Update on the Project Phoenix Plan and Process

Despite the word “project” in the name, Project Phoenix is not really a project or a series of projects. Rather, it is shorthand for the revitalization and renewal of STC. One of the results of these efforts is the launch of a new website supported by comprehensive changes in the way STC interacts with members, communities, and external audiences, and how it handles internal processes.

Project Phoenix is a revitalization process that requires consistent input from a unified team of staff who share responsibility for the outcomes. As a result, the Board of Directors approved a staff augmentation strategy to add two members to the Project Phoenix team for a period of approximately one year. The staff augmentation included an Interim Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) responsible for helping STC transform its internal and external marketing and all of the underlying processes and tools associated with marketing, in addition to providing leadership on product and service development. The staff augmentation also included an Interim Chief Technology Officer (CTO) responsible for helping STC to identify, select, and implement the necessary platforms for revitalization.

Because STC has been unable to reach consensus using an RFP approach in the past, a staff augmentation strategy was appropriate for a number of reasons:

  • Timing: If we had approached each deliverable of the overall revitalization process as a singular project requiring an RFP, time requirements would have slowed implementation.
  • Cost: Costs are fixed with a staff augmentation solution and thereby more cost effective overall.
  • Responsibility and Interaction: This strategy increases a shared sense of responsibility and cooperation among the staff and allows for consistent, face-to-face interaction.
  • Flexibility: Staff augmentation provides flexibility in responding to changes as requirements are refined based on feedback from various users groups.

The above list highlights the strengths of Project Phoenix and a staff augmentation approach rather than a traditional project perspective with a series of vendors. The current project plan is outlined below. (Click the image for a larger view.)

Phase I

Ongoing Initiatives

  • STC Website
    • Design and develop the STC public website on an Open Source content management platform.
    • Design and develop the STC private social network on an Open Source platform.

Phase II

New Initiatives

  • Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) Solution
    • Integration between the CRM solution and STC’s financial management solution (Microsoft Dynamics GP)
Ongoing Initiatives
 

 

  • Career Center Solution
    • Complete the development of the career center solution, populate the solution with content, and deploy the new solution on STC.org.
    • Chapter & SIG Website Solution
      • Complete the design and development of the Chapter and SIG website solution; provide Chapter and SIG webmasters with training and support required to migrate to the new solution if the Chapter or SIG elects to use the provided solution to manage their web presence.

Phase III

New Initiatives 

  • Business Intelligence & Reporting Solutions
    • Design, develop, and implement budgeting, forecasting, and reporting solutions that leverage data from STC’s CRM, financial management, and associated management solutions.

Ongoing Initiatives  

  • Chapter & SIG Website Deployment  
    • Provide continued support to all of the Chapters and SIGs that wish to migrate their existing web presence to the new content management solution integrated with STC.org. 
    • Learning Management Solution  
      • Deploy LMS solution and integrate it with the STC.org website and private professional social network.

0 Replies to “Update on the Project Phoenix Plan and Process”

  1. Bill,
    I’m unsure about the terminology of “community portal,” but I can tell you there are three distinct pieces of the “community” section of the new STC site. The first piece is a directory of SIGs and Chapters, available in phase 1. The second is the STC Network, a social and collaborative network for SIGs, Chapters, and working groups to stay connected, network, and work collaboratively, also available in phase 1. The only piece that will not be deployed until phase 2 are the Integrated Community Microsites. This includes providing a microsite for Chapter’s and SIG’s who choose to transition, integrating it with the STC Joomla! website, and allowing for easier user management and content syndication. That piece alone is a phase 2 roll-out.

  2. Thanks for the follow-up. I was unaware that the networking and microsite portions were split into two separate initiatives. These were originally intended to be of the same solution, with controls to allow public/private views of various areas within the SIG/Chapter network (thus comprising the microsite).

    Is there detailed information available online? I feel very much out of the loop, and having that info would certainly clarify a lot of what STC is doing/planning with regard to project phoenix. There is next to nothing on stc.org about project phoenix – in fact it points back to notebook.stc.org for details – and I thought the plan was to communicate this information better.

