47767Re: [scrumdevelopment] UX role in Scrum teams
- Jul 27, 2010
On 27/07/2010 23:44, Demetrius Nunes wrote:This makes me very uncomfortable. This sounds like you're being committed to implement features because the customer has already seen the interface.Hi there,Our customer is used to discuss, validate and accept user story definitions based on high fidelity screens and prototypes, which demands the UX people to work ahead of the developers, showing these prototypes to the customer. Only after that, the Product Owner feels comfortable to commit the story to the backlog.Is it acceptable for UX people to work ahead of the developers to prepare and design the user interfaces and interactions of user stories before the actual sprint where these stories will be built, or, ideally, UX should always be working together with the developers on the same stories in the same sprint?The Product Owner feels comfortable working this way, as long as the developers participate thru the whole process and the UX people support the developers during the sprints, but I fear this might be a sub-optimization of the process, although is hard to see it being done any other way, specially because our customer is very attached to the UX quality of the user interfaces.
This also runs contrary to sashimi - there is no vertical slice from a single team. There is no cross-functional behaviour here.
No, this is not a good analogy.The PO likes to make an analogy with the auto industry, in the sense that there is a product concept, design and prototyping phase of a car (in which manufacturing engineers are also involved), before the actual manufacturing phase, where engineers will then do most of the work figuring out how to build the assembly line for that car. Is this a good analogy?
The prototype of a car may look very different to the final model. Depending on the company, the prototype may be a "blue sky" (I hate that term) model, or a slight variation on an existing model. Regardless, making a prototype and making a model ready for mass production are two different things. Making a model ready for mass production means examining your existing tooling, your existing supplies and suppliers, your existing expertise and your existing markets. I'm struggling to think of a major manufacturer that doesn't also use families of parts (VAG is a brilliant example - Volkswagen, Audi, Skoda all share parts). Anyone who thinks that building a prototype also involves buying brand new assembly line tooling, training workers to use it, and creating brand new families of parts is insane. This happens rarely as it's such a huge risk. Small increments = less risk.
Engineers will look at the existing assembly line to see how the prototype can be altered to make it fit the existing set up - not the other way around.
Have I understood you correctly?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>