[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference lmscu::lms

Title:
Moderator:SBUOA::TUCKERTIER
Created:Mon Dec 12 1994
Last Modified:Mon May 05 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:162
Total number of notes:494

47.0. "Release Management" by MPGS::TUCKER () Wed Dec 14 1994 15:01

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
47.1LMS RELEASE MGMT PROCESSMPGS::TUCKERWed Dec 14 1994 15:50412
47.2Release Mgt Process V2.7MPGS::LVAUGHANThu Dec 15 1994 15:22519
47.3Release Process Version 3.0SBUOA::TUCKERMon May 05 1997 14:56395






			LL	MM    MM    SSSSSS
			LL      MMM  MMM    SS		
			LL      M  MM  M    SSSSSS	
			LL      M  M   M        SS
			LLLLLL  M  M   M    SSSSSS



                        RELEASE MANAGEMENT PROCESS






						


						Version 3.0            










			LMS Release Management Process

	LMS Legacy Implications...............................2
	Introduction ........................................ 2
        Revision History......................................2
        Need Identified.......................................3
        Request for Analysis Submitted........................3
        Request for Analysis Refined..........................3
        Request Distributed to all Sites......................3
        Request Submitted to Vendor...........................4
	Work Prioritized......................................4
	Release/Implementation Schedule Determined............4
	Proposed Release/Implementation Schedule Distributed..5    
	Saveset Availability..................................5
	Final Acceptance Testing..............................6
        Release Installed into Production.....................6
        Request for Analysis Form.............................7
        Release/Implementation Schedule.......................8
        User Acceptance Notification..........................9

								  Page 2
	LMS Legacy Implications
	-----------------------
	As a result of Corporate efforts to condense and dramatically reduce 
	applications in support of the Year 2000 system implications and
	SAP R/3 standardization, LMS has been earmarked as a Legacy 
	Application, and must be retired. This will occur either by the
	Y2000 efforts as a result of SAP R/3 implementations. These efforts
	are planned to reduce and streamline the cost of the corporate 
	infrastucture. Since retiring LMS is planned, All enhancements are
	frozen unless they are regulatory in nature, and are mandates. The
	Emphasis of the document has not significantly been altered, with 
	exception for this mandated consideration.  As such, all requests
	should be accompanied with cost center management approval, and 
	are consistently applied to all user sites.
                                                                  
	INTRODUCTION                                          
	------------
	The purpose of this document is to describe the expectations placed
	upon the user sites as well as PSG (Production Systems Group)
	in support of requests for modifications of the (LMS) functionality.

	The process identified will provide for effective communication,
	consistent testing and implementation strategies for multiple 
	sites, identify roles and responsibilities, and ensure milestones
	are completed in a timely manner.

        For each milestone in the enhancement process, participants,
        input, output and ownership are defined.

        Needs identified as more critical (system unavailable, bug fixes,
        etc.) will be processed using the LMS Hotline Support Document
	which can be obtained thru the LMSCU::LMS notes file


        Comments, questions and suggestions may be submitted to:

	Linda Vaughan		TIS::LVAUGHAN		297-6139
	or MSexchange @ [email protected]
	REVISION HISTORY
        ----------------

	Version 3.0, May 1, 1997
		SCU change to PSG
		Update Contact list
		LMS Legacy Implications
		Saveset Availability Process Change

	Version 2.6, October 18, 1994
		Initial publication.
	

                                                                      Page 3  


1.  A NEED IS IDENTIFIED.
-------------------------
    Participants:  Business or PSG
    Input:         Analysis
    Output:        Request for Analysis (attached)
    Ownership:     Whoever has identified the need

    The Request for Analysis requires at a minimum:
           Minimum requirements for analysis include:
		Problem Statement
		Non-systems Alternative
		Benefits statement
		Request Type
		Priority
		How handled today


2.  REQUEST FOR ANALYSIS submitted to PSG
-------------------------------------------
    Participants:  Business and/or PSG
    Input:         Request for Analysis
    Output:        Request for Analysis
    Ownership:     Whoever has identified the need.


3.  REQUEST FOR ANALYSIS REFINED.
---------------------------------
    Participants:  Business and/or PSG
    Input:         Request for Analysis
    Output:        Request for Analysis, PSG ID#
    Ownership:     PSG

4.  REQUEST DISTRIBUTED TO ALL SITES
------------------------------------
    Participants:  PSG and all sites
    Input:         Request for Analysis
    Output:        Feedback by sites
    Ownership:     PSG

    PSG distributes request to other site(s), providing a formal
    opportunity to review and provide feedback by an PSG-designated 
    date.  
    



								     Page 4

5.  REQUEST SUBMITTED TO VENDOR
-------------------------------
    Participants:  PSG, vendor
    Input:         Finalized Request for Analysis
    Output:        Quote
    Ownership:     PSG



6.  WORK PRIORITIZED
--------------------
    Participants:  PSG, sites
    Input:         All existing requests for which there is a vendor quote
    Output:        Sites-approved, prioritized schedule of enhancements 
		   and release dates; notification of closed request,
                   if applicable
    Ownership:     Prioritized list:  sites
                   Notification of closed enhancement:  PSG


    If for some reason a request is closed, PSG will provide formal 
    communication to all sites.


