Problem Statement and Background



Download 61.26 Kb.
Date29.01.2017
Size61.26 Kb.
#12496

080325 300dpispergb


Runner Project

Charter


  1. Problem Statement and Background


cineSHARE, ACORN and EAGL have each achieved tremendous success since its respective launches and today are critical components of major digital media workflows supporting various SPE business operations. However, cineSHARE, ACORN and EAGL are 9, 8 and 7 years old, respectively, and in the fast-changing digital media technology landscape, these applications are inadequate in functionality to meet customer demand. Additionally, as is common among aging systems, each application has amassed a lot of technical debt impacting system reliability as well as the ability to be responsive to new enhancement requests. New infrastructure technologies, such as Cloud Computing, along with new development approaches, such as Agile Development, are ushering in a new era of scalable, cost efficient, and reliable systems with modern web development technologies.
As an example of slow responsiveness, the last major release of EAGL took 3.5 months from the beginning of the QA phase until production launch. The bulk of the time was attributable to manual regression testing and the corresponding bug fixes. The manual deployment process also contributed to the slow release.
On the reliability front, last year the DMG development teams spent more time fixing bugs and addressing production issues versus time spent on new development of features. This effort is common across the three sometime functionally overlapping code bases of its three asset management systems.
Additionally, with three separate applications and repositories, DMG must often replicate assets across systems to support multiple workflows with increases infrastructure costs and, given system reliability and scaling challenges, maintenance overhead.
As further background, the DMG team has been experimenting with agile methodologies for the past few years. At first, Scrum was rolled out to the EAGL team and after more than a year of following Scrum processes, it became evident that EAGL was not architected and implemented in a way that aligned well with the vertical slices of functionality sought after in Scrum. What was needed was Continuous Integration and ultimately Continuous Delivery – the ability to check-in new code as it is finished and see immediately if that code breaks anything and that it can be deployed instantly.


  1. Objectives


The goal of the Runner project is to build a new digital media platform and several web applications (user experiences) to replace cineSHARE+, ACORN and EAGL while keeping in mind the following:

  • Agile best practices to improve responsiveness

  • Modern web technology stack to accelerate development and hire and retain top development talent

  • Cloud computing to scale on demand



  1. Scope


The Runner project will build a new digital media platform and several web applications (user experiences) to replace cineSHARE, ACORN, and EAGL. Also included in scope are:

  • New platform and web applications will be hosted on AWS

  • Migration of DMG-integrated systems like SPT B2B and Worldwide Theatrical Publicity Sites

  • IDM integration for central authentication

  • GPMS integration for product master data

  • Migration of Screening Room Online

  • Storage management and file transfer services provided by MCS



  1. Options/Alternatives


The DMG team looked into the possibility of meeting the Runner project objectives using two different approaches. The first approach involved refactoring and/or reengineering one module or function at a time while making it continue to work as a whole until the entire application has been redone. The second approach was to build a brand new application from scratch and migrate users and data to the new application.
After trying the refactor approach for some time, it was estimated through extrapolation that this approach would take roughly 3 to 4 years to complete given consistent team velocity. Additionally, this would not directly address the multiple systems and repository issue that had been consistently delayed by DMG due to its inability to tackle that need in conjunction with new business needs.
The second approach, which was ultimately chosen, was to build a new platform and web application. This approach was determined to be favorable as it would be shorter in effort and duration while also allowing DMG to redefine the current workflows and user practices to capture new efficiencies. Additionally, it would allow the new system to be built leveraging the new Sony MCS offering as a backend and create the new system to be most efficient in a scalable, dynamic cloud environment. We requested bids from external vendors who were familiar with the new technology stack and determined that even with pessimistic assumptions added to their estimates, we could perform the build and migration is less time at a lower cost than the refactor approach.


  1. Assumptions


The key assumptions for the Phoenix project are:

  • Adopt agile best practices

    • Continuous delivery pipeline supporting continuous integration and deployment to receive immediate feedback on newly checked-in code

    • Incremental and continuous benefit delivery to the business – weekly deployments in the course of focused user group targeted releases

    • Test driven development to achieve automated unit and integration test cases

    • Pair programming to more quickly ramp up new and junior resources with the goal of having any developer be able to tackle any piece of code

    • Access to an open workspace environment to facilitate more collaboration and team productivity; all Phoenix team members will be on-site

  • DMG-integrated systems may need to make code changes in order to migrate to Runner

  • DMG will be able to fund the necessary business improvements and maintenance for its existing systems over the duration of the Runner project.


  1. Constraints


The team velocity will primarily be constrained by funding and resources.
Network bandwidth and storage performance as well as MCS performance will dictate the duration of asset migration to Runner.

  1. High-level Risks


The high-level risks for the Runner project are:

  • MCS shuts down

    • Alternative 1: Build storage and asset management services internally

    • Alternative 2: Leverage Vidispine being used by MediaCentre project

  • Retention of existing developers who maintain cineSHARE, ACORN and EAGL

  • Retention of Runner developers over the course of the program

  • AWS unknowns and potential instabilities

  • New technology stack unknowns – DMG has not built scale applications on these technologies to date

  • Coordination of migration activities across multiple DMG-integrated systems

  • Network connectivity bandwidth to AWS

  • Customer availability for input and feedback may impact project schedules



  1. Project Budget


Capital: $3,292,210

  1. Stakeholders


These are the individuals who have a positive or negative vested interest in the project. Stakeholders can be project team members and most likely would be a part of the project Steering Committee. For clear definition of Stakeholder roles, please see the attached Appendix page.


Business Unit Stakeholders

Title/Role

Mark DeRosa

Executive Director, SPT Digital Marketing

Tracey Garvin

SVP, SPHE

….. in progress
















IT Stakeholders

 Title/Role

Stephen Andujar

CIO

Ryan Kido

VP, DMG





















  1. Resource Plan


In this section please detail out the resource plan for this project. Is the project managed by the BRM organization and the development work is to be done by ADM? Is design and development work being done by a 3rd party Vendor?


Role

Named Resource

Responsible Organization

Project Manager

Charles Cole

DMG

Technical Product Owner

Tatsu Oiye

DMG

Functional Product Owner

Catherine Wong

DMG

User Experience Designer

Miles Kemp

DMG

Graphic Designer

Rachael Pope

DMG

Full-stack Developer

Chad Brown

DMG

Full-stack Developer

William Andrews

DMG

Full-stack Developer

Ron Dollete

DMG

Full-stack Developer

Travis Herrick

DMG

Dev Ops

Keith Stevens

DMG

Full-stack Developers (2)

Third Party Resources

Pivotal Labs



  1. Project Benefits


If your project’s proposed budget is under $100,000, you do not need to complete the section below. Please list your project benefits by bullet point. If your project’s proposed budget is above $100,000, please complete the section below. This will assist with the Benefits Realization of your project.



















Benefit

Accountable Person

Metric

Tracking Time Frame

Tracking

Start Date

Report Source

Avoidance in the duplication of assets due to multiple repositories/systems (Yearly, increases by 25% YoY)

Ryan Kido

 $300,000 year 1

 

Sept 30, 2015

DMG

FY14 IT Infrastructure Refresh (Servers, Storage, Tape Library), One time

Ryan Kido

 $1,500,000

 

Sept 30, 2015

DMG/IT

Reduction in Contract Developers (2) - cineSHARE+ (TCS Fixed Bid), Yearly

Ryan Kido

 $208,000/year

 

Sept 30, 2015

DMG

Reduction in Contract Developers (2) - EAGL, Yearly 

Ryan Kido

$374,400/year

 

 Sept 30, 2015

DMG

Reduction in System Administration FTE (1)

 Ryan Kido

$100,000/year 

 

 April 1, 2014

DMG

 

 

 

 

 






  1. Required Signatures

Required Signatures


Line of Business CFO

Signature







Name







Date






Customer- Business

Signature







Name







Date






Executive Sponsor- Business

Signature







Name







Date






Product Manager - Business

Signature







Name







Date










VP- Information Security

Signature




(Electronic Signature)

Name




Jason Spaltro

Date









CIO

Signature







Name




Stephen Andujar

Date










Sponsoring DCIO/VP

Signature







Name




Ryan Kido

Date










Project Manager

Signature







Name




Charles Cole

Date










VP – Enterprise Infrastructure Services

Signature




(Electronic Signature)

Name




Ferdinand Fattorini

Date







Disclaimer



The purpose of this Project Charter is to define a business problem/opportunity. The information contained in this document is preliminary and by no means certain. Cost estimates and schedule dates are contingent upon findings discovered within the Inception and Elaboration Phases of the project. The total project cost is currently only an estimate and should be viewed as only an estimate. The anticipated benefits are subject to change as well but once defined may be tracked for benefits realization post go live.

Download 61.26 Kb.

Share with your friends:



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
information contained
entire application