Tag Archives: agile

From Sketch to Code

By 7 commentsagile, User Experience, , , , ,
One of the issues often discussed regarding the integration of UX and agile is the amount of UX documentation that is appropriate. There are many who recognize the value of a little, or sometimes a lot, of upfront design, while others see it as waste. The answer is less ‘or’ than ‘and’. Clearly a design by itself delivers no value until it is built and delivered, and no one in their right mind would challenge the necessity of software engineers. Most projects could also benefit from some amount of thinking prior to coding. The challenge for each team is to be constantly searching for the right balance for their team, in the current sprint, working on a given story.

Two Ends of the Spectrum

I think that most would agree that when a concept is in its infancy and the rate of change is high, it is more effective to iterate through the designs in a lightweight way, without code. Despite how easy it is to quickly generate working prototypes, it is still not as fast as some of the most lightweight design tools, like whiteboard, paper, napkin sketch, or even wild gesticulating. When ideas are vague, there is no consensus on the basic direction, and the impacts are not well understood, it is far more effective to work collaboratively with stakeholders on low fidelity sketches than to create interactive prototypes followed by group reviews.
On the other end of the spectrum, it is far more effective to make small changes directly to the code, and, if possible, forgo the overhead of continuously updating the design documents. At this point, when the design has solidified, stakeholders agree on the vision, and the rate of change is small, let the finished work speak for itself as much as possible. Only update documents to describe complexities that would not be obvious by looking at the finished product.
In the middle are steps that might include one or more of the following; refined wireframes, light ‘throw away’ prototypes, graphical comps, or even detailed specs.
The logical question is when to transition the design to code. Like many agile questions, there isn’t a single answer, but here is one way to think about the question to find an answer that will make sense for you.

Put Another Way

It design time is D and subsequent coding time is C1, and code and revision without any upfront design is C2, then the goal is for D + C1 < C2 AND the output of C1 is ‘better’ than the output of C2. If you don’t agree with this goal or don’t believe it is possible then I probably need to convince you of the value of UX to agile (post coming soon).
If D + C1 > C2, then it must be offset by an even greater improvement in quality of C1 over C2. (Thanks to Adam Sroka for inspiring the mathematical representation)
Keep in mind, what makes sense for one team/sprint/feature combination may not work for another. There have been instances where I’ve sat with a developer an said something like, “Take this widget from this page and add it to this page over here and make it look like the other widgets on that page.” No wireframe. No document of any kind. One developer and one UX’er sitting together knocked it out in under 20 minutes, iterating as we went. There have also been complex interactions with impacts throughout the product that required more extensive exploration before the design stabilized enough that development felt comfortable proceeding. It wasn’t unusual to have both of these kinds of stories in the same sprint.

The Bottom Line

The reality is that you never get to do the same story with the same team in the same context twice, so there is no way to measure the difference. Ultimately, it comes down to a judgement call between the developer and the UX’er.
UX needs to be willing to abandon the design document before the design is complete and collaborate directly with a developer on it’s evolution, and developers need to be willing to take a step back and explore what they will build before writing to much code.
How well does UX and dev work together in your team? Please share your thoughts on this post in the comments and take a moment and rate this post using the stars beneath the title.

Only You Care How It’s Built

By agile, philosophy, , , , , , , , ,

Remember the last time you were really frustrated when using something? It didn’t work as you expected or you couldn’t find what you were looking for. As your attention focused on the people who built the tortuous tool, do you remember thinking to yourself, “That’s OK. I hear they have a great process.” No? The unfortunate truth is that the people you are building for will not care how you got there, only whether you solved one of their problems in a positive way.

I think this is one of the reasons behind the first agile value, “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools”. It is tempting, when integrating new practices, such as with scrum, to get caught up in the mechanics of a new process. There are new ways of working and new tools to learn, and these can take a lot of time, energy, and focus. It can be tempting to do things ‘by the book’ when first starting out, but that puts our focus on the wrong goal. The team is not there to perfect a process, but to deliver value to real people.

So why “Individuals and interactions,” and not “results”? Results don’t make a product, people do. The people are the invisible force that create the product. As one of the agile principles states, “Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.”

Pixar’s Randy Nelson has a fantastic definition of collaboration not as cooperation, but amplification. A good team that works well together will amplify each others’ skills and abilities to create better results than they would as individuals. This definitely resonates with my personal experience. My best ideas usually come when I’m engaged with others, not when I’m by myself. Sure, I have a few Eureka! moments wearing headphones, pushing pixels, but the bulk of them come from the interaction with other minds approaching the problem from different directions, each with their unique personal history.

There are many elements that create an environment that a allows a team to succeed. As implied above, clear goals and measurable results is one. I’ll go into that and a few more in a future post. In the meantime, what is it about your environment that supports or hinders your team? Do you have motivated people? Do your stakeholders trust you to make decisions on their behalf? Are you focused on value? What have you changed about your environment that has had a positive impact?

