The following is a draft of risks identified by the VR team and the Product Committee members. The purpose is to have a collective understanding of the risks associated with the re-architecture and future of OpenLMIS. Subsequently we can collectively put in place strategies to mitigate the identified risks.
| | Likelihood | Audience experiencing that risk | | | | | | |
---|
1 | Medium | Small | Implementor | New deployment before 3.0 is done. How do we support or advise implementation before 3.0 is available? | Migration | VR Team | | - Depends on timelines
- Ideally wait till 3.0 and work with Product Committee to prioritize required features
- UX isn't changing much (being rebuilt as a reference to support customizations) so there is potential to start on 2.0 and move to 3.0 however no customizations
| |
2 | Large | Medium | | Are we building the right product for our target market. - In addition, lack of original product knowledge, minimal historical knowledge on design decisions, insight into eLMIS implementations.
| Market knowledge | VR Team | | - Trasparent development and roadmap.
- CRDM Process
- Country outreach
- Country rep community group
- TBD
| |
3 | Large | | End Users | Solution is too complex for end users. | Adoption | VR Team | | Closer involvement of country reps, end-users during iterations | PC to monitor |
4 | Medium | | Developers | Solution is too complex for developers. | Adoption | VR Team | 7/14/2016 | - Design Review needs to be formalized but is a component of the architecture.
- Ideally tooling can be acquired / built to lower on-boarding.
- Dockerized development environment is already available and helping.
| Josh Zamor and Tech Committee |
5 | Large | | | Perception of code review as an acceptance of the story. The role of code review. | Code Review | VR Team | 7/14/2016 | Define code review goals and workflow. Provide code review checklist. Continue to adopt practices and enforce standards. | |
6 | Medium | | | OpenLMIS community fails to grow. Stays small and driven by self-interest. | Community | VR Team | 7/14/2016 | - Release OpenLMIS beta & 3.0 and build strong communication around product
- Hold a second all-community meeting sometime around release of 3.0 or 3.x to re-engage and revitalize community and develop fresh goals/objectives for next phase of OpenLMIS
- Perform "road show" of OpenLMIS 3.x with VillageReach and other key partners
- Conduct M&E work on existing OpenLMIS deployments and use this as basis for case-studies and marketing collateral
- Continue to identify and draw in new partners (ie. PSM, Chemonics, etc.)
| |
7 | Medium | | | OpenLMIS community stays dependent on centralized funding from 1-2 primary sources and fails to diversify and encompass open source development principles. | Community | | 7/20/16 | Under conversation - (Potential): Build open source developer community and encourage volunteer coding time to contribute to OpenLMIS core development
- Identify and engage 3-5 in-country developer experts throughout OpenLMIS geographic spread (ie. West, Central, East Africa) who can serve as local resource for OpenLMIS in-country technical support
- (Potential): Identify implementation partners interested/willing to take on OpenLMIS support costs - reduce paid staff and move toward more traditional open source support model
- (Potential): Explore SaaS model for OpenLMIS, identifying possible business opportunity and partner(s) and developing OpenLMIS as a licensed product
| |
8 | Medium | | | Donor expectations | | VR Team | 7/14/2016 | - Regular communication
- Regular expectation setting
- Sharing of risk and mitigation strategies with donors
| |
9 | | | | Demand for 3.0 to support the 2.0 feature set. | Expectations | VR Team | 7/14/2016
| - Continual messaging of roadmap for 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2
| |
10 | Medium | | | Tenly leaving for maternity leave | Community | VR Team | | Develop maternity handover document (done), and identify key members of team to support Governance committee, opportunity, and representation activities for 2 months until Tenly returns (early to mid-October) | |
11 | Large | | | Too many new country requests. Distractions. Too many demands of project team. Scope creep. | Resourcing Scheduling | VR Team | | - Set transparent metrics for prioritization. Review backlog and roadmap regularly with stakeholders to build understanding and shared knowledge on scope.
- Limit influence of new project opportunities on the roadmap until they are reasonably solid
- Have different personnel in charge of product development and opportunity cultivation
| |
12 | Medium | | | Poor branding and lack of attribution | Community | VR Team | | - Work requirement into 3.x for inclusion of "Powered by OpenLMIS" or "Supported by OpenLMIS"
- Make branding assets (ie. design files, logos, graphics) readily available
| |