186
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
empirical evidence the model shows promise in relation to alleviating the three main
UCAD challenges reported by research: ( 1) rushed problem framing, ( 2) forgetting
the context and ( 3) workload discrepancies and flow issues.
final reflectionS
Neither UCD nor agile presents a o ne- size- fits-all best-practice approach. Instead,
one draws on mindsets, methodologies and process models and adapts these to the
problem, the context and the available resources at hand. An approach fitting in one
setting does not necessarily fit the next. The same is the case for UCAD. As long
as you adhere to the mindsets of both UCD and agile development, you can safely
draw on a wide range of practices and define workflows that suit your needs while
remaining certain that you are creating solutions that work for your users in real life
and real context of use.
Literature reports a culture gap between software designers and developers, where
diverging core values create challenges in collaboration and communication ( e.g.
Bhrel, Meth, Maedche & Werder, 2015; Beyer, Holtzblatt & Baker, 2004; Salah,
Paige & Cairns, 2014). Bhrel, Meth, Maedche and Werder ( 2015) present an extensive
literature survey on UCAD including 84 research papers in order to define a common set of UCAD principles. They are nonetheless unable to derive any principles
related to team organization, collaboration, communication, decision-making, roles
and responsibilities. Their conclusion is that literature does not present a clear alternative to teamwork organization as parallel tracks, even though there is very limited
empirical evidence supporting the one sprint ahead concept. Moreover, they note
that research does not point out two separate teams in parallel as being the optimal.
About 41% of the included papers described cross-disciplinary agile teams – and
not two dedicated teams handling UX and development. They paraphrase Kuusined
( 2012) who reports that the most frequent advice from practitioners on improving
cooperation, d ecision-making and knowledge transfers is having UX competence
available within the team ( 2014). Salah, Paige and Cairns ( 2014) surveyed 71 papers
and recommend ( 1) sharing an understanding of users, ( 2) sharing an understanding of design vision, and ( 3) synchronization of parallel efforts to allow for collaboration ( e.g. daily synchronization points) in order to optimize workflows and
cross-disciplinary relationships.
On the topic of building the right product vs. building the product right, Bhrel,
Meth, Maedche and Werder ( 2015) conclude that research supports a principle of
separating product discovery and product creation. They reference Kettunen ( 2009)
who proposed drawing on UCD to counter agile shortcomings with regard to
large-scale product innovations, scoping or ideation. However, they do not specify
whether the agile team should be involved in both product discovery and product
creation or whether they envision a handoff from discovery to the agile team. Beyer,
Holtzblatt and Baker ( 2004) recommend that agile teams use rapid contextual design
( rapid CD) to support problem framing and design and present a stepwise approach
with specified methods that appear detailed, but otherwise align with UCD and the
double diamond model. However, they reduce UX work to UI design and envision
the skillsets of design and development remain s eparated – similarly organized as in
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
empirical evidence the model shows promise in relation to alleviating the three main
UCAD challenges reported by research: ( 1) rushed problem framing, ( 2) forgetting
the context and ( 3) workload discrepancies and flow issues.
final reflectionS
Neither UCD nor agile presents a o ne- size- fits-all best-practice approach. Instead,
one draws on mindsets, methodologies and process models and adapts these to the
problem, the context and the available resources at hand. An approach fitting in one
setting does not necessarily fit the next. The same is the case for UCAD. As long
as you adhere to the mindsets of both UCD and agile development, you can safely
draw on a wide range of practices and define workflows that suit your needs while
remaining certain that you are creating solutions that work for your users in real life
and real context of use.
Literature reports a culture gap between software designers and developers, where
diverging core values create challenges in collaboration and communication ( e.g.
Bhrel, Meth, Maedche & Werder, 2015; Beyer, Holtzblatt & Baker, 2004; Salah,
Paige & Cairns, 2014). Bhrel, Meth, Maedche and Werder ( 2015) present an extensive
literature survey on UCAD including 84 research papers in order to define a common set of UCAD principles. They are nonetheless unable to derive any principles
related to team organization, collaboration, communication, decision-making, roles
and responsibilities. Their conclusion is that literature does not present a clear alternative to teamwork organization as parallel tracks, even though there is very limited
empirical evidence supporting the one sprint ahead concept. Moreover, they note
that research does not point out two separate teams in parallel as being the optimal.
About 41% of the included papers described cross-disciplinary agile teams – and
not two dedicated teams handling UX and development. They paraphrase Kuusined
( 2012) who reports that the most frequent advice from practitioners on improving
cooperation, d ecision-making and knowledge transfers is having UX competence
available within the team ( 2014). Salah, Paige and Cairns ( 2014) surveyed 71 papers
and recommend ( 1) sharing an understanding of users, ( 2) sharing an understanding of design vision, and ( 3) synchronization of parallel efforts to allow for collaboration ( e.g. daily synchronization points) in order to optimize workflows and
cross-disciplinary relationships.
On the topic of building the right product vs. building the product right, Bhrel,
Meth, Maedche and Werder ( 2015) conclude that research supports a principle of
separating product discovery and product creation. They reference Kettunen ( 2009)
who proposed drawing on UCD to counter agile shortcomings with regard to
large-scale product innovations, scoping or ideation. However, they do not specify
whether the agile team should be involved in both product discovery and product
creation or whether they envision a handoff from discovery to the agile team. Beyer,
Holtzblatt and Baker ( 2004) recommend that agile teams use rapid contextual design
( rapid CD) to support problem framing and design and present a stepwise approach
with specified methods that appear detailed, but otherwise align with UCD and the
double diamond model. However, they reduce UX work to UI design and envision
the skillsets of design and development remain s eparated – similarly organized as in