Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the critical issues and proposed changes outlined in "The Operational Model High Level Presentation." The central theme is a significant disconnect between the current IT operational model and the broader transformation goals of the organization (SIDF). Key problems identified include ambiguous roles and responsibilities, inefficient development processes, a reactive approach to quality assurance, and a lack of strategic alignment between IT and business units.

Core findings indicate that critical functions like User Experience (UX), Quality Assurance (QA), and the Functional team lack clear mandates and ownership, leading to process delays, inadequate documentation, and a high number of defects in User Acceptance Testing (UAT). The presentation highlights the need to formalize processes, establish clear accountability through defined roles and cross-functional ownership of digital products, and improve stakeholder communication. Specific recommendations include implementing a structured design process, defining engagement models for projects, formalizing governance bodies, and adopting modern tools and methodologies like MVP and ALM Octane to align IT with the organization's digital transformation.

1. Deficiencies in Roles, Responsibilities, and Accountability

A primary concern is the ambiguity and inefficiency of key roles within the IT and development lifecycle, which undermines accountability and ownership.

• Virtual Assignments: The use of "virtual assignments" is identified as detrimental to establishing clear responsibility and ownership. This structure complicates the setting and tracking of KPIs. The IT PMO is cited as an example, with 3 members and a "vertual TL."
• Quality Assurance (QA): The QA function is misaligned.
  • The accountability of QA is described as "missing," with the functional team bearing the true responsibility for testing while relying heavily on QA, a practice that requires "a lot of reources."
  • The functional team is not aware of post-launch promises being made by the QA team.
  • It is suggested that QA should operate as a "functinal expert."
• Functional Team: The role of the functional team is blurred.
  • They are currently performing testing that should be part of the QA process.
  • They are the primary point of contact for users after launch, not the QA team.
  • The model where "AMS are virtual product owners" further complicates ownership lines.
• Digital Product Ownership: A clear solution is proposed for digital products to be "cross-owned," with shared responsibility between a functional owner from IT and an owner from the business side.

2. Process and Methodology Challenges

The current development process is characterized by delays, inadequate documentation, and a failure to adapt to the organization's broader transformation.

• Organizational Misalignment: A critical observation is that "SIDF was transformed but not IT." This suggests that IT processes have not evolved in line with the rest of the organization.
• Process Delays: The current process is explicitly identified as causing delays ("We are delaing the process").
• Documentation and Standards:
  • There is a recognized lack of "proper documentaion."
  • Non-functional requirements are not being considered, leading to issues like non-standard error messages.
• Hand-offs and Engagement:
  • Clarity is needed on when the System Design Document (SDD) should provide a "complix detailed desgn" versus a simple design or no design at all, based on the Business Requirements Document (BRD) from the functional team.
  • A formal process is required to define when teams should "be engage in CRs or projects and what type of invlovment."
  • A "Template of what to expact document sighned by the business" is proposed to formalize expectations.
• Development and Deployment:
  • The definition of "ready" is an issue. When the functional team states a service is ready, it is meant to signify it has been developed, tested, and is ready for deployment and UAT.
  • A key performance indicator (KPI) is "the number of defects that accourd in the UAT," indicating a reactive quality model that finds issues late in the cycle.
• Adopting New Methodologies:
  • There is a proposal to apply a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) approach on selected products and gather feedback from other teams to inform system changes.
  • A candidate system should be proposed to pilot this new MVP process.
  • The process must also be flexible enough to "Consider the urgent."

3. User Experience (UX) and Design Integration

The role and value of UX are not well understood or integrated into the development lifecycle, leading to potential product deficiencies.

• Lack of Awareness: There is a "Lack of awarnace of UX SD role" across Functional, Development, PMO, and Business teams, for whom awareness campaigns must be conducted.