Upload
anands1976
View
11
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Phase 1 Lessons Learned
Citation preview
SLMS Phase 1 Lessons Learned
Summary:
Phase 1 of SLMS was the EMEA implementation of warranty. This was the first software replacement project between NMHG and Tavant.
Planned:
Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.
Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.
Cost: The phase 1 portion of the project would have a small $12.5k contingency for any out of scope items, licenses, or miscellaneous project items that may come up as part of the project.
Risk: Risk to the project includes the following: missed in scope items, NMHG IT resourcing conflicts, offshore programming, and unclear deadlines.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was believed to be high since EMEA has fewer change requests in the original scope. The Tavant warranty management system appeared to fit the EMEA model.
Actual:
Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large
Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.
Risk: Risk to the project included the following: missed in scope items, NMHG IT resourcing conflicts, offshore programming, communication issues and unclear deadlines.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Lessons Learned - Bullet Point Quick List (What Didn’t Go Well)
Scope
Perceived that Tavant was not fully aware of the complexity of the system. It would have been good to have a Tavant person “shadow” the warranty team to learn the processes
Business knowledge
o It is helpful to have a Project manager who knows the business in detail; otherwise, the business needs to provide the knowledge to the project as subject matter experts.
o Steering committee/ decision makers should be fully involved and aware of the business needs and why.
Communication of the system in full detail and no unknowns upfront.
o Make no assumptions about the new system, ensure that the requirements of the new system are in writing
o Assumed that Tavant was going to deliver what was asked
o Hours of time spent reviewing scope documents and recordings to prove that an item was in scope
Software demo and supplier customer visits
o At least one person who knows and uses the system on the team.
o Don’t just accept that the supplier has a software module. Ask who is using it and how it is being used.
Originally told all reports could be done but now EMEA has to do some by themselves. (Sales Reports)
It appears that we helped develop (work out bugs) with some of the Tavant existing system
o Batch claim upload
o Supplier recovery
Upon delivery the system is much more rigid that we were lead to believe from the demos: things that are important aren’t configurable (hour meter readings)
The directive to have a global warranty system caused too much focus on phase 2 during phase 1.
o Phase 2 items appeared in phase 1 delivery
o Took focus away from the current phase
Schedule
Schedule and timing was dictated
Schedule and timing were impossible to meet
Project plan scheduled dates should be given prior to the project start date but were given over a month afterwards
EMEA was never consulted when dates were changed without notice.
Lack of scheduling per the business schedule.
Short amount of time for UAT
Limits testers to taking vacation or holiday and doesn’t allow much room for people’s life outside of work.
More time was spent on testing Tavant’s testing scenarios and less on our own. Need more time for full testing of both.
Short time between end of UAT and Go live:
o Originally only 1 week to train dealers and NMHG employees with a finished product
o Data Migration: Delay to migration on Tavant’s side. Data was not migrated in time for UAT. Partially NMHG but also Tavant’s fault for delay with no reason why.
Lessons learned meeting was held too close to go live date
o The team hadn’t gone through month end
o Issues still to be corrected
o Supplier recovery still to be enhanced
Cost
Anything not listed in the original scope is conserved a “change request”.
Unfair pricing of change requests and scheduling delays with no charges to Tavant when they delay.
o Need a cost breakdown of the reason for the cost on all change requests
Communication
Project management
o Project manager unable to attend kickoff meeting and never set expectations
o The team was new to a major project and needed to know their roles and responsibilities
o Better preparation when using an outside supplier for a new system.
Direct contact with the developers and the users/ creators: there should have been a full-time on sight Tavant project manager/lead
Lack of response/ communication to requests from Tavant.
