Session 2B - Project Process Feedback & Brainstorming

Project Process Feedback and Brainstorming Open Discussion with Joe Elsinger, P.E.2015 REGIONAL

CONFERENCES

Photo Caption (delete if not using)

2015 REGIONAL CONFERENCES

Ensure quality

programs with our

community partners

Enable members to

work effectively

and efficiently

Inform internal and

external stakeholders

of project progress

Provide continuity for

chapters

INTRODUCTIONGoals of the Project Process

INTRODUCTIONWhy Project Process Improvements?

Strategic Plan• The project process should

better uphold values expressed in EWB-USA’s strategic plan

Member Feedback• Many members have

expressed frustration at the current process (more later)

Organizational Changes• EWB-USA has grown! • Staff and volunteer roles

change as organizations grow; the project process must reflect this2015 REGIONAL CONFERENCES

INTRODUCTIONProject Process Committee

Committee Basics• Members are professionals,

students, mentors, faculty advisors, TAC members, ARC members, etc.

• Five meetings, July through September

• Careful review of feedback from EWB-USA stakeholders

• Spirited discussions• Output is four

recommendations


MEMBER FEEDBACKOnline survey

• Open to all members; still available onlinehttps://docs.google.com/forms/d/11Q9o7xadtO6IXXWnSjbMoPr2adqp_xnj82Jat71M5aQ/viewform

Phone interviews• 50+ phone interviews with members, led by EWB-USA Project

Engineer Katrina MyersIn-Person Discussions• Professional Workshop in Reston, VA• Denver Professional Chapter MeetingOrganizing feedback• Feedback was put in following categories:

• Project reporting, TAC, student vs. professional challenges, data sharing, project engineer review, resources & examples, mentors, financials & funding, IT solutions and website, travel approval, policies & flexibility, education, chapter management & collaboration, design standards, PMEL, partnerships, community, & HASP


https://docs.google.com/forms/d/11Q9o7xadtO6IXXWnSjbMoPr2adqp_xnj82Jat71M5aQ/viewform




MEMBER FEEDBACKKey Feedback

Top four feedback areas• Project reporting (188)• Technical Advisory

Committee (49)• Student vs. professional

challenges (37)• Data sharing (35)


RECCOMENDATIONS

Overall goals• Make recommendations based on broad input from stakeholders• Demonstrate to volunteers that their concerns about the EWB-USA

project process have been heard and are valuedMethods of implementation• Pilot each recommendation to allow for adjustments• Implement all recommendations in phased rollouts, clearly

communicated to EWB-USA members


RECCOMENDATIONSOne: Streamline Project Reporting Process

Specific Suggestions• Eliminate redundancy within and between reports

• Remove copy/paste sections• Eliminate separate instructions document

• Separate technical from administrative reporting• Design Report info in standalone technical report similar to

engineering industry documentation• Succinct Scope of Work statement for readers• Remove personally identifiable info to facilitate sharing

• Limit template updates to every 2-3 years (after initial major revision)• Establish different reporting templates and/or expectations for

different project typesDiscussion


RECCOMENDATIONSTwo: Share Project Information within EWB-USA

Specific Suggestions• Project reporting platform will include permanent collection of past

reports by chapter and project • IT solution must reduce redundant admin info• Project report platform should allow sharing of reports across the

organization• Multiple levels of access likely required

• Phased implementation, especially for past reports• Reports will consist of limited access admin info, and shared project

infoDiscussion


RECCOMENDATIONSThree: Improve Technical Review

Specific Suggestions• Identify ways for TAC & SCC members to engage with chapters earlier

in the process• Give EWB-USA project engineers the option to assign an additional

volunteer reviewer to struggling chapters/projects before 525• Give TAC access to past project reports to provide context• Increase project staff at HQ so they have time to give substantive

review• Ensure projects going to TAC are appropriately matched with

technically-suited reviewers• Discipline-based TACs?• Pool of “on-call” specialists?

• Better define role of TAC and train TAC members yearly to increase consistency between TACs and emphasize their role


RECCOMENDATIONSThree (continued) Draft Project Coaches & Review Board ProcessChapter Level: REIC & Mentor Team• Roles will remain very similar. REIC signs off; attends review board,

participates in coaching/comment review processHQ: Project Engineer• Roles will remain similar. Will help facilitate new process.External Level: Coaching• Two volunteers: Health and Safety Coach and Project Coach• Entry dates not finalized, but by 523 at the latest• Project coaches assigned based on expertise & abilityExternal Level: Review Board• Made up of 8-10 TAC members, mix of expertise• Scheduled once per week• Not necessarily regional (but will probably start that way)• Presentation similar to TAC• Approved (maybe with comments), or declinedDiscussion


RECCOMENDATIONSFour: Provide Guided Access to Specific Educational Resources

Specific Suggestion• Gantt and flow charts to explain project process (Next cycle of

document revisions)• Resource groups of individuals (including from TAC and/or SCC) who

are brought into project process early to provide specialty mentorship• Links to resources by project type, example reports, and contact for

TAC/SCC members with expertise• Also relevant external resources

• Project engineer directs chapter to specific resources when project starts

• Project engineer can require chapters that have issues to work with specific TAC/SCC members to rectify potential problems with early intervention

• Develop resource database for NGOs and Peace Corps volunteers• Encourage chapters to contribute to this database

Discussion2015 REGIONAL CONFERENCES

IT SOLUTIONWe are developing the requirements for this system now…

Overview of requirements• Cloud-based, database with online forms and e-submittals• Levels of access and security – staff, members, public• Workflow driven system that is expandable and revisable with

changes to the process• Query and minable data• Chapters will have access to their project information, as well as

some information between chapters• Robust reporting and exporting


ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION

Questions• What other feedback do you have on the project process?• Do these recommendations address your most important

concerns?• What else are we missing?

Thank you for your feedback. If you have any questions or comments, please contact • Katrina Myers• [email protected] • 720-744-2188


mailto:[email protected]

Government & Nonprofit

Session 2B - Project Process Feedback & Brainstorming