[arrl-odv:29069] Questions about Mintz-Hoke project from the newbie...
Allow me to quote the minutes of the October 12, 2019, Executive Committee meeting: *"Concerns were raised by Mr. Stratton, Mr. Hippisley, Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Tiemstra including the expected timeframe and deliverables from Mintz+Hoke and the continued absence of a contract between the ARRL and Mintz+Hoke that defined the deliverables expected by the ARRL and established the metrics by which the progress and success of the LL project could be measured."* I read this and my jaw dropped. As far as I can tell, this is the single largest project at ARRL and is highly visible to members. This concerns meet deeply. Since there is no contract (perhaps there is by now?) I suspect that there is no project plan with deliverables, time frames, and responsibility delineation between the contractor and ARRL staff. Quoting the aforementioned minutes again, it appears that the group thought that there should be a preliminary contract by now. Several were asked to *"formalize a contract for the Lifelong Learning project, with a preliminary document to be provided by November 15, 2019."* Formally, I am on the outside until January 1, but I do understand Mr. Sarratt's query about the short Committee of the Whole meeting after this discussion. That leaves me with several questions about this project... - This project should be well underway, then 10 months after the board vote to fund the project. Why was there no contract? - Dr. Michel has reported (Huntsville Hamfest, August) that the project was underway. What mechanism are they using to bill ARRL without a contract? - Are we tracking work/billing vs. the budgeted amount? Where does that stand? - Is there a staff project manager assigned to this? Or, is project management and reporting called out as the vendor's responsibility? - Is there now a preliminary contract with Mintz-Hoke? - Is there a project plan that could be shared with the Board? (Has it been?) - If there's no plan, what is the standard of success? My apologies if this has been discussed and answered on this list before my time. I would appreciate a "catch up" call from any of you that would like to discuss it if the history is too long or painful to explain here. Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL Phone: 561 320-2775 *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf*
Hi Mickey, ODV, While the EC minutes reflect the concerns of some members of the EC, it is not true to say we don't have a contact with M+H. We have been operating under a Master Service Agreement (MSA) signed by CEO Barry Shelley (attached) in 2018. When the Board approved the full M+H project in January 2019, as defined by the budget and deliverables attached, M+H did not require a new contract. As you can see, this project is quite a bit more than a website software development project. There are numerous deliverables, and ARRL is billed upon completion of each item. M+H bears the majority of risk, not ARRL. At this time, we have paid M+H about $101k, or about 21% of the full $485k. But M+H has started developing significantly more pieces of the project than the completed itesm we have paid them. Also, we have deliberately slowed down M+H work because ARRL was late in starting the conversion of our Association Management Software (AMS) to Personify. Since the M+H project must function with the AMS, we need to keep the two projects in sync. I am not concerned about the progress we are making with M+H, or that the deliverables will be what we want. We have weekly meetings between M+H and ARRL staff at the working level, and periodic meetings at higher levels to ensure that the customer (ARRL) gets exactly the deliverable we want. In my experience, project that go wrong go wrong because of poor communications between the customer and developer. This communications is particularity critical at the design phase, especially in the user-experience and user-interface designs. A contract will not fix that. However, in recognition that the EC wants a more traditional contract with M+H, I have been working with Bud and Jeff, and Murtha Cullina (our CT counsel) to develop a "traditional" contract. Our plan is to incorporate the list of deliverables into the MSA, and define criteria for acceptance and payment, without spending thousands of dollars. Feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this in detail. 73, Howard, WB2ITX On 12/05/2019 8:29 PM, Mickey Baker wrote: Allow me to quote the minutes of the October 12, 2019, Executive Committee meeting: "Concerns were raised by Mr. Stratton, Mr. Hippisley, Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Tiemstra including the expected timeframe and deliverables from Mintz+Hoke and the continued absence of a contract between the ARRL and Mintz+Hoke that defined the deliverables expected by the ARRL and established the metrics by which the progress and success of the LL project could be measured." I read this and my jaw dropped. As far as I can tell, this is the single largest project at ARRL and is highly visible to members. This concerns meet deeply. Since there is no contract (perhaps there is by now?) I suspect that there is no project plan with deliverables, time frames, and responsibility delineation between the contractor and ARRL staff. Quoting the aforementioned minutes again, it appears that the group thought that there should be a preliminary contract by now. Several were asked to "formalize a contract for the Lifelong Learning project, with a preliminary document to be provided by November 15, 2019." Formally, I am on the outside until January 1, but I do understand Mr. Sarratt's query about the short Committee of the Whole meeting after this discussion. That leaves me with several questions about this project... * This project should be well underway, then 10 months after the board vote to fund the project. Why was there no contract? * Dr. Michel has reported (Huntsville Hamfest, August) that the project was underway. What mechanism are they using to bill ARRL without a contract? * Are we tracking work/billing vs. the budgeted amount? Where does that stand? * Is there a staff project manager assigned to this? Or, is project management and reporting called out as the vendor's responsibility? * Is there now a preliminary contract with Mintz-Hoke? * Is there a project plan that could be shared with the Board? (Has it been?) * If there's no plan, what is the standard of success? My apologies if this has been discussed and answered on this list before my time. I would appreciate a "catch up" call from any of you that would like to discuss it if the history is too long or painful to explain here. Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL Phone: 561 320-2775 “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org>
Hi Howard, It would be helpful if the Board got something in the way of milestones and projected timelines. As it is, all I’m hearing is “we got it” and “trust us.” I’m absolutely not comfortable with (from my understanding) having a project like this being open-ended and basically with no timelines nor deadlines. One of my biggest pet peeves today is that nobody wants to tell you how much something will cost up front! Instead they just bill you later for how much they want. This has been my impression of M+H so far. Ria N2RJ On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:32 PM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) < wb2itx@arrl.org> wrote:
Hi Mickey, ODV,
While the EC minutes reflect the concerns of some members of the EC, it is not true to say we don't have a contact with M+H. We have been operating under a Master Service Agreement (MSA) signed by CEO Barry Shelley (attached) in 2018. When the Board approved the full M+H project in January 2019, as defined by the budget and deliverables attached, M+H did not require a new contract.