JIRA
o Started using JIRA too late in the project
o Lack of understanding of terminology in JIRA
o JIRA logging issues becoming resolved by Tavant but not allowing NMHG to test until the release date.
o Perceived that Tavant has corrected the issue when it hasn’t been verified until a later time by NMHG which makes NMHG look slow when in fact it cannot be tested.
o Priorities are changed on the tickets without consulting with the author
Tavant was often in agreement (said “yes”) of verbal requirements but the delivered was not what was stated
Cultural barriers, time zone issues, and language barriers (including terminology) contributed to misunderstandings
Email overload from JIRA, project manager, and Tavant
Too many unproductive meetings
Change requests in scope were not communicated to the integration and data migration teams leaving gaps
Had to repeat requirements over and over because there was no system for formal communication/ logging of issues & requirements.
Quality
It was a huge loss to the project that the Tavant scoping resource was not the resource used for implementation. (Hours, days, months wasted because of this)
The response time after go live is not according to Tavant’s SLA
JIRA should have been there from the start.
Original thought was that SLMS would replace multiple systems, but now user will still have to use them all. Not an improvement as originally thought.
Requests for demos were never performed (NCR, supplier recovery) making it very hard to test the system.
Requirements (quick write-up or screen shots) of change requests and issues were not shared resulting in quite a bit of rework.
Functionality and routing requirements were missed because the internal team members were not always honest stating that they had read the requirements, tested, or performed sanity testing when they really had not.
Test scenarios given by the software supplier are not sufficient for testing our own business processes. We must have and take the time to create our own test plans.
Items that were working in UAT are not working in production
Security (separation of duties) was not fully implemented
Reporting
o The reporting resource was not qualified and did not have proper communication skills.
o Reports were not delivered as promised
o Reports were of poor technical quality
o Table for reports were set up only with the report in mind. No thought was given to future use of the data
o Extracts within the Tavant system do not have flexibility to add important fields that are basic to warranty systems (ex. hour meter).
o Report scope documents signed off but the actual report in Cognos is not the same
o Lack of clarification on how reports would be in Cognos (Report headers missing; only tab reports not multiple as shown in the same scope reports.
Lessons Learned - Bullet Point Quick List (What Did Go Well)
Dealer benefits are realized in the system
Historically IT software projects in the company have not been on time or in budget. This project was in budget and roughly on time
Project sponsor involvement was constant throughout the project.
People who knew what they were doing (subject matter experts) were involved in the project
Tavant attitude and response was positive
Deliverables and non-delivered items were clearly communicated to the dealers
Commitments made to the dealers were kept.
ATMS’s and Niall Spraggs did a great job training the dealers.
Putting a resource with project experience in the warranty department was a great help.
o Fresh viewpoint
o Project viewpoint
Integrations were tested well and are working
Delivery reports were made mandatory in the system which highlighted a lack of audit in this area
The whole warranty team managed to maintain claim processing and vendor recovery levels while testing and working on the project.
The hard lessons learned in this first phase will improve the following project phases.
One of the first global projects that was Europe lead (Europe pilot).
Phase 1 of SLMS was the EMEA implementation of warranty. This was the first software replacement project between NMHG and Tavant.
Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.
Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.
Cost: The phase 1 portion of the project would have a small $12.5k contingency for any out of scope items, licenses, or miscellaneous project items that may come up as part of the project.
Risk: Risk to the project includes the following: missed in scope items, NMHG IT resourcing conflicts, offshore programming, and unclear deadlines.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was believed to be high since EMEA has fewer change requests in the original scope. The Tavant warranty management system appeared to fit the EMEA model.
Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.
Risk: Risk to the project included the following: missed in scope items, NMHG IT resourcing conflicts, offshore programming, communication issues and unclear deadlines.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Perceived that Tavant was not fully aware of the complexity of the system. It would have been good to have a Tavant person “shadow” the warranty team to learn the processes
o It is helpful to have a Project manager who knows the business in detail; otherwise, the business needs to provide the knowledge to the project as subject matter experts.
o Steering committee/ decision makers should be fully involved and aware of the business needs and why.
o Make no assumptions about the new system, ensure that the requirements of the new system are in writing
o Hours of time spent reviewing scope documents and recordings to prove that an item was in scope
o Don’t just accept that the supplier has a software module. Ask who is using it and how it is being used.
