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

Re: [agile-usability] Choice modeling and Agile?

Expand Messages
  • Adi The
    Jeff, Thanks for sharing the information about the choice modeling. One of our researchers conducted a similar workshop session called Idea Shopping after
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff,
      Thanks for sharing the information about the choice modeling.
      One of our researchers conducted a similar workshop session called
      "Idea Shopping" after
      preceding ethnographic field work results analysed and synthesised.
      For the "Idea Shopping" workshop, several UI paper prototypes, such as
      login UI prototypes, were prepared.
      Each prototype was assigned some "Kroner" values (Scandinavian
      currency) based on the analysis and synthesis of field work results
      and
      each workshop participant was given some "pocket money" to shop for
      the prototypes.
      The workshop participants could shop until they spent all their "money".
      During the shopping, the participants could provide instant feedback,
      ask questions, have dialogues with the other shoppers, etc.
      The results of the workshop were then used to narrow down the choices
      and refine the prototypes.

      --
      Adi B. Tedjasaputra

      IT and User Experience Manager
      TRANSLATE-EASY
      :: RFID and Human-centred Design Innovation Centre in Asia ::
      http://TRANSLATE-EASY.com

      Menara Kadin Indonesia 30th Floor
      Jl. Rasuna Said Block X-5, Kav 2-3
      Jakarta 12950
      INDONESIA

      Direct. +45 - 20 27 77 53
      Fax. +45 - 28 17 09 78
    • Kevin Narey
      ... A curious statement. Do you find that users of software, built using agile methods, enjoy it when they can t use the software because the architect of that
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron wrote:

        >Analysis kills spontaneity

        A curious statement.

        Do you find that users of software, built using agile methods, enjoy
        it when they can't use the software because the architect of that
        software, as a result of not performing a prior phase of analysis (and
        design) 'spontaneously' second guessed what their goals were? Can I
        also ask what your views on innovation without analysis/research are?

        //else

        If you're looking for an approach to determining ROI you might want to
        view Jared Spool's article:

        http://www.uie.com/articles/cost_of_frustration/

        Kevin
      • Ron Jeffries
        ... Actually, Henri Amiel wrote that, and the complete quote, randomly ... It might be wise not to read too much into the workings of a random number
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Monday, July 4, 2005, at 5:35:22 PM, Kevin Narey wrote:

          > Ron wrote:

          >>Analysis kills spontaneity

          Actually, Henri Amiel wrote that, and the complete quote, randomly
          selected by my email client, is:

          >> Analysis kills spontaneity.
          >> The grain once ground into flour germinates no more. -- Henri Amiel

          > A curious statement.

          It might be wise not to read too much into the workings of a random
          number generator. It might be more fruitful to comment on what I
          wrote, not on what Mr Amiel wrote. However, your questions below are
          answerable. These are my answers: I don't know what Mr Amiel would
          say, had he not unfortunately passed away in 1881.

          > Do you find that users of software, built using agile methods, enjoy
          > it when they can't use the software because the architect of that
          > software, as a result of not performing a prior phase of analysis (and
          > design) 'spontaneously' second guessed what their goals were?

          Well, I find that that doesn't happen, and the form and tone of the
          question makes me want to recommend a bit more study of agile
          methods. Here are some reasons why:

          Agile methods do analysis all the time, not just in a prior phase.

          Agile teams work with the users of the software, addressing only
          features that those users ask for, in the order they are
          requested. The goals are explicit, discussed continuously.

          The software is delivered frequently, every couple of weeks, or
          every month, so that the customers can see it, use it, test it in
          any way that they see fit.

          Agile teams do design all the time, not just in a prior phase.

          Agile teams start with a simple design at the beginning, enough to
          support the few features they need to deliver at the beginning. In
          order to sustain continuous delivery

          Agile teams generally do not have an individual designated as "the
          architect".

          Agile teams generally share the conventional duties of development
          teams, analysis, architecture, design, testing, coding, and so on.
          Certainly each team will have individuals who are more or less
          skilled in these areas, but it is rare to have specific
          individuals called out into roles.

          Agile teams value spontaneity, but also discipline.

          Agility is about noticing what's going on and responding to it.
          But spontaneity alone, the late Mr Amiel notwithstanding, does not
          accomplish much. That's why Agile teams follow a discipline that
          keeps them in touch, at all times, with the customer and what the
          customer wants.

          > Can I also ask what your views on innovation without
          > analysis/research are?

          Well, briefly, if you can imagine that, I think that innovation is
          at its highest when one maintains a bit of distance from "reality",
          but is quite aware of all that is going on. If by "analysis" we mean
          "paying attention", if by "research" we mean "looking around", then
          they're quite valuable to innovation.

          If on the other hand we mean something more formal, rigid,
          stratified, phased, then I would likely begin to come down more on
          the side of the sadly departed Henri-Frederic.

          Analysis and research, in the conventional sense, are likely to lead
          to refinement. I would be less sanguine about their leading to true
          innovation. But there's always a spectrum, a continuum: innovation
          is very likely a soup made up of many ingredients.

          > //else

          > If you're looking for an approach to determining ROI you might want to
          > view Jared Spool's article:

          > http://www.uie.com/articles/cost_of_frustration/

          It's an interesting article. As my original response said, at least
          twice, I'm all for knowing ROI. I'm also pointing out that projects
          can proceed on the basis of less detail, specifically users' ability
          to choose between alternatives, even when they don't have detailed
          numbers.

          Ron Jeffries
          www.XProgramming.com
          Perhaps this Silver Bullet will tell you who I am ...
        • grahamastles
          While the emphasis on finding a dollar ROI for each feature may be an idea to make the customer more aware of the resources she is spending, I think that there
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            While the emphasis on finding a dollar ROI for each feature may be an
            idea to make the customer more aware of the resources she is spending,
            I think that there is a risk to fall into the same legalistic trap
            that traditional project management does when it treats estimates as
            commitments and a schedule as a prediction.

            It seems to me that the core purpose behind any prioritization is to
            work on the most important things first. For this need, a ranking
            gives you 90% of the value with 10% of the work.

            Thus, I think that the discussion on "feature ROI" should be part of a
            pep-talk in the initial project definition phase, with occasional
            reminders during the planning game, but the tough work required to get
            an actual ROI for each feature sounds non-agile in the sense that it
            is "up-front work" that does not produce working code that the user
            can actually approve. Since priority ranking is a cheaper alternative
            that can get you to actual coding quicker, I would recommend keeping
            feature-ROI as a conceptual construct and not a mathematical process.

            In any case, if we go down this path, Agile would require having a
            feedback process where you actually do testing to determine if your
            calculations corresponded to reality, so that you could improve the
            process on the next round. That sounds like a very long feedback loop
            to me, and I wonder if the ROI is positive at all, and I certainly
            think that most of our teams would find a higher ROI from implementing
            or improving other aspects of our craft.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.