In Events, Methodology, UX on February 11, 2010 by robenslin Tagged: "agile ux", "matt roadnight", agile, meeting, project management, sprints
Matt Roadnight discussing Agile methodology (user story map slide)
I attended Agile UX SIG #2 last night at the ThoughtWorks where agile geeks met to discuss the much hyped Agile methodology. While I’m curious about all the fuss I’m also professionally interested to learn how Agile might improve workflow. Further, next year (User Interaction Design MSc) I’m enrolled in a ‘Agile Methodology’ module at university (see below). My hunch is Agile methodology will gather further momentum and become more widely adopted in the future so I need to pay attention to it.
Agile Development description:
This module provides a systematic understanding of the fundamental principles and techniques associated with agile project management, by linking the DSDM Atern framework with the object oriented paradigm through tools like SCRUM. Kingston University, CISM
Anyway, at last nights meeting Matt Roadnight, an Agile Scrum coach, explained how he coaches Agile Sprint methodology with business teams (his clients). Essentially there are three overlapping groups: Project Owner, Team Members and a ScrumMaster. Every project has what’s called a ‘Backlog’ – a set of items that must be designed/developed to progress the project. The project undergoes continuous flurries of meetings, or Sprints, where these backlog items (or groups of related and timely) items are discussed. Future items requiring attention are discussed in sprint planning meetings too.
Role definitions and responsibilities
Matt went on to define roles and stressed the importance of collaboration and communicating amongst each other he defined responsibilities. The Project Owner – typically a senior stakeholder – is responsible for the Vision which includes strategy, business case, user experience research, as well as ROI. The Analyst is responsible for the Features and finally the User Experience Designer is responsible for the Experience. While the Analyst may be a stakeholder too, the UED is customer facing. I might add at this point that there was a little push back from the attendees arguing that user experience and features should not be seen as separate activities… they should validate against each other.
Themes
Matt spoke about trying to group backlog items into related groups or Themes which focused on an particular aspect of the design. They are made up of units of User stories. A typical ’story’ might look like this:
“As the <USER ROLE> I want to <PERFORM FUNCTION> so the <BUSINESS REASON>”
The next Agile UX meeting (in ~6 weeks time) will include a practical hands on 2-hr session walking through a typical lifecycle of an Agile project.
In Design, UX on January 3, 2010 by robenslin Tagged: alan cooper, Design, don norman, ethnography, james kalbach, user needs
Recently, Don Norman, from The Nielsen Norman Group, posted (Technology First, Needs Last) what seems to be a provocative assertion that in product design, technology comes first, then it’s user needs. Put another way, of all the notable innovation to emerge the driver was technology (and not what UX design folk universally believe – user observation and ethnography). Norman cites examples of how new products evolve when technologist take existing products and serendipitously produce innovative products. The examples include: “The Airplane, The Automobile, The Telephone, The Radio, The Television, The Computer, The Personal Computer, The Internet, SMS Text Messaging, and The Cellphone”
While still relatively new to the field of interaction design and all its associated family of off-shoots, I’ve found myself at a cross road of understanding. I’m looking for some clear thinking of what truly exists (of possible). The most frusting thing about the aforementioned assertions is it’s personally frustrating that I have no absolute stance. Let me continue and take a stab at it at this posts conclusion.
I’m currently reading Alan Coopers’, The Inmates Are Running The Asylum, in which Cooper begins by arguing that in a world of products operated by computer chips, products are being designed that do exactly what their programmers instruct them to do with very little user empathy. From his writings I deduce Cooper implies that we need to do more ethnography so that products offer better support and function to its users. Where technology leads it seems difficult to achieve this.
In James Kalbach’s post, Don Norman on Ethnography and Innovation, he counters Norman’s Edison example deducing:
“It would also appear that Edison did a type of ethnographic observation in inventing the light bulb”
My view of product design and innovation is that before a new product is realised many hours of work goes into understanding what users need or what would help better fulfill a users tasks. Time is spent observing – through ethnography and other methods – users and how they interact with their surroundings. Also, a great deal of time is spent truly understanding exactly what the problems are. Answering the ‘why do we need it?’ questions. After reading Norman’s piece I can see that there are alternative instances where innovation stems from evolution alone (using technology). As the world moves through the technology age, more and more instances of ‘technology-first’ will become evident.
My views are divided. I fully accept that new products (and services) are created by technologists first, especially nowaday’s for example in web applications, thus supporting Norman’s assertion. But, I also accept that there is a huge and essential role in understanding user needs that leads to innovative products development (and services).
