Curious about IMS RFEs?

As I mentioned in my previous blog, as IMS approaches its 50-year young milestone, our development team likewise evolves into a high-performing, agile team. We intend to continue to enhance IMS’s foundational value, to add features that keep us in parity with the latest technological shifts, and to deliver on customer requirements. To establish and maintain a healthy delivery pace for these enhancements, we are following Design Thinking principles and organizing ourselves into squads focused on our Design Hills.

We begin by assessing the requirements (RFE) backlog assigned to each squad. The squads work with their sponsor users to review and potentially reclassify the backlog of RFEs. We are fielding questions about this process, so I’ll describe how our squads are taking action on their RFE backlog.

First, though, some pragmatic background information: a 50-year old enterprise software product like IMS can acquire a significant number of RFEs in its lifetime. From a pure project management perspective, we have scoped the entire backlog and roughly sized its implementation at 20+ years. A large number of RFEs were submitted when IMS used the waterfall development model. Longer development cycles meant our team had the runway to pivot when key high priority requirements came in. That pivot, however, often pulled resources from other areas and meant that other enhancements were added to the RFE backlog.

Much of this was transparent to you, our clients; you continued to wait for features without knowledge of when they would be delivered, making it challenging to set your own plans. This was especially true for RFEs that were not “burning hot” features, yet still provided overall value.

Moving forward, we intend to aggressively manage our backlog, from a delivery perspective. To reach this objective, we are reviewing the entire backlog and retaining RFEs that are strategically critical to IMS and to our clients’ long-term objectives. Also, with an eye to the physics of time and human resources, we are re-evaluating what our squads can deliver in an 18 to 24-month timeframe. The prioritization of RFEs can also be influenced by supporting votes from other IMS technical professionals.

So, will we ever reconsider an RFE that has been returned or closed? Absolutely. 

A major benefit of conducting this exercise is the need to reopen a dialog with clients on certain RFEs.  We want to explore whether an existing solution is already in place, or whether other alternatives could resolve the requirement. In the case where a feature function is needed to satisfy an existing or new RFE, having a manageable backlog will allow us to shift commitments and re-prioritize it. We can then set realistic expectations with you so you can plan accordingly.

 With Continuous Delivery replacing the traditional waterfall model post Version 15 GA, it is crucial that we keep our squads focused on items that our clients know are in the pipeline. If you are notified that one of your RFEs has been closed and want to open a dialog with us, reach out to your customer advocate or email us (ibmims@us.ibm.com) and we would be more than happy to discuss how we can collaborate.