7.  RELEASE/IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE DETERMINED
----------------------------------------------
    Participants:  PSG, sites
    Input:         Prioritized listing of identified enhancements
    Output:        Proposed release/implementation schedule
    Ownership:     PSG


								Page 5

8)  PROPOSED RELEASE/IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE DISTRIBUTED
--------------------------------------------------------
    Participants:  PSG, sites, vendor
    Input:         Proposed release/implementation schedule
    Output:        Finalized release/implementation schedule
    Ownership:     PSG, sites


    PSG submits a proposed implementation schedule which includes
    dates for release of preliminary saveset, acceptance testing (including 
    ownership) and worldwide implementation.
    Template included at bottom of document.

    Sites to approve schedule or suggest modifications by date determined
    by PSG.

    Upon agreement, PSG submits finalized plan to vendor and sites.


9)  SAVESET AVAILABILITY
------------------------
    Participants:  PSG, vendor
    Input:         Acceptable test results of enhancement
    Output:        SAVmmdd*.BCK, LMS Release Notice
    Ownership:     PSG, vendor

    Step One:
    Sponsor Site is notified of saveset availability, who will provide an
    LMS Release Notice. It is the sponsor site responsibility to test the 
    Solution and provide acceptance, at which time a general release will
    occur.
    StepTwo:
    Sites are notified of saveset availability via PSG, who will provide an
    'LMS Release Notice' (renamed from READMEFIRST.MMDD) specifying the 
    following:
    The '*' appearing in the saveset name represents a letter which will
    be incremented if there are more than one savesets distributed on a given
    day.  For example, the first saveset might be SAV1012.BCK, the second
    saveset for that day SAV1012A.BCK, the third saveset for that day
    SAV1012B.BCK, etc.

    For a release, for each request being distributed:
    	1.  Brief description
	2.  Request for Analysis PSG ID#
	3.  List of files affected.
	4.  Clear, concise instructions for IM&T and superusers.
        5.  New logicals documented.
        6.  If record layout has been changed, new layout is
                     included for user acceptance testing.
        7.  Documentation:  what has been revised and how revisions
                     are being distributed.
        8.  Implementation plan attached.
        9.  User Acceptance Notification attached.




								Page 6

10) FINAL ACCEPTANCE TESTING
-----------------------------
    Participants:  Site(s), PSG, vendor
    Input:         SAVmmdd*.BCK, LMS Release Notice
    Output:        Successful:  User Acceptance Notification
                   Unsuccessful:  mail communication to PSG, sites
    Ownership:     Site(s)

    The '*' appearing in the saveset name represents a letter which will
    be incremented if there are more than one savesets distributed on a given
    day.  For example, the first saveset might be SAV1012.BCK, the second
    saveset for that day SAV1012A.BCK, the third saveset for that day
    SAV1012B.BCK, etc.

    Upon successful completion of user testing, site responsible for testing 
    enhancement submits User Acceptance Notification to LMSCU::ACCEPTANCE, 
    which will notify all sites and PSG.  
    Template included at bottom of document.

    If problems found during testing, site responsible for testing
    should inform PSG and other sites in writing.  PSG to work
    with vendor for resolution and return to step 8).




11.  RELEASE INSTALLED INTO PRODUCTION
--------------------------------------
    Participants:  Site(s)
    Input:         
    Output:        Written communication back to PSG indicating
		   that implementation has completed.
    Ownership:     Site(s)

    Each site must submit notification that release has been moved into
    production environment.

    NOTE: If for some reason a release cannot be implemented as
          scheduled, future releases will be placed on hold until all sites
          are at same rev of LMS.



								Page 7
			REQUEST FOR ANALYSIS
			--------------------
			  (Submit to PSG)

REQUEST TITLE: 

DESIGNATED BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE:      			SITE:
PHONE #:				E-MAIL:			CC:

MANAGER:				DATE:

PSG ID #:
  (To be supplied by PSG)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REQUEST TYPE:
  Please check one of the following:
	New Development                                 [ ]
	Enhancement (additional functionality)          [ ]
	Modification (change to existing functionality) [ ]
        Other: ______________________________________   [ ]
               ______________________________________

PRIORITY   
  Reason: Please check one of the following:
	1. Audit point            			[ ]
	2. Compliance and/or Internal Control Issue	[ ]
        3. Time Critical                                [ ]
        4. Productivity Improvement and/or Cost Savings [ ]
        5. Disfunctional                                [ ]
        Other: ______________________________________   [ ]
               ______________________________________


PROBLEM STATEMENT: 


HOW DO YOU HANDLE THIS PROBLEM TODAY:


NON-SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE:


BENEFITS STATEMENT:



OTHER IMPORTANT FACTORS: 


								Page 8

		RELEASE/IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
		-------------------------------
		    (Distributed by PSG)

PSG ID #:                                     

REQUEST TITLE:

SAVESET:


SCHEDULED DATE OF USER ACCEPTANCE TESTING:


SITE PERFORMING PRIMARY TESTING:


SCHEDULED DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION:



								Page 9

		USER ACCEPTANCE NOTIFICATION
		----------------------------
                 (MAIL TO LMSCU::ACCEPTANCE)


  The following modification to LMS functionality has been successfully
tested and approved for implementation.


PSG ID #:                                     

REQUEST TITLE:

SAVESET:

SCHEDULED DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION:

DESIGNATED BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE:			SITE: 			
PHONE #:			E-MAIL:			CC:

MANAGER:				DATE: