Presentation on theme: "Curriculum Vitae Management System Taming the CV Data Beast Robert (Bob) Dalgleish, Systems Analyst Alan Deschner, Senior Analyst and Project Manager Information."— Presentation transcript:
Curriculum Vitae Management System Taming the CV Data Beast Robert (Bob) Dalgleish, Systems Analyst Alan Deschner, Senior Analyst and Project Manager Information & Communications Technology
Noises Off Help reduce interruptions. Please turn off the beeps and boops from your portable devices.
The Project Alan Deschner Senior Analyst, ICT Applications Project Manager, CVMS Project
Early History 2007, 2008 – Various colleges at U of S investigated or partially built CV systems Oct’08 – College of Medicine: – Formed eCV Task Force – Driven by costs of accreditation reporting – Wrote project charter for software development Fall’08 thru Spring’09 – Requirements gathering and analysis
Options and Decisions Considered commercial systems, other Universities’ systems, other colleges at U of S Deficiencies (3 main ones) – No support for U of S standard CV format – Lack of import facilities (e.g., citations) – Lack of integration with other in-house data sources (student info, research info, etc.) Decision: develop in-house
History: Implementation Project Feb’10 – proposal to develop in-house April’10 – project start-up, analyst and P/A July’10 – added another developer Aug’10 – added ½ time project manager May’11 – alpha testing June’11 – beta testing End of June’11 – ready to go-live, with a few features not yet implemented
Production Go-Live June 28, 2011 – ready, but college decided not to rush into production: – Reduced availability in the college over the summer – Desirability of additional features July and Aug’11 – extra development, testing, remediation, and getting ready for go-live End of Aug’11 – live for College of Medicine End of Sept’11 – live for College of Nursing
Project Scope Release 1 (this project) – Data entry screens – Load data from EndNote, RefMan – Produce U of S Comprehensive and Form 1 CV – Interfaces to some internal systems (deferred) Releases 2 & 3 (the future) – Reporting at department and college levels – Publishing CV to funding agencies, websites, document management system (workflow)
Project Organization Requirements gathering was fairly traditional Development used agile, iterative approach Use of Jira to manage the backlog, estimates, iteration definitions Use of Confluence wiki for documentation eCV Task Force acted as the steering committee Co-sponsors from Medicine and ICT
Agile Development Team was inexperienced in agile methods Daily minute scrum – Often took longer, sometimes ½ hour – Hard to keep on track (inexperience) Started with 4-week iterations – Started to vary, some stretched to 5 weeks, some chopped to 3 weeks – Got out of step with eCV Task Force meetings
User Involvement Representative from Medicine was assigned to the project team. – Administrative person who deals with CVs – We wanted her as much as ½ time – She was only available ½ - 1 day per week Many said, “You’re lucky to have that much!” Agile says, “You need a SME embedded in the project team, full time if possible!”
Working Group A working group was put together from the colleges and various departments – Review and test the application deployed in the previous iteration – Identify new or changed functionality – Help with details of the requirements – Make recommendations to the eCV Task Force Met every second week, and did some additional testing between meetings
Iteration Schedule In iteration 6, we started 2-week iterations with defined reviews, releases to the test environment. MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFriday am: deploy N-1 pm: plan N Begin work on iteration N Testers review iteration N-1 Last day to develop iteration N am: deploy N pm: plan N+1 Testers review iteration N
The Product Bob Dalgleish Systems Analyst, ICT Applications Lead Analyst, CVMS Project
Faculty CVMS Citation Management Software Administrative Staff Research Services Grad Studies Course Information Contact Database Human Resources
Technical Architecture: Application Stack RedHat Linux, JBoss EAP 5 Virtual Machine Container RedHat Enterprise Linux Java 6 Virtual Machine JBoss EAP 5 Seam 2 Hibernate 3 CVMS Application And many more
Deployment Process Deployment: Workstations and Servers Developer Workstation Subversion Repository Jira Issue Repository Jenkins Continuous Integration TestDT Test Prod
Development Architecture Eclipse (JBoss Developer Studio) Subclipse (Subversion connector) TestNG – test suite runner Selenium – UI test suite developer & runner Clover – test coverage reporter – Goal was 70% coverage, stabilized at 63% Jira – Issue reporting tool, release management, communications Confluence (wiki) – requirements & design capture
Technology Challenges Information Architecture: – Information doesn’t mean the same thing to two different people, departments or colleges Standards, so many of them, so little time Publishing: iText vs DocBook, Hibernate as object repository Categorization, for publishing and reports Work flows
Information Architecture Many sources for data models and metadata – CASRAI, Dublin Core, HR-XML.org, CommonCV.net – Decided to normalize data and minimize structure clashes Working group process – Discuss data elements, how they would be used, collected, verified – Built prototypes, tested by working group members – Repeat Focused on requirements of university CV – Publishing requirements – Review process
IA – Imprecise Dates
IA – Field Lengths
Sample Published Output
Hibernate Data Handling Implements persistence (Java Persistence Architecture) – Push data to repository if it has been changed – Coordinate network of linked objects – Minimizes SQL to be written Inversion of Control – LazyInitializationException - means you aren’t where you think you are – While Hibernate handles much of it …
Categories: Publishing … Each line item has a section selector
Categories: … Selecting Some items have many categories, some have only one available.
Categories: … Published The section is where the item appears in our standard CV …
Item Work Flow Each item goes through a sequence, Entered (Not Approved), Requires Attention, Approved
Next Steps Phase I is complete for two colleges, what now? Next biggest need is reporting Complete some of the deferred features Integrate with other systems Roll out to the rest of campus This looks like an on-going program.
Next Steps - Reporting Reporting for departments and colleges – Faculty activity reports – Research reports – Reports for accreditation User-defined query, extract, reporting facility – Facilitate external analysis
Reporting Audiences Data Faculty & Committees Accreditation Panels …
Reporting Audiences Data Faculty & Committees Accreditation Panels … Governance Processes People Data Quality Management
Reporting Data Quality Management - Incorrect data - Missing data - Redundant or duplicated data Report Parameters - Periods - Categories - Populations Report Format - Raw Excel file - Formatted Word or HTML file - Dashboard
Next Steps – CV Publishing Publish CV to document management system – Enable workflows for college reviews related to tenure and promotion Publish to personal website Publish to commonCV.net Additional citation formats (only NLM now) Additional CV formats – Other funding agencies
Next Steps - Data Pull data from other U of S systems – Student info, HR, research admin, grad studies Pull data from external systems – e.g., PubMed, Scopus Bulk load of legacy data using cut-and-paste and data parsing Additional data fields to support other disciplines (e.g., humanities, fine arts)
Next Steps - Data
Improve the change management processes: – Changes identified by the working group need approval from eCV Task Force, but there was not enough time to answer the question, “How much will it cost?” – Scope creep is insidious! Beware! – Help users understand that adding a new feature means dropping something else.
Lessons Learned about Agile Include an expert agile practitioner when an organizational goal is to change software development methods to agile. Shorter iterations are better. The more user involvement, the better. And constant involvement is best. Overall, agile is better than the alternatives!
Even More Lessons Learned Don’t expect users to know what they want until they see what they don’t want! The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!
Questions? Contact us:
Credits Project Team Bob Dalgleish Boris Tchoursine Aileen Garcia Carla Zorn (Medicine) Alan Deschner (PM) Kirby McInnis (AIS Manager) eCV Task Force & Work Group Dr Roger Pierson (co-chair) Dr Vivian Ramsden (co-chair) Dr Ron Doucette Dr Roger Keith Dr Angela Busch (PT) Dr Phil Woods (Nursing) John Costa Special guests