals - Short Term – Replace Mainframe Technology - Long Term - To have a system that is flexible enough to facilitate and improve the University's ability to raise money, steward our donors, cultivate friends, and honor our alumni. • Initial Scope - Replace 5 custom built applications - Eliminate the need for “outside” databases PROJECT OVERVIEW
- 8. 1/7/2017 Footer 8 • Project Time Line - A little over 2 years from when the decision was made to go with BBEC - We ended up pushing 6 weeks from our original go-live date PROJECT OVERVIEW
- 9. 1/7/2017 Footer 9 • Project Team - Project Steering Committee • Representatives from Foundation, Business Units, and University IT • Duties – Oversees project from high level, reviews escalated risks/issues, makes recommendations to help ensure projects success - Project Leadership Team • Project Business Sponsor, Director of Application Development, Director of Infrastructure, and Key Functional Leads • Duties – Day to Day oversight of the project, reviews risks/issues, and provides the overall project direction and guidance. PROJECT OVERVIEW
- 10. 1/7/2017 Footer 10 • Project Team - Project Infrastructure Team • Individuals that are responsible for the system Hardware, Networks and Level One Help Desk • Project FTEs – 1.5 FTE Hardware/Network – 2.5 FTE Level One Help Desk PROJECT OVERVIEW
- 11. 1/7/2017 Footer 11 • Project Team - Project Application Development Team • Individuals that are responsible for the system administration and customizations • Project FTEs – 1 Project Manager (OSU) – 1 Engagement Manger (Blackbaud) – 1.5 Functional Consultants (Blackbaud) – 3 Business Analyst (OSU) – 1.5 Technical Lead (OSU/Blackbaud) – 5.5 Technical Developers ( 4 OSU - 1.5 Blackbaud) – 1.5 Core Trainers PROJECT OVERVIEW
- 12. 1/7/2017 Footer 12 • Project Team - Project Functional Team • Team consists of representatives from each business area (BIO, Revenue, Events, etc.) • Functional Lead (FL), Conversion Lead (CL), Subject Matter Experts (SME) • Provides expertise on overall business requirements and process for their area. • Performs Conversion Validation and System Testing • Team had over 60 members PROJECT OVERVIEW
- 13. 1/7/2017 Footer 13 • Project Team PROJECT OVERVIEW
- 14. 1/7/2017 Footer 14 • The Good - Project Functional Team - Had the right experts involved - Technical Teams Limited Workload on Legacy System - A True Team was built with OSU and Blackbaud Employees - Clear Scope and Hard Deadline PROJECT OVERVIEW
- 15. 1/7/2017 Footer 15 • The Bad/Ugly - Overworked Project Functional Team - Testing Challenges • Inexperienced Testers and Testing Lead • Found it difficult to test from end to end • Hard to get management to understand being at the mercy of a Vendor PROJECT OVERVIEW
- 16. 1/7/2017 Footer 16 • OSU ended up with around 90 customization with varying degrees of complexity • We used a “sort-of” agile approach to development - 30 day development cycles - Daily 15 min. sprint status meetings • OSU managed the development work • Required Blackbaud technical resources to be on-site if possible 50% of their time. CUSTOMIZATION MANAGEMENT
- 17. 1/7/2017 Footer 17 • OSU is “self-hosted” • Project Environments - Sandbox • Used to for timings on patches, test to make sure bug was due to out-of- box code not something OSU • No customizations • Sample Database - Design • Used for Functional Consultants to “try-out” settings and configuration • Limited Access • No customizations • Sample Database ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
- 18. 1/7/2017 Footer 18 • Project Environments (cont.) - Configuration • Used to set-up configuration for production • Technical Staff wrote custom scripts to move from configuration to other environments. • Customizations • No data • Limited Access - Conversion • Used to convert OSU data into • Customizations • Converted data • Limited Access ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
- 19. 1/7/2017 Footer 19 • Project Environments (cont.) - Conversion Validation • Used to validate data conversion • Customizations • Copy of Conversion Database • Open to all project team members - TFS (Team Foundation Server) • Used for our customization source save • No data • Limited Access (developers only) ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
- 20. 1/7/2017 Footer 20 • Project Environments (cont.) - Test • Used by Developers for Testing • Customizations • Copy of Conversion Database • Open to all project team members - Stage • Used by project team members for Testing • Customizations • Copy of Conversion Database • Open to all project team members ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
- 21. 1/7/2017 Footer 21 • Project Environments (cont.) - Training • Used for end user Training • Customizations • Copy of Conversion Database • Open to all project team members, but with their production security applied - Production • The “Real Thing” ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
- 22. 1/7/2017 Footer 22 - The Good • Daily Sprint meetings were priceless • New to Agile – but worked well (small chunks of work with well-defined end or goal dates.) • Teamwork between OSU and Blackbaud Professional Services CUSTOMIZATION/ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
- 23. 1/7/2017 Footer 23 - The Bad/Ugly • Environment Management was time consuming • OSU and Blackbaud did not have firm grasp on data and configuration movement through the different environments. (GUIDs are yucky) • Multiple versions/releases of BBEC (2.5 to 2.9) CUSTOMIZATION/ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
