[IxDA Discuss] UCD and Agile Programming - models of involvement

[Jim Drew / CFM Designs]

Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com> writes:

>  > (*) We also used a spec driving process which identified approval 
>>  roles, usually narrowing things down to an initiator, and couple 
>>  other people who got to "vote", and two larger groups of people who 
>>  would be informed and should be (but generally were not) informed.  
>>  Intended to reduce the need for consensus from a groups of 6-12 
>>  people, it also allowed for shutting down of discussion and 
>>  debate.  QA was never in a voting position, and individual QA 
>>  engineers were never in the "must be informed" set.  Ergo, features 
>>  and designs were approved without input from the people who needed 
>>  the info.
>[snip]
>
>That sounds about as far from an agile "whole team" environment as
>you can get. My sympathies.

Well, that was a different process, adopted company wide rather than 
just on our team.  And while too much push for consensus can be a bad 
thing, this seemed to go in the opposite direction.  What was one 
"And what do you think" became "We don't need input from you.'
-- 

-----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
Jim Drew		   Seattle, WA		   cfmdesigns at earthlink.net
    http://home.earthlink.net/~rubberize/Weblog/index.html (Update: 5/2)
		(Subject: Movie Commentary: I, Robot)