  3. Bill,

    It is my understanding that “community portal” was the term used around the 2010 Summit, when GoLightly was the proposed future. Since that time, with input from the STC Communities, Project Phoenix has gone in a different direction: the one you see now, implementing Joomla! and JomSocial. From what I’ve heard about the previous plan, I believe the one we are currently implementing is all-around stronger and will provide a better environment for our communities and members.

    If you want to discuss the 3 pieces of this project more, I would be happy to. It is, to me, the most exciting part of an already great new website. I am passionate about its success and adoption by the members of STC.

    1. I’d love to. I was part of the initial testing and evaluation team for GoLightly, but we weren’t consulted (nor told) when that effort was dropped. Since then I’ve been told I was going to be included in the testing and piloting of the new Joomla offering, but after many reaches out I still haven’t heard anything regarding the plan, concept, or anything. It’s very hard to continue advocating something (I’ve been a long-time advocate for social media adoption by STC) when I don’t know what it is, and there really is zero incentive to do so when promises of inclusion result in nothing but silence. All I’m asking for at this point is a bit of information to be posted that clarifies the plan, as it seems to be different than the one last communicated out to the membership.

    2. And yes, let’s discuss the 3 pieces, but let’s please do so via publicly available information so other members can partake in the discussion. I know I’m not the only one interested in this.

      I’ve been anxiously awaiting something for years. I’ve had to move my SIG from one platform to another (all free) just to wait it out until this STC offering is available. I’d like to know what it is and what to expect from it, as I’m sure every other community leader does. I used to have a clear picture of what was being provided. Now I’m nothing but confused.

    3. I just caught the “with input from the STC Communities” part… When was this input solicited? I am both a Community Manager *and* was on the testing team for the GoLightly solution, and I can tell you that I received nothing from anyone. In fact, I and others on the GoLightly team found out by glorious accident that the initiative was canned. Please provide details, and please find out how/why we were left out of the loop and circle back with a solution so this critical error does not happen again.

  4. I will second Bill’s request for an overview, or high-level plan, or *something*. I too feel completely “out of the loop.” I have asked many times for this information. Can the RFP that was completed by The Bakery be made available to members. The demo was great and really looks like a huge step forward, but many questions were answered with “yes, but later.” I would *really* like to see *exactly* what is being delivered at the end of this month.

    Thanks!

    1. As a follow-up, if this is all being rolled out aside from “microsites” (definition needed!!!) on Jan 31, when are community leaders being allowed a login and being trained so we have things set up and ready to rock upon launch?

        1. There’s a webinar/training for community leaders tomorrow. It was announced mid-late last week. Unfortunately I have a conflict (invite came in mere hours before STC’s). Had I received earlier notice I could have blocked the time, but work comes first. I’ll attend what of it I can, and have asked several in my SIG to attend as well.

  5. Bill, I think I can help with the “input from STC Communities” line, or at least part of it.

    I suspect (without knowing) that the “input” referred to is a combination of feedback from the GoLightly (very lightly) experiment, plus information channeled in from the Community Affairs Committee (CAC). I’m a member of the CAC, which is a nominated committee intended to represent community interests.

    In a recent discussion about the future, many of us have expressed the idea that some sort of community representation needs to be ongoing and continuous, and that it probably should be elected, rather than nominated by the board or by the chair.

    Is the input collected and gathered by the CAC sufficient to inform the STC board about subjects like website needs? I suspect not – or not yet, perhaps. Furthermore, I believe quite fervently that no matter how transparent you really are, if you’re not SEEN to be transparent, it’s for naught, and I do fear that some of what we’ve been doing in the CAC has been good work that is opaque to folks like yourself who are (and should be) interested.

    I should be clear that there’s no intention to stay secretive. It works something like this: our CAC work is sometimes very time and energy consuming. We all have jobs with high pressures, and we have to balance all these commitments with our families and friends and “having a life.” I know you, and everyone reading this, knows this and lives it, too.

    The result: sometimes, we just do our work and get on with it. We don’t necessarily communicate as often, or as much, as we ought to, because we just haven’t got time, or even time to think about it.

    I think it was a mistake to inform the CAC about canceling GoLightly and not the other beta testers. I suspect this was an oversight, not something intentional, but it also contributes to the sense that people are being kept in the dark.

