Agile Or Awkward
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Agile Or Awkward

on

  • 1,884 views

Presented in a panel at CHI 2008, Florence Italy...

Presented in a panel at CHI 2008, Florence Italy

A short description of our current user centered agile development methodology, highlighting its opportunities and challenges.

Panel members:
Mary Lukanuski - SAP Labs, Palo Alto, CA, USA
Michel Milano - PayPal, San Jose, CA, USA
Jeroen de Bruin - TietoEnator, Bussum, Netherlands
Miles Rochford - Nokia Design, London, Gt Britain
Reinoud Bosman - MediaCatalyst, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,884
Views on SlideShare
1,859
Embed Views
25

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
19
Comments
0

3 Embeds 25

http://www.linkedin.com 19
https://www.linkedin.com 5
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Agile Or Awkward Agile Or Awkward Presentation Transcript

  • Agile or awkward? CHI 2008 panel Reinoud Bosman Information Architect MediaCatalyst, Amsterdam reinoud.bosman@mediacatalyst.com MediaCatalyst.
  • MediaCatalyst Digital marketing agency › Amsterdam, Malta, New York › 70+ people, 15+ nationalities › Clients: Sony Ericsson, Philips, OMA, Reebok, Sony, Canon Services › Branding strategy & planning › Information architecture & design › Copy-writing › Technology MediaCatalyst.
  • MC-Agile No continuous client-developer involvement › UX / BA act as client ‘representative’ User Experience responsibilities › Functionality › Wireframes / Sitemap › User Research › Usability Testing Business Analyst responsibilities › Scrum Master › User Stories › Product Backlog MediaCatalyst.
  • Agile project example Distributed teams › Amsterdam – User Experience & Design › Stockholm – Development Daily scrums › Team scrums – 9am › Cross scrums – 2pm 4 week sprints – UX/BA team one sprint ahead › Week 1: Concepting › Week 2: Stakeholder Feedback › Week 3: Refinement › Week 4: Specification & Prioritization MediaCatalyst.
  • MediaCatalyst.
  • Statements MediaCatalyst.
  • Trust “An Agile development process cannot function without a high levels of trust. Trust between designers, developers, managers & clients. Without trust scope discussions will arise and a transition to waterfall is inevitable” MediaCatalyst.
  • Trust › Fixed budget, flexible scope. › Scope discussions always lead to de- prioritization. No ‘minimal scope’. › Easy to de-prioritize functionality, which › Potential for misuse: over-estimating to is a more realistic project approach. force de-prioritizing & introduction of new requirements (scope-creep). › Shared responsibilities between project › Thorough understanding of development and stakeholders. process. MediaCatalyst.
  • Communication “Agile demands good communication. Only by communicating the team can keep an overview of what the requirements are and what’s being developed and spot the gaps that will fall during the prioritization process” MediaCatalyst.
  • Communication › Daily scrums shorten communication › Scrum-dependency: little communication lines outside of scrums (especially in distributed teams) › Anticipate and react to de-prioritization of › Requirements team need to pay special functionality. Opportunity to refine and attention to development support. Risk: fine-tweak designs. they’re focused on designing next sprint functionality MediaCatalyst.
  • Iterative design? “Only development is iterative. Requirements should be finalized upfront. Only then the product owner can make a balanced judgment on which requirements can be de-prioritized. If requirements are still discovered during the project control becomes impossible.” MediaCatalyst.
  • Iterative design? › Continuous testing delivers functionality › Easy to drill-down and refine designs, but that’s closer to client’s requirements and doesn't support exploring different routes user’s need very well › Re-prioritizing: scope creep is minimized. › Essential functionality is easily de- Something comes on, something drops prioritized: hard to keep track of final off product-scope (need for good tracking & reporting tools) › Pro-active monitoring of estimations. If › Pushing functionality into the next sprint estimations are high on essential can lead to something never getting built functionality, maybe it’s time to rethink (cascading requirements) the design MediaCatalyst.
  • Thank you Reinoud Bosman Information Architect MediaCatalyst. reinoud.bosman@mediacatalyst.com MediaCatalyst.