As always, I look forward to your comments. Also, please take a moment to rate this post by clicking the stars below the title. It helps me know if I’m on the right track and I really appreciate the feedback. If there is a specific topic you’d like me to address, add it to the Suggest a Topic page.

Going Back to the Source: The Agile Manifesto

By 2 commentsagile, , , , , , ,

There are a lot of different ways to implement agile. That is one of its strengths. Agile allows you to create exactly the process that works for your team, company, problem, and client. However, it also gives teams the responsibility to create that process, and that is difficult. Teams typically can’t rely on doing things the way they’ve always been done.

Whatever practices are put in place, be sure that you are true to the agile values and principles. I’ve been interviewing with many companies over the last 6 weeks <shamelessPlug> (I am available for work in the Boston area) </shamelessPlug> and I’ve been surprised at how many people are talking about agile, have not read the manifesto, and think that agile is about sprints, daily meetings, and a lack of big upfront design.

Agile is 4 values and 12 principles. Period. It doesn’t say whether to do upfront work or not, or to work in sprints, or to have backlogs, or to start coding right away. These are techniques that some teams have used based on agile, and others have codified into practices such as scrum, but these practices are like the reflection of the moon in a pond. If the water is choppy, the reflection is broken and unrecognizable. If the water is still, the reflection is very clear. Yet, as alluring as that image may be, it is still not the moon.

If you have never read the manifesto or haven’t in a while, do it now. Really. Go. I’ll wait. It’ll only take a minute.

Back? Great.

One of the values is “Working software over comprehensive documentation”. It doesn’t say don’t create documentation, but place a higher priority on working software over comprehensive documentation. Focus your priority on creating something that works more than an exhaustive description of something to build. Make sure that the documentation the team chooses to create has lasting benefit.

The values are not absolutes, but relative statements. If you adopt practices associated with agile without understanding the conceptual underpinnings, you may find that you are not getting the effect you hoped for, or maybe there are better practices that would support those values better given the unique situation of your team. A team that adopts the practices without incorporating the principles will be like like the moon’s reflection on choppy waters. It will be tough to see a coherent vision of what is being done. A team that chooses its activities based on how the values fit them will be like the reflection in a still pond.

For me, one of the most evocative parts of the manifesto is the last principle, “At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.” That alone, is worth the price of admission.

Please take a moment to rate this post (under the title) and leave your comments. Which elements of the manifesto does your team most embody?

Do Disruptive Startups Need UX?

By agile, , , , , ,

According to Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemma, markets for disruptive technologies may not be known prior to release and therefore often cannot be planned for. Where does that leave UX? How can you do research if you don’t know who to talk to? How can we do any user-centered design if we don’t know who the users will turn out to be and how they may use the product? So what is the value of UX in an early stage start up or similarly innovative team?

While he doesn’t say so explicitly, his research seems to favor an agile approach. Constantly evaluating  the product to determine who is using it and what value they are deriving will allow a team to focus their efforts on the goals most important to this new found audience.

This points to two clear uses for UX in the early stages of the creation of a disruptive technology. The first is to give the product the best chance of success by inc0rporating design standards and best practices. The second is in researching the new population of users, their activities, goals, and behaviors.

You only get one chance to make a first impression. Leveraging interaction standards will help give a new product the best chance for a positive initial reaction. Design standards may not work for everyone. They are, by definition, generic. However, it will make the product most likely to be usable by the broadest possible audience. In addition, while aiming for ‘just barely good enough,’ make sure that there is a shared definition of the level of quality required and that there is a UX component to that definition.

Once the first release is live, analyze the user activity. Reach out to some of the most active users. Talk to them about what they love, what they don’t like, how they found out about you, etc. Keep probing each answer for more detail. Find some users who signed up but never became active. What made them interested initially? How did they find using the product? Why did they stop? See if you can define the gap that prevented them from becoming active users.

Once similar stories of real people deriving real value begin to emerge, then we can start to leverage familiar UX tools to move beyond best practices to create a tool that supports the unique needs of those using it.

Having UX involved from the beginning will help you recognize the market when it emerges and be ready to meet its unique demands.

Share your experiences designing new or disruptive technologies. When was UX involved? While you’re at it, please rate this post using the stars beneath the title.

Is ‘Good Enough’ Good Enough?

By 5 commentsagile, , , , ,

Fast, good, and cheap. Pick two.fastgoodcheap

This is the familiar instruction represented by the project triangle. A project that is of high quality and delivered quickly will be costly. One that is done well with limited resources will likely take time. An inexpensive project delivered quickly will suffer in its execution. Keeping this in mind, compare waterfall with agile.

Waterfall demands a certain level of quality. All of the upfront research and design, as well as the many gates and checkpoints insure that when the product is released, it meets the expectations defined up front. Waterfall projects can be good and fast, or good and cheap, but the underlying notion is good. Now, experience tells us that the definition of ‘good’ can vary greatly on waterfall projects. ‘Good’ can mean that the end users find the product useful and usable, or that the project is predictable, i.e. that the budget is met with the expected scope, or that the target date is hit and the expectations of scope are managed. I’m sure each of you has experienced many variations on what stakeholders consider ‘good’.