    Not the best situation, but realistic. And not a sign of cloak-and-dagger decision making, either, just a bunch of volunteers (and staff) trying to do as good a job as possible. 😉

  6. Hi Ray:

    Thanks for the clarification, this helps a lot!

    Where can I find the RFP that went out, and the response from The Bakery? I’ve search high and low on STC.org but cannot find *anything* about the new site.

    I’m very curious to see *exactly* what was speced out and what is in the pipeline.

    Tx!

  7. I read this not having followed a whole lot of the process (seeing STC in general as operating in relative secrecy with little opportunity to have its membership communicate among themselves and to leadership; witness the long-ago loss of community forums) and my immediate concern is the line “a staff augmentation strategy to add two members to the Project Phoenix team.”

    Never mind the highfalutin’ wordiness of the explanation, the action of adding members to a development team because the team is getting behind underscores fundamental flaws in both the leadership and management of the project and the understanding of how best to build and maintain a development team.

    I point to the long-proven ideas in books such as “Peopleware” and “The Mythical Man-Month” to support my assertion that simply adding person-power to a project is not the solution for success. The indicators of the project falling behind and the notion that adding resources will resolve this issue suggest fundamental mismanagement.

    I’m sorry if these blunt statements ruffle some feathers, but I don’t believe in sugarcoating truth, nor letting incompetence lie fallow. I speak truth to power, and one truth is that we pay too much for diminishing returns to have projects such as this one simply spin their wheels and devour more and more resources. If you suggest that “incompetence” is too strong a word, I merely point to to the previous post, where the chosen service provider for a web-based presentation used technology that was problematic and widely inaccessible. This is merely one of many symptoms that point to fundamental problems in management and decision making. Another one is the notion that adding more management roles to a project is one that increases that chances of a project’s (or a series of projects, if you will) success.

    There is no way that a project of this size for an organization this size–especially with the management, development, and user experience knowledge and skillsets available within the organization–should take a year or more.

  8. Hi Rick,

    I’m afraid I don’t know where the RFP is – I haven’t seen it either. I did have some issues when we first met the folks from The Bakery, in that they seemed focused on the information architecture without having any notion of content strategy. I’m a True Believer when it comes to CS 😉

    I’m not sure I know enough to be able to judge whether Chuck is right about “incompetence.” I know there has been a lot of staff turnover lately, for whatever reasons. Perhaps the fact that I don’t know, and that I (we) never saw the RFP are problems in themselves – but then, who should see an RFP? All members? I bet not. Community leaders? Which ones (presidents and SIG managers, treasurers, volunteers?) How do we decide? Don’t we risk getting as bogged down in these kinds of decisions oriented toward openness as much as we do in a situation of secrecy?

    I’m not trying to defend secrecy, mind you, I believe in transparency. But let’s be clear about responsibility. Chuck asserts, “the chosen service provider for a web-based presentation used technology that was problematic and widely inaccessible.” This is inaccurate. Genesys is the standard tool used by STC. That it is problematic and widely inaccessible remains true – but it wasn’t the service provider, it was US. Let’s put responsibility where it belongs.

    “There is no way that a project of this size for an organization this size–especially with the management, development, and user experience knowledge and skillsets available within the organization–should take a year or more.”

    Maybe – maybe not. I, for one, have been involved in evaluating web content on the basis of its appropriateness for global audiences (i.e., is it too culturally specific?). It’s not a hard task to analyze a page. It doesn’t take a lot of time. But there are lots of pages, and we all have jobs, and families, and all the rest and need to balance it all off. In theory, having a huge base of members with skills seems obvious – but mobilizing them, getting them to participate, and to “deliver on time” when they are not getting paid and have other priorities, sometimes is difficult.

    Chuck, I’ve no desire to be an apologist, and I hear your frustration, or even anger. Also, I’m not part of the “power” organization (at least not yet) and share a lot of the frustrations. I do think we need to both give people a chance to make change happen, and advise them when things go astray.

    For me, the jury is still out – but I do think we need to keep a balanced attitude.

  9. Regarding the RFP, let’s take a step back a moment. STC compiled a Buyers’ Guide for tools and services. Did STC use this in soliciting proposals for the web site? I see there are plenty of members whose businesses fit that project’s needs well. Were they ever contacted?

Leave a Reply