Update For The Leadership Pages

Share discussions around the Classic Local Unit Website (LUWS).
User avatar
dobrichelovek
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Utah, USA
Contact:

Reacting to changes after development.

Postby dobrichelovek » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:29 am

Tom

I think I may have been misunderstood. Thank you for the explanation of how things work, as it is very insightful.

On another thread, I was trying to figure out if there was a published policy that drove the design of the LUWS lesson schedules to be at the ward level for Sunday School and at the Stake level for RS/Priesthood. What I was attempting to establish there was either 1) there is a published policy that maybe my stake isn't aware of or 2) there is not a published policy but simply a design decision was made that doesn't quite work to the liking of all of the 'users' of the product. Before I go on, I will mention that I consider myself to be one who finds holes or flaws in things and tries to advocate a solution. By profession I work in the capacity of an engineer where these 'skills' are useful, but I might come off as personally critical, which is not my intention.

Back to the design question I asked earlier, the response was a waffle stating that sometimes things get implemented not by implicit design, but rather because those developing had to do something, and in the absence of an implicit design, that is what they did.

I simply tied that situation and this, where there was a policy change on a calling (Teacher Improvement Coordinator) that no longer exists according to a published policy. The hole that I was trying to uncover or fix was that when these things (changes) happen, is there a procedure for method for considering the impact and possible required changes needed based on that change.

In general, getting user feedback and sifting it back to the program/project managers is great and appreciated, but sometimes some minor procedural modifications can get the correction made as it happens instead of months down the line when a user gets frustrated enough to pipe up about it. I am glad that users do pipe up, and especially that we have a forum and a culture where we can mention things and not get heated about it. :D My questions (this time) were more post-development in focus.

What I was suggesting, without coming out and saying it last time, was that it makes sense that policy changes and the like ought to be sent to the IT group and then they would be reviewed for impact. Hmm. Maybe I did say that last time. Nevertheless, the information on how things happen internally is both interesting and useful. I appreciate the transparency.

Finally, design considerations out to be taken to make it easy to make changes when policy dictates. Hard-coding anything with hard limits is not a good idea. The first presidency has three right now, but there have been assistants before, and there theoretically could be again. Writing a program that only has three spots at that level (without the flexibility for dynamic change) isn't a good idea. It seems that this principle has been followed pretty well by what I have seen.

User avatar
dobrichelovek
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Utah, USA
Contact:

Postby dobrichelovek » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:33 am

crockett wrote:In this specific case, the design requirement that the developers received from the product manager was that PR/RS lessons should be input from the stake. Since that time there has been plenty of feedback that wards/branches should be able to do this. No, developers didn't just implement this on their own.


So in this case, there was a design requirement, and it is working as designed, but there was no policy published to direct Stakes/Districts on how to deal with this. If there is going to be a design directive, then policy should support it, otherwise it should be questioned.

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:23 am

dobrichelovek wrote:So in this case, there was a design requirement, and it is working as designed, but there was no policy published to direct Stakes/Districts on how to deal with this. If there is going to be a design directive, then policy should support it, otherwise it should be questioned.

I think in this case it was a choice of the PM (no policy either way) and thinking that the lesson schedule should be the same across the stake they wanted to reduce the ammount of work and so took it at a single level. Now that it has been out and feedback returned updates eventually will be made.
- David

User avatar
dobrichelovek
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Utah, USA
Contact:

Postby dobrichelovek » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:53 am

thedqs wrote:I think in this case it was a choice of the PM (no policy either way) and thinking that the lesson schedule should be the same across the stake they wanted to reduce the ammount of work and so took it at a single level. Now that it has been out and feedback returned updates eventually will be made.


Oh that lovely word, 'eventually'! ;)

Not sure if there will be updates as we're told that 'eventually' there will be a rewrite, or maybe that's what you meant.

BTW- I don't have a problem with the design either way (keeping it the way it is or changing it to allow for Wards (or the stake can allow wards if they choose)) but the issue was with the relationship between a communicated/existing policy (or lack thereof) and the design being restrictive. Either communicate it, or don't be restrictive.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15123
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

PR/RS Lessons at Stake Level is great

Postby aebrown » Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:36 pm

thedqs wrote:I think in this case it was a choice of the PM (no policy either way) and thinking that the lesson schedule should be the same across the stake they wanted to reduce the ammount of work and so took it at a single level. Now that it has been out and feedback returned updates eventually will be made.


Just because there is some negative feedback doesn't mean that the original design is bad. In our stake we are very happy with the way the lesson schedules were designed to have PR/RS lessons input at the stake level. Our stake president wants all wards to have the same lessons on the same days.

