2019-2020 Integrations Sub-team Retrospective

Owned by Dallas Pillen
Last updated: Jun 16, 2020
2 min read

What went well

  • Forming sub-groups for each of the three larger areas of our work plan was successful. Sub-team members were able to focus on one (or two) specific tasks without worrying about everything else. As a result, we completed more of our work plans goals this term than during previous terms.

  • The Internal Sub-team Documentation sub-group created an “Integrations README” that lists new term and end-of-term actions, repeatable actions to be completed throughout the term, compiles sub-team resources that are maintained outside of the TAC wiki space, and lists previous sub-team chairs.

  • The External Sub-team Documentation sub-group updated the “Community Generated Resources” Integrations page, updating the list of known integrations and implementing an easier-to-use layout. As part of the work, the sub-group contacted people about existing integrations, and found that they were responsive when contacted and provided useful information for the page.

  • The Survey Review sub-group reviewed the responses to a survey that the sub-team completed last term and compiled a report on the top 10 most desired integrations.

  • The previous term’s retrospective was very helpful – the sub-team used the previous term’s retrospective to inform the current term’s work, in particular the work of the Internal Sub-team Documentation group.

  • Though not a result of our direct effort, the TAC-wide Google Drive was a great benefit to this term.

What could be improved

  • It was difficult to find information about integrations that were not already tracked on the Integrations page. In part, this is because it is challenging to find integrations that are not advertised or that are for more niche/localized use cases, but the Integrations sub-team could also do a better job of advertising itself, asking about new integrations, and making it easier for members of the ArchivesSpace community to let us know about integrations.

  • While the sub-group approach worked, there is a possibility that it could place more of a burden on the sub-team chair to keep up-to-date with all of the sub-team’s activities or could lead to broader communication issues within the larger sub-team.

  • One of the larger work plan goals for this term’s Sub-team was to review the results of a survey on desired integrations that was conducted by the previous term’s Sub-team. Group members found that it was difficult to assess or report on the results of a survey that was created by a previous group, and recommend that future data collection efforts start at the beginning of a term and are wrapped up by the end of that term so that the same group of people can create the survey instrument, assess the data, and generate reports. If that is not possible, then any Sub-team that begins a data collection project should try to document the intentions behind that project as much as possible for the next term’s members.