Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: elite methods

Expand Messages
  • aacockburn
    I read The world is flat (I give it a C-, worth a quick scan), and thought, along these lines, that what we are saying is, We don t know how to manage a
    Message 1 of 23 , May 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I read "The world is flat" (I give it a C-, worth a quick scan), and
      thought, along these lines, that what we are saying is, "We don't know
      how to manage a project over here. Perhaps if we go sufficiently far
      away, the people over there know how to do it (answer: they don't). And
      if they don't, then at least the mess is over there compared to over
      here, and the mess is cheaper."

      Of course, I'm interested in learning how to manage a project /over
      here/ (for any 'here')

      AListair


      --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, Jon Kern <jonkern@c...> wrote:
      > a possible corollary to "AND YOU DON'T CARE IF YOU GET THE SOFTWARE":
      "Since we're going to fail at building this software anyway,
      we may as well outsource it and fail more cheaply"
    • Jeff Patton
      ... show up in ... painter ... then an ... whole ... the role ... giraffe level, ... Oddly, it s metaphors like this one I see used often that suggests moving
      Message 2 of 23 , May 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Beyer" <beyer@i...>
        wrote:
        > It's an important distinction, and I'd be surprised if it didn't
        show up in
        > some form or other. We talk about developing a design the way a
        painter
        > develops an oil painting-rather than working on the hand in detail,
        then an
        > eye, then the other hand, then an ear, the painter sketches in the
        whole
        > painting in rough-gets all the parts in right relationship to each
        > other-then goes in and fills in the detail. In our process, this is
        the role
        > of visioning-to sketch the overall high-level vision (kite to
        giraffe level,
        > depending on the project) which can then be refined in detail.

        Oddly, it's metaphors like this one I see used often that suggests
        moving one direction - top down - or more abstract to more detailed.
        If I leverage the oil painting metaphor, I think I'm hearing that in
        practice you might do an underpainting, rough things in, then
        actually zoom to paint an eye, or a hand, then change your mind and
        zoom back out to an abstract level, and adjuste the underpainting,
        then zoom back in and change the detailed hand to a foot. Does that
        make sense? So, I guess that's what I'm asserting - books that
        describe what people should do tend to imply design works in one
        direction - but in practice, I'm not so sure.

        thanks for posting Hugh!

        -Jeff
      • Jeff Patton
        ... further. Master painters will work out the intricate details of a painting in a sketchbook. (XPers call this a spike solution.) Once they have figured
        Message 3 of 23 , May 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, Rob Keefer <rbkeefer@y...>
          wrote:
          > I'd like to take Hugh's analogy to the painter a step
          further. 'Master' painters will work out the intricate details of a
          painting in a sketchbook. (XPers call this a spike solution.) Once
          they have figured out the detail, it is then applied to the main
          composition.
          >

          Yeah - that's what I mean. I believe that in practice I see a fair
          bit of elaboration and playing with details, then zooming back out to
          abstract.

          Ironically Hugh gave an example in another post of support people
          reporting they spend a large percentage of their time on
          troubleshooting when in actuality his group had observed otherwise.
          The implication is that people aren't good at self reporting. Is it
          possible that when we ask designers what they're doing and they give
          this painting metaphor that they're not self reporting accurately? ;-)

          Glad you posted that Rob.

          -Jeff
        • Jon Kern
          i always say... if you have convinced yourself that you can t get it done locally, what in the heck are you thinking that 12 time zones away is going to be
          Message 4 of 23 , May 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            i always say...
                "if you have convinced yourself that you can't get it done locally, what in the heck are you thinking that 12 time zones away is going to be easier?"
            go figure...
            -- jon
            
            


            aacockburn said the following on 5/5/2005 11:38 AM:
            I read "The world is flat" (I give it a C-, worth a quick scan), and
            thought, along these lines, that what we are saying is, "We don't know
            how to manage a project over here. Perhaps if we go sufficiently far
            away, the people over there know how to do it (answer: they don't). And
            if they don't, then at least the mess is over there compared to over
            here, and the mess is cheaper."

            Of course, I'm interested in learning how to manage a project /over
            here/ (for any 'here')

            AListair


            --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, Jon Kern <jonkern@c...> wrote:
            > a possible corollary to "AND YOU DON'T CARE IF YOU GET THE SOFTWARE":
                "Since we're going to fail at building this software anyway,
                we may as well outsource it and fail more cheaply"



          • aacockburn
            ... Yep. I ve interviewed and done the ethnographic stuff on developers, and one has to doublecheck most of what they claim. I even assume that when I describe
            Message 5 of 23 , May 6, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Patton" <jpatton@a...>
              wrote:
              > The implication is that people aren't good at self reporting. Is it
              > possible that when we ask designers what they're doing and they give
              > this painting metaphor that they're not self reporting accurately? ;-)

              Yep. I've interviewed and done the ethnographic stuff on developers,
              and one has to doublecheck most of what they claim. I even assume that
              when I describe how I do my ethnographic stuff that I'm lying some
              unknown percent of the time. Now don't you feel reassured? ;-))
            • Ron Jeffries
              ... I do. I wasn t sure you knew that. :) Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com I could be wrong. I frequently am.
              Message 6 of 23 , May 6, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On Friday, May 6, 2005, at 7:19:47 PM, aacockburn wrote:

                > --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Patton" <jpatton@a...>
                > wrote:
                >> The implication is that people aren't good at self reporting. Is it
                >> possible that when we ask designers what they're doing and they give
                >> this painting metaphor that they're not self reporting accurately? ;-)

                > Yep. I've interviewed and done the ethnographic stuff on developers,
                > and one has to doublecheck most of what they claim. I even assume that
                > when I describe how I do my ethnographic stuff that I'm lying some
                > unknown percent of the time. Now don't you feel reassured? ;-))

                I do. I wasn't sure you knew that. :)

                Ron Jeffries
                www.XProgramming.com
                I could be wrong. I frequently am.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.