Originally told all reports could be done but now EMEA has to do some by themselves. (Sales Reports)
It appears that we helped develop (work out bugs) with some of the Tavant existing system
Upon delivery the system is much more rigid that we were lead to believe from the demos: things that are important aren’t configurable (hour meter readings)
The directive to have a global warranty system caused too much focus on phase 2 during phase 1.
Project plan scheduled dates should be given prior to the project start date but were given over a month afterwards
Limits testers to taking vacation or holiday and doesn’t allow much room for people’s life outside of work.
More time was spent on testing Tavant’s testing scenarios and less on our own. Need more time for full testing of both.
o Originally only 1 week to train dealers and NMHG employees with a finished product
o Data Migration: Delay to migration on Tavant’s side. Data was not migrated in time for UAT. Partially NMHG but also Tavant’s fault for delay with no reason why.
Unfair pricing of change requests and scheduling delays with no charges to Tavant when they delay.
o The team was new to a major project and needed to know their roles and responsibilities
Direct contact with the developers and the users/ creators: there should have been a full-time on sight Tavant project manager/lead
o JIRA logging issues becoming resolved by Tavant but not allowing NMHG to test until the release date.
o Perceived that Tavant has corrected the issue when it hasn’t been verified until a later time by NMHG which makes NMHG look slow when in fact it cannot be tested.
Tavant was often in agreement (said “yes”) of verbal requirements but the delivered was not what was stated
Cultural barriers, time zone issues, and language barriers (including terminology) contributed to misunderstandings
Change requests in scope were not communicated to the integration and data migration teams leaving gaps
Had to repeat requirements over and over because there was no system for formal communication/ logging of issues & requirements.
It was a huge loss to the project that the Tavant scoping resource was not the resource used for implementation. (Hours, days, months wasted because of this)
Original thought was that SLMS would replace multiple systems, but now user will still have to use them all. Not an improvement as originally thought.
Requests for demos were never performed (NCR, supplier recovery) making it very hard to test the system.
Requirements (quick write-up or screen shots) of change requests and issues were not shared resulting in quite a bit of rework.
Functionality and routing requirements were missed because the internal team members were not always honest stating that they had read the requirements, tested, or performed sanity testing when they really had not.
Test scenarios given by the software supplier are not sufficient for testing our own business processes. We must have and take the time to create our own test plans.
o The reporting resource was not qualified and did not have proper communication skills.
o Table for reports were set up only with the report in mind. No thought was given to future use of the data
o Extracts within the Tavant system do not have flexibility to add important fields that are basic to warranty systems (ex. hour meter).
o Lack of clarification on how reports would be in Cognos (Report headers missing; only tab reports not multiple as shown in the same scope reports.
Historically IT software projects in the company have not been on time or in budget. This project was in budget and roughly on time
People who knew what they were doing (subject matter experts) were involved in the project
Delivery reports were made mandatory in the system which highlighted a lack of audit in this area
The whole warranty team managed to maintain claim processing and vendor recovery levels while testing and working on the project.
Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.
Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.
Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Functionality and routing requirements were missed because the internal team members were not always honest stating that they had read the requirements, tested, or performed sanity testing when they really had not.
Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.
Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.
Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.
Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.
Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.
Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da
Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th
2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th
2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.
Things that went well
Good Team coordination
Better usage of JIRA in terms of tracking and closing issues
Dev to Dev integration testing helped in completing the UAT integrations smoothly.
Demos and EQA was useful, however this can be improved in Phase II
Tavant team was flexible in supporting NMHG needs by putting extra hours
Coordination between Tavant and NMHG on data migration issues/resolutions was
good
Having direct calls with NMHG business on integration discussions helped
Tavant felt having offshore resource for UAT support at onsite helped
Areas of ImprovementNMHG business understanding on JIRA workflow would have helped in smooth release and issue
management (ex: issues marked as fixed in JIRA were verified in UAT, however issues with verified status
were supposed to be tested)
Requirements provided by NMHG were not complete, after implementation and demo/release, we
received new set of requirements for the same issue (ex: NMHGSLMS-15 and NMHGSLMS-159)
Everytime new set of data provided by NMHG with fixes, the fixes for old issues that were corrected by
NMHG reoccured. For ex, the issues reported during UAT were not corrected when data was sent during
dry run/PROD. Same issues reported during UAT reoccured.
