This presentation will describe and explore the differences between the two approaches, when it's appropriate to use agile development, how to integrate this popular method into the human-centered design and research process — and why client needs and today's marketplace increasingly are demanding these collaborative techniques. See this presentation at: http://trex.id.iit.edu/events/drc/2008/videos.html

1. Can’t we just all get along?
HUMAN- CENTERED DE S I G N M E E TS AG IL E
Maria Giudice, CEO and Founder, Hot Studio, Inc.

2. What does agile and waterfall mean and how does it relate to
human-centered design principles?
What are the pros and cons for each method?
Can’t we just all get along?
What’s this all about?

3. Alon Salant and David Hendee, Carbon Five
Ajay Ramachandran, SourceN
Henry Poole, Civic Actions
Mike Migurski and Eric Rodenbeck, Stamen Design
Kelly Goto, Gotomedia
Josh Damon Williams and Tanya Herrgott, Hot Studio
Arena Reed from Pivotal Labs
Janice Fraser and David Verba, Emmett Labs
Chad Coerver, SFMOMA
Caroline Allison and Dan Engfer, Viscape.com
Kathy Simpson, Dave Shih and others, Hot Studio
Many slide lectures, podcasts, videos. blogs & several documents by Jeff Patton from Thoughtworks
Why is this issue so emotional?

4. Human-centered design
Agile Waterfall
Where I sit in the great debate

5. Winston Royce, 1970
Software
development model
that reduces risk and
manages complexity
What does “Waterfall” mean?

6. Waterfall approach
User Experience Visual Design Engineering
Project Management
Discovery Strategy Design Build Transfer

7. Predictable and structured approach
Human-centered: solutions are based on upfront research and strategy
Team roles are clearly defined (designers design, engineers build)
Rigid, heavy, and slow
Documentation and specifications
What does “Waterfall” mean?

9. “Waterfall method is best when you can’t afford to learn from your
mistakes. You don’t design software for the Space Shuttle in an
Agile manner.” Alon Salant, engineer

10. Types of projects:
Creating experiential, immersive, branded experiences that are not module-driven
High-risk or complex projects that require breadth and deep thinking
Findings through design research and insight are key to project success
Team dynamics:
Engineering platform and team is not defined early on
Team is remote, making collaboration and quick decision-making difficult
Client situations:
Clients that don’t understand user’s needs, wants and desires and lack domain knowledge
Cannot be involved face-to-face, day-to-day or make decisions quickly
Many stakeholders that require documentation to provide context around decision-making
When Waterfall method works better

13. “The team didn’t just learn about our work, they lived and breathed
it and became a part of our team. The design process helped us
focus our mission and the work they did truly reflects the difference
collaborative design can make in people’s lives.”
Kate Stohr, client
“Taking an intensely user-centered approach based on well-researched
user analysis, not conjecture or marketing hype, is as much a guarantee
for success as is possible in an arena where the consumer is king.“
Leigh Hood, client
Team issues: Waterfall

14. “Waterfall methods can make it easier to carve out time to step
back and think big.”
Tanya Herrgott, user experience architect
“Time to think is one thing, but freedom to change your mind is
another. Agile can take the pressure off designers from getting it
right the first time.”
Alon Salant, engineer
Team issues: Waterfall

15. What does “Agile” mean?

17. Agile Manifesto, 2001 We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on the
right, we value the items on the left more.

18. Cycle 1 Cycle 2
n
s ig
de
user validation
bu i
user user
ld
story story
pl
an i
te s t
te r a t i o
iterations iterations
te
n
a
e va l u
2–3 week iterations or sprints Cycle X until product releases
Project lead
Client
User experience
Visual design
Engineering
Deliver useful, working software early and continuously
through iteration.

