Project Meeting 2023.05.16

Agenda

• Roadmap Vision: Management Plan

Meeting Notes

Presentation: activitysim-roadmap-wip-management-16-may-2023.pptx

• Proposed Structure: see presentation for org chart. Below are the categories with some brief descriptions that are not inclusive of potential responsibilities.
  • Directors – one representative from each Consortium member – set the strategic direction and make key decisions
  • Project Management Subcommittee – (now Joe and AMPO) – handles the administrative side. Propose 3 consortium agency + one AMPO representative.
  • OKR (Objectives/Key Results) Subcommittee – three representatives from Consortium – take ownership of objectives and update as needed. They set key results and evaluate progress with quarterly updating/assessment.
  • Product Manager – a consortium member or consultant – coordinates with engineering team and others, but keeps an eye on the big picture. They would “own” the roadmap.
  • Product subcommittee – consortium members that are interested
  • Engineering Lead – a consortium member or consultant – responsible for software side and advocates to the Product Member for design/implementation considerations.
  • Engineering Team – at least one member from each qualified consultancy plus any consortium members.
  • Engineering Subcommittee – consortium members
  • Community Manager – a consortium member or consultant – would be the point person for consortium members and potential new users. Community manager would be in charge of all public-facing material, including webpage design and development.
  • Community Subcommittee – consortium members - would hear how others are using ActivitySim.
• Overall comments
  • Pros
    • This structure is being intentional about how we are organized.
    • Feedback that folks enjoy the meetings but don’t have a lot of time but are afraid they might miss something if they don’t go to all the meetings. Separating out topics might help to ensure that people don’t miss the things they are interested in.
    • Provides opportunity for leadership in different areas for consortium members.
  • Potential Cons
    • Concerns that this structure would have issues with accountability (seems like some folks could go off and do whatever)
      • We would need to rely on subcommittee feedback and the manager of that group to report up.
      • Engineering team would be responsible for ownership of small decisions but would need to go to Product Manager for bigger decisions
  • Is this proposed structure right-sized for where we are today? Do we grow incrementally?
  • However, seems a bit compartmentalized, and people like the group meetings.
  • Product subcommittee would be the closest to the meetings we have today.
• Proposed for consultants to work collaboratively via T&M contracts, instead of siloing consultant firms.
  • Consultants are incentivized to keep notes of problems and hold onto proposed solutions/ideas until it’s the next round of work to win the work for their firm. If there is an expectation that there is a pool of money to develop the product and deliver it over time, it doesn’t change how much money we get for our firm, whether or not you bring the ideas.
  • How do we transition from the way things are now to a new working paradigm?