...
The burn-down of how many epics still remain in the entire gap scope and links to team velocity.
| Note |
|---|
The above burn down is as of June 27 so will need to be updated at the end of June. The Interface workstream LOE may increase as we decide on the approach. The above does not include the non-prioritized scope which counts for an estimated 33.4 additional epic points. |
...
| Risk | Discussion | Status | Approach to Mitigate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sustainability of the codebase if developer community is fragmented in knowledge | Raised by Ashraf and Craig Appl (Unlicensed). Important to consider the trade-off between velocity and cross-functional work. One team focused on component/area will achieve more than one team constantly shifting components/areas of focus. However, if the teams do not work across components we run the risk of no developers (or one team/org) understanding how to support or build on the entire OpenLMIS code base. | as of it is proposed agenda item for the first meeting | |
| 2 | Metric definition. Right now there are a ton of "Reports" with varying degree of complexity. We do not have a clear set of key metrics and why they are the key ones. | How do we get the OpenLMIS community opinionated about which metrics are priority across implementations with varying practices? Which metrics will help our implementers and drive new adoption? How do we learn from each country and organization's experiences? We are planning to have an in-person meeting to discuss reports and metric. Potentially we could invite members of our community who have experience with SCOR or other supply chain best practices to help inform how our metrics could be improved or fit within. Note yet discussed with the whole group. | discussed. | Brandon: let's get some face-to-face time in September alongside the OpenLMIS community meeting. Matt: we could do some prep work around this prior to the meeting to ensure good conversation. Perhaps we could ask folks prior to the meeting to provide feedback. What are the key things which drive their decision making. Edward: Let's make sure not redo what we've already done and be specific around the request. Mary Jo: what do they actually use and how to use it. |
| 3 | Lack of input form Tanzania and Zambia stakeholders. Specifically on what scope of features are most important and WHY. | We understand the decision to actually upgrade is unique process/decision for each country. However, we need input from the implementations on priorities and why certain features are useful (or potentially should be redesigned). | Note yet discussed with the whole group. | Edward: what additional input is needed? Mary Jo: we wanted to note this as a risk because TZ and Zambia said all features were |
| 4 | Alignment on the strategy for interoperability. | Currently the Team Leads, Product Manager, Governance Committee and Architect are not aligned on the approach to implement/support interoperability. | Note yet discussed with the whole group. |
...