Quality/Validation checks should be done from NMHG before data is sent to Tavant. Quality of data sent
by NMHG needs to be improved to have the smooth data migration process.
Availability of NMHG business during the course of PROD release would have helped in smooth rollout.
Due to unavailability of NMHG business, NMHG data migration team could not provide data fixes on
time.
Closure of Phase I delta data migration needs to be time bound. Phase I data migration is still incomplete
(ex: SLMSPROD-6, SLMSPROD-37)
It looks like NMHG used Legacy system even after SLMS go-live, Tavant had to work on migrating delta
records (SLMSPROD-153), that impacted other deliverables.
Issue descriptions provided by NMHG in JIRA could have been more descriptive and elaborative to
mimimize back and forth communcations on the issues.
After closing JIRA issues, same issue was reopened with new scope that is not related to closed issue.
At times there were frustrations shown that didn't work in the interest of the project, these should have
been taken up at management level rather than developer level.
Area Lesson Remediation Schedule Impact
Communication Although NMHG was told that Tavant software
contained certain functionality, the functionality was
not working.
o Batch claim upload and supplier recovery
Don’t just accept that the supplier has a software module. Ask who is using
it and how it is being used. Ingersoll Rand uses supplier recovery.
L
Communication Lack of response/ communication to requests from
Tavant
All requests should be in JIRA. Tavant will create JIRA dashboard to show
average response time to requests. Project management will escalate any
high priority issues that haven't been addressed
M
Communication Tavant was often in agreement (said “yes”) of verbal
requirements but the delivered was not what was
stated
The team in all geographical locations should take training in verbal and
communications skills. Get it in writing and record it.
M
Communication Cultural barriers, time zone issues, and language
barriers (including terminology) contributed to
misunderstandings
Task members should be on site during critical phases of the project. The
team in all geographical locations should take training in verbal and
communications skills
M
Communication Email overload from JIRA, project manager, and Tavant Review "Email Quick Wins". Specific subject matter. Bullet point lists. Pick
up the phone and call.
L
Communication Too many unproductive meetings Meetings should have a clear agenda and stick to the agenda. Sometimes
we invite stakeholders to meetings just in case they are affected.
L
Communication Change requests in scope were not communicated to
the integration and data migration teams leaving gaps
Weekly meetings with data migration and integration teams M
Communication Had to repeat requirements over and over because
there was no system for formal communication/
logging of issues & requirements.
Tavant told us up front that they would ask multiple times in order to better
understand the requirements. However, JIRA has been implemented in
order to keep track of issues and requirements. Get the full requirements in
writing as to how the solution will be delivered. Screen shots to show the
user experience are necessary.
L
Communication Training/Requests for demos were never performed
(NCR, supplier recovery) making it very hard to test the
system.
Up front we should identify who needs the training so that no one is left
out. We need to allow the users to test in the system as early as possible for
training.
M
Communication At times there were frustrations shown that didn't
work in the interest of the project, these should have
been taken up at management level rather than
developer level.
At all times we should communicate in a professional manner. H
Data Everytime new set of data provided by NMHG with
fixes, the fixes for old issues that were corrected by
NMHG reoccured. For ex, the issues reported during
UAT were not corrected when data was sent during
dry run/PROD. Same issues reported during UAT
reoccured.
Need to understand what we are sending and why we are sending it. Data
cleanup should occur with the first data load resulting in fewer errors in
remaining loads
H
Data Quality/Validation checks should be done from NMHG
before data is sent to Tavant. Quality of data sent by
NMHG needs to be improved to have the smooth data
migration process.
Data cleanup should occur with the first data load resulting in fewer errors
in remaining loads
H
Data Closure of Phase I delta data migration needs to be
time bound. Phase I data migration is still incomplete
(ex: SLMSPROD-6, SLMSPROD-37)
Set a due date and meet the date. H
Data It looks like NMHG used Legacy system even after
SLMS go-live, Tavant had to work on migrating delta
records (SLMSPROD-153), that impacted other
deliverables.
One menu item was missed and was immediately turned off. Phase 2 there
are programming changes that will not allow the dealer to enter any claims
except Fleet claims. After Fleet go live remove the menu and put back the
inquiry section.
M
JIRA o Started using JIRA too late in the project
o Lack of understanding of terminology in JIRA
o JIRA logging issues becoming resolved by Tavant but
not allowing NMHG to test until the release date.
o Perceived that Tavant has corrected the issue when it
hasn’t been verified until a later time by NMHG which
makes NMHG look slow when in fact it cannot be
tested.
o Priorities are changed on the tickets without
consulting with the author
Provide JIRA clarification to NMHG team. Most of these are a
misunderstanding of how JIRA is used by Tavant. Tavant marks issues as
fixed so that they may be tested by the Tavant interal QA personnel.
L
JIRA NMHG business understanding on JIRA workflow would
have helped in smooth release and issue management
(ex: issues marked as fixed in JIRA were verified in UAT,
however issues with verified status were supposed to
be tested)
JIRA training for those who need it. New issues should have a new JIRA. L
JIRA Issue descriptions provided by NMHG in JIRA could
have been more descriptive and elaborative to
mimimize back and forth communcations on the
issues.
All issues should have a fully written description and a written and signed
off resolution. Good problem definition. Mini training and measure how we
are approving.
M
JIRA After closing JIRA issues, same issue was reopened with
new scope that is not related to closed issue.
New issues should have a new JIRA. L
JIRA Some tickets closed when they shouldn't be Only the author should close the tickets L
Project The team members who made the decision on
purchasing the software were not SME's.
In the US, the people who used the system were included in the analysis of
the software. At least one person who knows and uses the system on the
team from each business unit should have been included in EMEA.
L
Project It was a major setback to the project to lose Rohit
Lohan as the project coordinator. Hours were spent
reviewing recordings and notes to prove what was
already in scope
Key project team members should not be removed from the project. H
Project The team and SME's were new to a major project and
needed to know their roles and responsibilities
Provide proper project training to project members who have not been
involved in large projects.
H
Project Need better preparation when using an outside
supplier for a new system.
Set expectations. Better training for dealing with outsourcing partners and
purchased software providers.
L
Project Direct contact with the developers and the users/
creators: there should have been a full-time on sight
Tavant project manager/lead
Agree. Demand it for future projects. H
Quality Items that were working in UAT are not working in
production. Items in production are broken in the next
UAT.
Regression testing. More thorough testing of the production environment
prior to use
L
Schedule Project deadlines were given two months after the
project had already started. This put our internal teams
behind from the beginning. Schedule and timing was
dictated, too late, and impossible to meet
Don't start until you know where you are going and how you are going to
get there. Set the schedule and review it.
H
Schedule Project dates were changed without consulting those
who were affected (EMEA warranty for testing, IT for
testing)
Make sure that the discussion occurs with the project lead, project team
and IT
H
Schedule The business schedule and holiday time was not
included in project scheduling
Consolidated project plan M
Schedule Short time between end of UAT and Go live didn't leave
much time for dealer training
Dealer training has been planned in P2 with enough time H
Schedule Lessons learned meeting was held too close to go live
date
o The team hadn’t gone through month end
o Issues still to be corrected
o Supplier recovery still to be enhanced
Lessons learned was held early so that we could remember what happened.
Additional items may be added. Also, this will help with the phase 2 and 3
projects
L
Schedule Availability of NMHG business during the course of
PROD release would have helped in smooth rollout.
Due to unavailability of NMHG business, NMHG data
migration team could not provide data fixes on time.
Moving the schedule results in people not being available. The schedule
should be set and followed. Business availability should be obtained in
advance for planning.
