daddy-o wrote:In reading all of this it seems all of this could have been avoided if the Project Manager for this New Church Application (NCA) had simply signed up for and actually used RAR.
This would have given the project team a far better perspective. This way he could have conveyed more useful information to the Priesthood leaders deciding the course of this NCA.
Instead it is clear that this NCA is just trying to be just like the Home & Visiting Teaching interfaces already in MLS -- sort of an MLS Online approach.
It is a shame because a conference call with actual RAR users would have really helped refine this initial design further.
I just don't think this is accurate. I have been watching the planning of the HT/VT Community App since the beginning and the initial write ups were a lot closer to RaR than they are now. That means there has been a course change away from RaR over time. I believe even Brad would agree with me that the initial planning of this Community App was closer to what he had in mind than it is now. It may not have been exactly what Brad envisioned for the Community project, but it was closer to RaR's feature set at that time. With that said, the focus of the Community App has since shifted because of deliberate decision making.
From personal observation, the focus and intention of the Community App switched when Church developers started meeting and presenting with Priesthood leadership. Apparently they do not feel comfortable doing any more than replicating to the web what is currently in MLS. That is certainly their decision to make.
From my observations, this is not a project management issue. I have taken this stance every time someone has insinuated that it was some particular Church employee's fault that this project is "off course." You responded to my last stance saying that I was presenting knowledge no else had (that priesthood leadership was involved and making the decisions). I really don't have any more insider information than anyone else. I have just been watching the wiki edits since the beginning.
Before your response to my last stance, I had posted before that priesthood leadership was making the decisions, so I was surprised that you were claiming to be unaware of such information. I think this is why I got all worked up, because it felt as though you were ignoring the facts that had been presented and blaming Church leadership.
I see that now you have shifted your statements from not being directed toward any priesthood leadership decision makers to some Church employee project manager who dropped the ball. I just do not think the evidence supports this theory.