As you can see, this project is quite a bit more than a website software development project. There are numerous deliverables, and ARRL is billed upon completion of each item. M+H bears the majority of risk, not ARRL. At this time, we have paid M+H about $101k, or about 21% of the full $485k. But M+H has started developing significantly more pieces of the project than the completed itesm we have paid them. Also, we have deliberately slowed down M+H work because ARRL was late in starting the conversion of our Association Management Software (AMS) to Personify. Since the M+H project must function with the AMS, we need to keep the two projects in sync.
I am not concerned about the progress we are making with M+H, or that the deliverables will be what we want. We have weekly meetings between M+H and ARRL staff at the working level, and periodic meetings at higher levels to ensure that the customer (ARRL) gets exactly the deliverable we want. In my experience, project that go wrong go wrong because of poor communications between the customer and developer. This communications is particularity critical at the design phase, especially in the user-experience and user-interface designs. A contract will not fix that.
However, in recognition that the EC wants a more traditional contract with M+H, I have been working with Bud and Jeff, and Murtha Cullina (our CT counsel) to develop a "traditional" contract. Our plan is to incorporate the list of deliverables into the MSA, and define criteria for acceptance and payment, without spending thousands of dollars.
Feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this in detail.
73, Howard, WB2ITX
On 12/05/2019 8:29 PM, Mickey Baker wrote:
Allow me to quote the minutes of the October 12, 2019, Executive Committee meeting:
*"Concerns were raised by Mr. Stratton, Mr. Hippisley, Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Tiemstra including the expected timeframe and deliverables from Mintz+Hoke and the continued absence of a contract between the ARRL and Mintz+Hoke that defined the deliverables expected by the ARRL and established the metrics by which the progress and success of the LL project could be measured."*
I read this and my jaw dropped. As far as I can tell, this is the single largest project at ARRL and is highly visible to members. This concerns meet deeply.
Since there is no contract (perhaps there is by now?) I suspect that there is no project plan with deliverables, time frames, and responsibility delineation between the contractor and ARRL staff.
Quoting the aforementioned minutes again, it appears that the group thought that there should be a preliminary contract by now. Several were asked to *"formalize a contract for the Lifelong Learning project, with a preliminary document to be provided by November 15, 2019."*
Formally, I am on the outside until January 1, but I do understand Mr. Sarratt's query about the short Committee of the Whole meeting after this discussion.
That leaves me with several questions about this project...
- This project should be well underway, then 10 months after the board vote to fund the project. Why was there no contract? - Dr. Michel has reported (Huntsville Hamfest, August) that the project was underway. What mechanism are they using to bill ARRL without a contract? - Are we tracking work/billing vs. the budgeted amount? Where does that stand? - Is there a staff project manager assigned to this? Or, is project management and reporting called out as the vendor's responsibility? - Is there now a preliminary contract with Mintz-Hoke? - Is there a project plan that could be shared with the Board? (Has it been?) - If there's no plan, what is the standard of success?
My apologies if this has been discussed and answered on this list before my time. I would appreciate a "catch up" call from any of you that would like to discuss it if the history is too long or painful to explain here.
Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL Phone: 561 320-2775
*“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf*
-- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/225+Main+Street,+Newington,+CT+06111?entry=gmail&source=g>-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Hi Ria, ODV, I've attached some more documents that show more detail. 1) "Roadmap." This is a high level Gantt Chart that we received from M+H after project initiation. My apologizes for the format (pdf). We don't have a license for their project management software. You will note that it shows a completion date of February. As I have said, we have slowed them down several months. 2) "LLL Project schedule revised..." This is our internal document that shows future work involving M+H. It shows LLL going live in September 1st. The risk in this schedule is the "user profile built in AMS." Any possible delay here is our responsibility, not M+H, and this is where my concerns are focused! 3) "ARRL_Learning_ Center..." This is a recent progress report from M+H. (Don't worry that the title says "billing report." We pay a fixed price on completion, not progress or on effort expended.) You will see things like 98.2% complete, which you and I know is complete fantasy. But I've talked to them. The number comes from their "tool" but it is sanity-checked by looking at their estimate of work done vs projected work still remaining. The most telling number in this chart is the 41.7% for Personify integration. They don't yet have a good handle of any potential "undocumented features" in the Personify API since it's still being developed for ARRL. This is the same concern I expressed in item 2 above. I am not too concerned about the exact numbers for the first three items (front-end, back-end, Path integration) because these are very low risk software development projects, and any risk is on M+H. If it takes two hours or two hundred hours, we pay them the same amount on delivery. 73, Howard On 12/06/2019 12:46 PM, rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Howard, It would be helpful if the Board got something in the way of milestones and projected timelines. As it is, all I’m hearing is “we got it” and “trust us.” I’m absolutely not comfortable with (from my understanding) having a project like this being open-ended and basically with no timelines nor deadlines. One of my biggest pet peeves today is that nobody wants to tell you how much something will cost up front! Instead they just bill you later for how much they want. This has been my impression of M+H so far. Ria N2RJ On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:32 PM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>> wrote: Hi Mickey, ODV, While the EC minutes reflect the concerns of some members of the EC, it is not true to say we don't have a contact with M+H. We have been operating under a Master Service Agreement (MSA) signed by CEO Barry Shelley (attached) in 2018. When the Board approved the full M+H project in January 2019, as defined by the budget and deliverables attached, M+H did not require a new contract. As you can see, this project is quite a bit more than a website software development project. There are numerous deliverables, and ARRL is billed upon completion of each item. M+H bears the majority of risk, not ARRL. At this time, we have paid M+H about $101k, or about 21% of the full $485k. But M+H has started developing significantly more pieces of the project than the completed itesm we have paid them. Also, we have deliberately slowed down M+H work because ARRL was late in starting the conversion of our Association Management Software (AMS) to Personify. Since the M+H project must function with the AMS, we need to keep the two projects in sync. I am not concerned about the progress we are making with M+H, or that the deliverables will be what we want. We have weekly meetings between M+H and ARRL staff at the working level, and periodic meetings at higher levels to ensure that the customer (ARRL) gets exactly the deliverable we want. In my experience, project that go wrong go wrong because of poor communications between the customer and developer. This communications is particularity critical at the design phase, especially in the user-experience and user-interface designs. A contract will not fix that. However, in recognition that the EC wants a more traditional contract with M+H, I have been working with Bud and Jeff, and Murtha Cullina (our CT counsel) to develop a "traditional" contract. Our plan is to incorporate the list of deliverables into the MSA, and define criteria for acceptance and payment, without spending thousands of dollars. Feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this in detail. 73, Howard, WB2ITX On 12/05/2019 8:29 PM, Mickey Baker wrote: Allow me to quote the minutes of the October 12, 2019, Executive Committee meeting: "Concerns were raised by Mr. Stratton, Mr. Hippisley, Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Tiemstra including the expected timeframe and deliverables from Mintz+Hoke and the continued absence of a contract between the ARRL and Mintz+Hoke that defined the deliverables expected by the ARRL and established the metrics by which the progress and success of the LL project could be measured." I read this and my jaw dropped. As far as I can tell, this is the single largest project at ARRL and is highly visible to members. This concerns meet deeply. Since there is no contract (perhaps there is by now?) I suspect that there is no project plan with deliverables, time frames, and responsibility delineation between the contractor and ARRL staff. Quoting the aforementioned minutes again, it appears that the group thought that there should be a preliminary contract by now. Several were asked to "formalize a contract for the Lifelong Learning project, with a preliminary document to be provided by November 15, 2019." Formally, I am on the outside until January 1, but I do understand Mr. Sarratt's query about the short Committee of the Whole meeting after this discussion. That leaves me with several questions about this project... * This project should be well underway, then 10 months after the board vote to fund the project. Why was there no contract? * Dr. Michel has reported (Huntsville Hamfest, August) that the project was underway. What mechanism are they using to bill ARRL without a contract? * Are we tracking work/billing vs. the budgeted amount? Where does that stand? * Is there a staff project manager assigned to this? Or, is project management and reporting called out as the vendor's responsibility? * Is there now a preliminary contract with Mintz-Hoke? * Is there a project plan that could be shared with the Board? (Has it been?) * If there's no plan, what is the standard of success? My apologies if this has been discussed and answered on this list before my time. I would appreciate a "catch up" call from any of you that would like to discuss it if the history is too long or painful to explain here. Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL Phone: 561 320-2775 “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111<https://www.google.com/maps/search/225+Main+Street,+Newington,+CT+06111?entry=gmail&source=g>-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org>
participants (3)
-
Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) -
Mickey Baker -
rjairam＠gmail.com