If I understand this thread correctly, "eventually" PR/RS lessons will be administered at a ward level. This will have two decidedly negative impacts (at least for our stake, and I imagine for others):

1. Consistency will be lost. The current policy for PR/RS instruction is "The Melchizedek Priesthood and the Relief Society study the same lessons, except for the first Sunday of each month." Why should we change the technology to allow flexibility when the policy does not require it?

2. Our stake web site is faithfully administered and kept up to date (in all modesty, this is done by me). The ward web sites are not all that consistent. If the lesson schedules are administered at the ward level, we will go from having 100% of the wards having the PR/RS schedule posted online to somewhere less than 30%.

There's a strong argument certainly that Melchizedek Priesthood is a stake function and should be administered at that level; the argument in the case of RS is somewhat weaker, but can be made.

From a product management standpoint, I would simply urge some care be taken. When you get some negative feedback, remember that there may be far more people who are giving no feedback because they are silently happy that the feature works just fine as it is. Remember "New Coke"!

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:05 pm

dobrichelovek wrote:Oh that lovely word, 'eventually'! ;)

Not sure if there will be updates as we're told that 'eventually' there will be a rewrite, or maybe that's what you meant.


That is what I meant, the complete rewrite.
- David

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:09 pm

Alan_Brown wrote:Just because there is some negative feedback doesn't mean that the original design is bad. In our stake we are very happy with the way the lesson schedules were designed to have PR/RS lessons input at the stake level. Our stake president wants all wards to have the same lessons on the same days.

If I understand this thread correctly, "eventually" PR/RS lessons will be administered at a ward level. This will have two decidedly negative impacts (at least for our stake, and I imagine for others):

1. Consistency will be lost. The current policy for PR/RS instruction is "The Melchizedek Priesthood and the Relief Society study the same lessons, except for the first Sunday of each month." Why should we change the technology to allow flexibility when the policy does not require it?

2. Our stake web site is faithfully administered and kept up to date (in all modesty, this is done by me). The ward web sites are not all that consistent. If the lesson schedules are administered at the ward level, we will go from having 100% of the wards having the PR/RS schedule posted online to somewhere less than 30%.

There's a strong argument certainly that Melchizedek Priesthood is a stake function and should be administered at that level; the argument in the case of RS is somewhat weaker, but can be made.

From a product management standpoint, I would simply urge some care be taken. When you get some negative feedback, remember that there may be far more people who are giving no feedback because they are silently happy that the feature works just fine as it is. Remember "New Coke"!


The point made back previously is that all the wards are not on the same schedule because of Ward Conference. The ability asked for is to make those changes at a ward level on a ward by ward basis. It can still keep the stake schedule as default if none is entered but what is requested is the ability to account for those small changes.
- David

margiestroble
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:54 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Postby margiestroble » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:44 pm

thedqs wrote:The point made back previously is that all the wards are not on the same schedule because of Ward Conference. The ability asked for is to make those changes at a ward level on a ward by ward basis. It can still keep the stake schedule as default if none is entered but what is requested is the ability to account for those small changes.


That's perfect! Couldn't of been said any better.

User avatar
Jeremy-p40
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:51 pm

Postby Jeremy-p40 » Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:05 pm

thedqs wrote:The point made back previously is that all the wards are not on the same schedule because of Ward Conference. The ability asked for is to make those changes at a ward level on a ward by ward basis. It can still keep the stake schedule as default if none is entered but what is requested is the ability to account for those small changes.

I think this would be a great idea and hope it is implemented. I like having the stake determine the lessons, but I would like to be able to modify for ward conferences.
:D Happy to serve

TerrySackett
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:58 pm

Postby TerrySackett » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:11 am

I just want to say that I think the idea of having a stake default with the ability to have ward adjustments is FANTASTIC! Kudos to the brother that keeps his stake's Web site current. My stake does not keep its site current, and the PH/RS lessons section has never had content. It would be useful to have the ability to post the lessons for the people in my ward (including myself) that have asked about it.

I don't mean to pat myself on the back, but the truth is, out of the ten wards in my stake, the only one that has every section of its site complete (e.g. Missionary, Calendar, Leadership Directory) is mine, because I do it. I know I'm correct, because having been the ward clerk for not quite five months, I look around at the other wards' sites to get ideas and make sure I'm doing things correctly.

Not that I'm better than anybody else in my stake, but my bishop made it my job to administer the ward Web site and I simply see to it. Therefore, if I could better serve my ward members and anyone else in my stake that wasn't sure what lesson we are on, I would jump at the opportunity and be grateful for it.

Well, there's my two cents. Now I only have seven cents left, and the weekend is coming... :D


Return to “Classic Ward & Stake Sites (LUWS)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest