Problem | Eficode ROOT solution |
|---|---|
Distributed or missing critical project information | |
Information is distributed across multiple parallel systems. There’s organizational fragility due to single points of failure and missing project documentation | Centralized tools provide single points of truth and create organizational robustness |
Critical project assets (requirements, source code, deliverables) are missing or not secured | Centralized, safe system for managing the key assets (project management system, version control, binary management) |
Overlapping and/or hidden costs | |
Multiple overlapping tool licenses cause cost overhead | Single, properly scaled tool instances with lower cost per user |
Hidden costs of maintaining and supporting multiple overlapping production lines | One invoice covers all platform support and maintenance work for a single platform instance |
Insufficient production line maintenance practices | |
Production line tooling gets out-of date and/or unsecure | Tools are being regularly updated with security and performance-related patches, and upgraded to the latest SW versions |
When the platform is updated, existing workflows, pipelines and integrations break uncontrollably | Updates are tested and then done in a controlled fashion. Risks are mitigated. |
Unclear division of responsibilities, inefficient use of project resources | |
Responsibilities over the production line tooling are unclear, there’s no clear ownership for the maintenance and support tasks | Eficode ROOT support and maintenance team is responsible for the maintenance and support duties |
Project personnel spend time tuning the tools, instead of more value adding project work | Eficode ROOT maintenance team is responsible for the production line operation, project teams focus on using them in the most efficient way |
Skilled tool experts are not available and/or hard to find & recruit | Eficode ROOT platform team contains certified tool expertise |
Delays caused by non-optimized processes or production line incoherence | |
Unnecessary variation in tool selection leads to prolonged lead times in learning the tools while switching between projects | People and skills move across project boundaries due to more uniform tool selection |
Setting up an automated production line for a new project takes days or weeks | A new project can be established in minutes on an already existing tool chain |
Giving tool access to a new project member requires a request to the company IT and it may take days or even weeks get everything organized | The project manager is able to provide access to the project assets in a matter of minutes |
Supplier specific tool production lines amplify supplier dependency and make it problematic to switch between suppliers when necessary (e.g. due to complex migrations) | Common platform under the customer control, centralized access management enables supplier switching while the production line remains the same |
Lack of visibility | |
Unclear view to the project state, no possibility for quick roll-backs | All code (application, environment, test code) is in version control with a mechanism to revert back to previous versions |
Long feedback loops: devs get feedback from testing in days, weeks or even months | Instant feedback to devs with automated testing |
No real-time visibility to project quality or performance | End-to-end, real-time visibility and project metrics with DevOps ensured quality and performance dashboards |