19. Trust
Iterative and evolutionary design, continual learning and refinement
Flexibility and ability to handle changing requirements
Client-driven or engineer-driven design, designer as consultant
Solutions largely based on intuition or hunches
Priorities are focused on addressing business needs and value
Lightweight
Fast by not necessarily cheaper

20. XP—Extreme Programming
FDD—Feature Driven Development
Crystal
Scrum
DSDM—Dynamic System Development Method
Adaptive Software Development
Lean Software Development
Agile methods

21. “All the engineers need is a picture and a conversation.”
Josh Damon Williams, user experience architect

22. http://www.pivotallabs.com/

23. Types of projects:
Applications with an existing conceptual framework already in place; adding features
Start-ups with a very clear vision of their product, its features and goals
Early working prototypes are that required for funding, speed to market is critical
Team dynamics:
Trust is paramount
Experienced, embedded team that can collaborate and actively participate
Designers (user experience and visual) who are comfortable with constant iteration
Engineers who are human-centric
Client situations:
Clients who can make quick decisions and are available every day (but can change their mind)
Business goals and vision are clear and will not change
Client understands users needs, subject matter, and domain knowledge
When Agile works better

25. “At first, we were really scared. We were always concerned that we
would run out of time. Then it became really fun! Agile allowed us
to build in 50% more features. We were amazed by that.”
Dan Engfer, client
“I imagined this system fully formed when I started the project and
I was wrong. If I had them execute to that original vision I would
have gotten something I wasn’t happy with.”
Janice Fraser, client
Team issues: Agile

26. “A lot of times I felt like the tail was wagging the dog in terms of
the details and the schedule creating and defining the vision.”
Tanya Herrgott, user experience architect
“The current project I’m working on is like the war in Iraq. They
quickly attack, you declare victory, and then you have to spend
a lot of time to achieve something meaningful.”
Josh Damon Williams, user experience architect
Team issues: User Experience

27. “I’m always nervous about Agile. You have to think on your feet
and be flexible all of the time.”
David Shih, visual designer
“We give our customers the highest value for time spent in the
shortest time.”
Alon Salant, engineer
Team issues: Visual Design and Engineering

28. Clash of the titans

29. Disconnects and philosophical differences
“It’s intuitive from a design point of view to design upfront, and it’s
intuitive for the engineers to see it all upfront, but you can’t have
your cake and eat it too.”
Arena Reed, user experience architect

30. Holistic vs. modular thinking
Research-based assumptions/decisions vs. hunches/intuition
Enumeration and alternatives vs. iterations
User research vs. user validation
Scheduled change vs. continual change
Artifacts vs. working software
Quality vs. quantity
Big disconnects

31. Similarities
“Ultimately, the end goals are the same, to build products that
don’t suck and to deliver value to the end user.”
David Verba, engineer

32. Full team involvement and participation is important on day one
User feedback is valued at all points in the process
Collaboration and respecting individual contribution is key to good design
Prioritization methods help set expectations
Design for flexibility; expect change and evolution
Communication is critical and needs to be transparent
Similarities

33. Hybrid approach

34. Waterfall-Agile Combo
Research assessment
(interviews, contextual
inquiry, usability tests)
Cycle 0 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Engineering
2 weeks n
Goal modeling s ig
de
user validation
bu i
User modeling
user user
ld
Scenario & task modeling
story story
2–4 weeks
Concept modeling
pl
an i
te s t
High level
te r a t i o
sitemaps or task ows iterations iterations
Key schematics
te
n
Feature prioritization a
e va l u
2–3 week iterations or sprints Cycle X until product releases
Project lead
Client
Discovery Strategy Design
User experience Build Transfer
Visual design
Engineering

36. Research assessment
(interviews, contextual
Human-centered-Agile
inquiry, usability tests)
Cycle 0 Cycle 1 Cycle 2
2 weeks n
Goal modeling s ig
de
user validation
bu i
User modeling
user user
ld
Scenario & task modeling
story story
2–4 weeks
Concept modeling
pl
an i
te s t
High level
te r a t i o
sitemaps or task ows iterations iterations
Key schematics
te
n
Feature prioritization a
e va l u
2–3 week iterations or sprints Cycle X until product releases
Project lead
Client
User experience
Visual design
Engineering

37. Redefine the definition of “designer”— include everyone in
the design process, but still be clear on ownership of decisions,
including clients
Communicate and collaborate early and often
Be flexible, trust your team, and don’t let your ego get the best of you
Lessons learned

38. We can all get along.

39. Thank you! maria.giudice@hotstudio.com
Questions and answers www.hotstudio.com
blog: hottub.hotstudio.com