M
Schedule Too ambitious at getting the other phases complete.
Too focused on the schedule.
Don't start phase 2 and 3 until phase 1 is complete. Have separate parallel
teams
H
Scope The Tavant scope was initially at a high level. When the
detailed scoping occurred, there was no "shadowing"
the warranty team in order to understand the business
processes.
Tavant offered a person to work in the department. However, we are talking
about business analysis, not working in the department. Shadowing is
learning the processs.
H
Scope EMEA warranty understood that they were getting a
custom system with everything they currently have
plus the new items they wanted. However, they did not
make sure that what they wanted was in writing in the
scope documents
Pay someone up front to collect the scope at a detail level. If you want it,
get it in writing. Don't assume
H
Scope We were lead to believe that the system is highly
configurable. However, things we needed to be
configurable are not. Again a miss in getting things in
writing and understanding what terminilogy really
means
Configurable does not mean flexible. Learn what is configurable. M
Scope Original thought was that SLMS would replace multiple
systems, but now user will still have to use them all.
Not an improvement as originally thought.
This is temporary. L
Scope Tavant was not fully aware of the complexity of the
EMEA system.
This gets back to detailed scoping. It is possible that in the hand off from
Rohit to Srini some things were missed and had to be repeated
H
Scope We did not properly follow up by reading meeting
minutes and BRD's to ensure that what was asked for
or spoken about in a requirements meeting was
accurately documented
Agree. We will focus to do this for the future. H
Scope The effort to keep the system as global as possible
slowed down the start of phase 1. Also, some phase 2
items ended up in the programming and configuration
of phase 1.
Global processes should be agreed to ahead of time. The benefit of this
outweighs the risk.
L
Scope Anything not listed in the original scope is considered a
“change request”. Perceived unfair pricing of change
requests and scheduling delays with no charges to
Tavant when they delay.
Provide effort (high, medium, low) as part of the reason for the cost on all
change requests
L
Scope Requirements (quick write-up or screen shots) of
change requests and issues were not shared resulting
in quite a bit of rework.
The BRD for these has to be done. Applies to JIRA as well. Problem definition
should be clear as well as the resolution. Status of resolutions in JIRA should
be clear. Also go through JIRA for process improvements on the status
H
Scope Functionality and routing requirements were missed
because the internal team members were not always
honest stating that they had read the requirements,
tested, or performed sanity testing when they really
had not.
Follow the UAT checklist provided by Tavant. H
Scope Security (separation of duties) was not fully
implemented. Tavant is built on Single Signon but our
internal security team would not allow this. Tavant had
to scramble to give screens. Password protocol is
missing.
NMHG level decision that caused this issue. It should have been sent back to
infrastructure.
L
Scope Requirements provided by NMHG were not complete,
after implementation and demo/release, we received
new set of requirements for the same issue (ex:
NMHGSLMS-15 and NMHGSLMS-159)
All requirements should be documented in writing and signed off. H
Scope Changes in the BRD were communicated to IT too late
to react.
For phase 2 and 3 communicate changes to all groups who could be
impacted
M
Testing Short amount of time for UAT
• Limits testers to taking vacation or holiday and
doesn’t allow much room for people’s life outside of
work.
• More time was spent on testing Tavant’s testing
scenarios and less on our own. Need more time for full
testing of both.
EMEA didn't have real data during UAT. Phase 2 and 3 will have more time
for UAT than was scheduled for P1. Need to look at the schedule and
determine if it is enough.
H
Testing Test scenarios given by the software supplier are not
sufficient for testing our own business processes. We
must have and take the time to create our own test
plans.
Project lead should take the time to create test plans and test cases outside
of what is provided by Tavant
H
Schedule There needs to be a review gate after each demo Add review gate to the project plan L
Testing Missed testing scenarios that showed up issues after
production go live
Project lead should take the time to create test plans and test cases outside
of what is provided by Tavant
H
Scope Tequilla was not included in scoping meetings for
Americas Warranty
IT SME's should be included because they know the inner workings of the
system
L