Agile chooses fast and cheap. Sprints are short and teams are small. There are many good reasons for this. They are well documented elsewhere, and include getting working software to users faster, being able to address high priority problems quickly, and abandoning features with little value. With this approach, the mantra for each sprint is ‘good enough’. When choosing fast and cheap, what is sacrificed will be quality. At least initially, this may be true, but agile counters this by adding many revisions following quickly on the heels of an initial release. Problems can be quickly identified and fixed in the next release, which may be as little as two weeks away.

This requires a significant shift in thinking for User Experience. It is our job to ensure that the users have something they find valuable and easy to use. We think big thoughts about mental models and context and integrate detailed thoughts on layout and implications. We have been accustomed to defining the entire picture, making sure all the pieces fit, before moving on. It can be very challenging to take one piece of a larger project and just get it to ‘good enough’ while ignoring the rest of the system. We are judged on how the product looks and behaves. Sacrifices made for expediency affect our credibility and reputation.

We also may have different ideas of what constitutes ‘good enough’. To a prototypical engineer, it may mean that the feature is present and functional. For UX, it’s about utility and ease. A product owner may fall somewhere in the middle. Its important for each team to agree on their shared definition of ‘good enough’. If forced to work under the simplest extreme of ‘functional’, we may not be pleased, but at least our target is clear and we know what to work towards.

This change in thinking is a key challenge to successfully integrating UX and agile. One approach is define a rough, high-level vision so that all involved can get a sense of the whole. During each sprint, or prior to each sprint, fill in the details of the pieces, or stories, about to be built. It won’t guarantee that there won’t be rework, but it will help balance the need for holism with the need for speed. If you don’t get it right this time, there’s always next release.

Adopting Agile is Hard

By 1 commentagile, , , ,

Before getting into the details of our particular challenges, I wanted to acknowledge, for all of you going through this, that adopting agile is hard, perhaps one of the biggest professional hurdles I’ve faced in recent history. While I’ve been in the same industry for about 12 years now, I imagine this is about as close as you can come to switching careers without actually doing it. You think you know what’s going on, but the rug keeps getting pulled out from under you. However, I also like the term ‘adopting’ because this is similar to adding a child to your family.

When you have a kid, your life is no longer the same. You’ll sleep less. There will be lots of screaming, and you will have to clean up more crap than ever before. Moving to an agile process seems a lot like that. The hope is that once you figure it out, life is better and you wonder how you ever lived without it.

Even reading about agile can be as confusing as negotiating the parenting section of a bookstore. Want to know how to get your baby to sleep at night? Here are 20 books that all say something different. Want to adopt an agile process? Here are multiple options, each with different interpretations.

To be fair, the looseness of agile, and scrum in particular, is one of the things I like most about it, and what also causes the most pain. If you were to ask a personified scrum process what to do, the answer would likely be, “It depends.” It may be true, but it doesn’t feel helpful.

Agile is more of a philosophy than a process. It dictates very little. We have five scrum teams working concurrently and each one works a little differently. One team has a number of outsourced members across the globe. Two others are working on entirely new initiatives The last two are refining existing parts of the site, although they move from making small tweaks to significant additions or revisions. Some teams do more costing and planning for each sprint, while others are very loose. Each of these teams have developed their own idiosyncratic scrum process that works with their unique situation. This is one of the powerful elements of the agile methodology, the flexibility. It is also one of the biggest challenges. Teams must define their process for themselves. Scrum only provides a framework. Each team is trying to do what is best for their people and their project, but it can be very difficult to work across multiple teams that are working differently.

There seems to be a sense of the serenity prayer to it. Agile is a new process and will require a lot of change. However, realize what you won’t be able to change and find a way to work within those constraints. I appreciate that this process acknowledges the realities of organizations and attempts to work with them. I found Ken Schwaber’s book Agile Project Management with Scrum very helpful in demonstrating this. In this book, Ken presents case studies of teams in different circumstances at different companies. In one case study, knowing that the program management office required Microsoft Project files for status reporting, the Product Owner adapted scrum reporting to fit within Project’s framework. Rather than trying to get another part of the organization to adapt in a futile battle against the windmills, teams in this book found ways to improve their process while working with the constraints they had to live with.

So if this feels painful or impossible, that’s normal. It means that you’re going through change. Recently, our Program Manager and resident certified Scrum Master attended a conference with two major agile gurus. After listening to the other people describe their problems, he says that he came away feeling that we are doing quite well compared to a lot of other companies! Given how hard it has been for us, I really feel for those who are not quite as far along the path.

As we figure things out, I’ll share what I can. Until then, if you have any questions, I may respond with, “It depends.”

If there is something particular that you would like me to write about, visit the Suggest a Topic page. You can vote on existing topics or add your own. I’ll do my best to address them in a reasonable time frame.