- 24. 1/7/2017 Footer 24 • Train the Trainer Mythology • Onsite Staffing & Support TRAINING
- 25. 1/7/2017 Footer 25 • The Good - Feel this was the smoothest “area” of our project - Collaboration on training documentation was excellent - Business Area Leaders taking on some of the training worked well - Trainers involved early in design process - Applying security model during training - Utilizing helpdesk TRAINING
- 26. 1/7/2017 Footer 26 • The Bad/Ugly - Query Training - Time Commitment for Users - Lack of hands on time - Teach by Process TRAINING
- 27. 1/7/2017 Footer 27 • We performed a rolling implementation IMPLEMENTATION Date Task 8/17 Last Day to Accept Checks 8/18-8/19 Finish Processing /Balance Aug 8/20 Provide Copy / IT Shut down / Begin Conversion 8/21 – 8/24 Running Conversion 8/25 IT Day 8/26-8/29 Production Conversion Validation 8/30 Released to BIO and GP Processing 9/1 Released to Prospect Management, Planned Giving 9/6 Released to Stewardship, Events, and Recognition Clubs 9/7 Release to BIO/ Rev View Only
- 28. 1/7/2017 Footer 28 • BBIS - March of 2012 • Email • Our College of Business Profile, Alumni Directory, and Events IMPLEMENTATION
- 29. 1/7/2017 Footer 29 • The Good - Users were well trained - OSU Level 1 and Level 2 Support was prepared for go-live - We chose to implement during a “slow” time - Blackbaud’s Professional Services Support was excellent IMPLEMENTATION
- 30. 1/7/2017 Footer 30 • The Bad/Ugly - Load Balancer - Performance - User understanding the difference between bug fixing for a vendor application compared to a custom application IMPLEMENTATION
- 31. 1/7/2017 Footer 31 SUPPORTING BBEC AT OSU
- 32. 1/7/2017 Footer 32 • Production Support Only Mode for 6 months • Majority of issues were with - Performance - Two-Way Sync with our Alumni Association - Batch – Things not working exactly as expected PRODUCTIONS SUPPORT OVERVIEW
- 33. 1/7/2017 Footer 33 • Keys to Production Support - Establish a Strong Support Team • Functional Lead for each area stays intact, 10% to 25% of their job will be focused on system support tasks. • Well-rounded/knowledgeable Technical Analyst • Help Desk/Level 1 familiar with the system. - Defined yet fluid support process • Internal help desk system • Limited resources to handle communication to Blackbaud PRODUCTIONS SUPPORT OVERVIEW
- 34. 1/7/2017 Footer 34 • Key Production Support Roles - Functional Leads • Acts as the point of contact for their respective business area • Approves Security Access for users • Helps to direct and participate in the developing and performing of testing bug fixes both customizations and Blackbaud. • Provides consultative support to users on questions of functional areas processes and procedures. • Aids in prioritization of system issues • Aids planning of the vendor fix/patches PRODUCTION SUPPORT OVERVIEW
- 35. 1/7/2017 Footer 35 • Key Production Support Roles - Technical / Business Analyst • Level two support for TAS issues. • Responsible for monitoring Technical Analyst Group assigned incidents. • Try to problem solve given issue. • Act as a Configuration Gatekeeper • Adds/Updates Configuration that is outside of customizations. • Create and Update Application Security Roles/Users • Aid in Job Scheduling and Monitoring • Aid in testing bug fixes both customizations and Blackbaud patches. • File issues with Blackbaud TAM PRODUCTION SUPPORT OVERVIEW
- 36. 1/7/2017 Footer 36 • Key Production Support Roles - Help Desk • Level one support for TAS issues. • Responsible for initiating the majority of support incident tickets. • Try to problem-solve issue with the using issue documents and researching existing tickets. • Aids in the creation of common TAS issue documents • Responsible for creation of new users in AD PRODUCTION SUPPORT OVERVIEW WSJ2
- 37. Slide 36 WSJ2 Not sure I understand this. WendyJa, 9/18/2012
- 38. 1/7/2017 Footer 37 PRODUCTION SUPPORT OVERVIEW
- 39. 1/7/2017 Footer 38 • Patch Process - OSU using the ”patch when needed” methodology - Rolled out 5 rounds of patches since go-live - Patch is first put into our Sandbox environment to establish timing, then put in our Test and Stage Environments - Functional Leads/ Technical Analyst / Developers are all responsible for testing • OSU patch testing is semi-structured, goal for 2013 to establish better testing process - Goal is to have patch process completed in a two week time period. PATCHES
- 40. 1/7/2017 Footer 39 • OSU is in the middle of project to upgrade (2.9 to 2.94) • Treating it as a project (Phase 2) • Part of the project is also to bring our Alumni Association and Arts Center into the BBEC fold. • Timeline – 1 year and 2 months • Have discovered upgrading an environment with your own production data is better done sooner than later. UPGRADES
- 41. 1/7/2017 Footer 40 • OSU has two environment paths - Production Support Path - Phase 2/ Upgrade Path SUPPORT AND PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT Production Support(2.9) Phase 2/Upgrade (2.94) Sandbox Sandbox TFS TFS Test Test Stage Stage Design Conversion & Conversion Validation Training (only one environment, upgrading one month prior to production upgrade) Production
- 42. 1/7/2017 Footer 41 • Keeping Customizations in Sync between the two paths is a challenge. • Environment Management has become a full-time job. SUPPORT AND PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
- 43. 1/7/2017 Footer 42 • Lab Sessions • Workshops • Keep Environment Clean ON-GOING TRAINING
- 45. 1/7/2017 Footer 44 #BBCON TWEET YOUR TRACK: #bbcrm