Collaborative Product Design v0.9 Ch2 Set Up

You need: a problem that needs to be fixed, an experienced facilitator, a commitment from the people needing it to participate, a venue for the in-person sessions, a goal, and UI and code specialists.

cpd2_first

The problem
Unfortunately, it needs to be said that you need a problem to work on. This problem should come from the mouths of the persons with the problem. We don’t imagine problems for people. If you have imagined someone else’s problem, you possibly should solve it via the performance arts or writing. Product design, as it is discussed here, is for people with actual problems, as told by them.

Facilitation
There are many models for facilitation and still more that are called facilitation. The facilitator here is not the Benevolent Dictator For Life, cat herder, or Community Manager (or other models) commonly found in open source, rather the model is closer to an unconference-style facilitator. Don’t confuse these very different approaches!

However it is also important to understand that the CPD facilitator is not an unconference facilitator, rather they are someone that can use unconference tools to manage dynamics but they must also be able to drive people to specific clear end points. These two things do not always come together and do not assume an unconference facilitator can perform this role.

Stakeholder Commitment
You need the commitment from the people that will be affected by the system. The software is going to be a direct result of their participation since they will design it. It stands to reason then that if an important stakeholder is missing, then you cannot design for them. So make sure you have everyone affected by the system present and that they are committed to this process.

cpd2_middle

A Venue
A good venue, at its minimum, is really a space with just enough room to house a table and enough chairs to seat everyone. An extended whiteboard wall is good to have, but can be substituted with large pieces of paper if necessary. The ideal venue would have breakout spaces and fresh air. It is good to have the sessions in rooms connected to or a part of the hosting organisation’s workspace so in-house legacy tools or current workflow can be demonstrated if necessary. Coffee and food arealways welcomed.

cpd2_last

A Goal
The hosting organisation needs to articulate a clear goal. This could be in the form of “we need to replace our existing system for X”. It does not need to be much more detailed than that however sometimes the scope of ‘X’ will need to be determined. This can be done in the first Collaborative Design Session. However the very first session will need this first statement of the goal from the hosting org.

UI and Code Specialists
While you could try developing software without UI and code specialists (I have done it many times when I had no money to hire anyone) you will quite probably not end up with a good product. UI and code specialists add a lot of value when it comes to the build cycle of CPD. It should be noted that these people are not to be placed at the end of the line and passed hard and fast specifications to build. Instead, they are also part of the collaborative process and will be involved in a design session as part of the build process. Sometimes it is also possible, depending on resources, to also have them involved in the design sessions with the hosting organisation and this should be done if possible.

Collaborative Product Design v0.9 Ch1 INTRO

First chapter in a series describing Collaborative Product Design.

Collaborative Production Design (CPD) is a facilitated methodology for producing software products. I would call it a strongly facilitated method that generates and requires immersive collaboration.

cpd_1

In some sense, CPD is a new branch of the Systems Development Life Cycle tree. SDLC methods include Spiral, Joint Application Design, Xtreme Programming, SCRUM and others (some of which conform to Agile Manifesto values). CPD is specifically positioned within the free software / open source sector where the cultural rules are quite different to environments where teams are employed to work within a more formal business or corporate structure. However, CPD also differs from open source models/default processes that have embraced developer-centric solution models. CPD requires the end people needing the software to design the system and places the facilitator as the enabling agent.

CPD also differs in that there is no backlog, no roadmap, no personas, no validations, no user stories, no standups, no user testing (since the ‘users’ design the system). This process is not about typical development procedures, it is about communication and collaboration. It is not a question of profiling a ‘user,’ rather it is a necessity to have all people affected by the system involved in the design process. The question is not ‘do we have a roadmap?’ the question is ‘do we understand each other?’ Followed closely by ‘do we clearly understand the problem and what we need to do?’ if the answer to this question is ‘no’ then the facilitator’s job is to find the right mechanisms (not necessarily the default software dev tools) that will help each member of the team get to this point of understanding.

CPD is iterative and has clear cycles each of which consists of a Collaborative Design Session followed immediately by a build period. Sometimes (but not always) UI and code specialists are involved in these design sessions. The specialists most in demand for the design sessions are the users. The design sessions are always in person and do not function well with remote participation. These sessions can be as short as 2 hours, as long as 1 day. The build cycles can occur remotely and may take 2-8 weeks, perhaps longer.

The general principle is that all stakeholders (end users) that touch the software must be present (in total or a representative group) in the design sessions. Building is the job of the UI and code specialists. All users affected by the software must be present (at the appropriate moment – more on this later) during the design sessions. Without their presence, you cannot develop a solution for them. A fundamental rule is that no one speaks for the user but the user themselves. Each build cycle also has a parameterized collaborative design session which involves the UI and code specialists.

cpd-2

In addition, a very important prerequisite is that the software must be able to be adapted to the final design. That does not mean the group must be ‘facilitated’ towards a pre-determined narrow solution which the software can cope with… rather, the software architecture at its root must be adaptable. The software must be able to be adapted to the user in the broadest sense possible, not the other way round. We adapt software to people. We don’t adapt people to software.

Finally, it must be remembered that new software changes behaviour, and it follows that we want software to produce a positive behavioural change – a change that benefits us. It is worth remembering that if this is the case, then if we can change behaviour without the need to change technology, that is the easier path and this is success. A solution designed by the people needing it might not require a change in technology at all, or the change may be to a smaller scale than you had imagined when starting the project, or the solution might not require your product at all. Unless you can accept this from the start, you are doing nothing more than producing technology for technology’s sake and CPD is not for you.

On the other hand, if the people design a technology that will assist them, then you also have a success and probably, perhaps luckily, there is more work for you to do.

cpd-3

You will note that we avoid the term ‘users’ as this suggests people are ‘hanging in there’ and conforming to the requirements of a technology. They ‘use’ the technology that is given to them. If the rat learns enough to get to the end of the maze relatively unhindered then this is the best case scenario with this approach. CPD believes technology should conform to the way people want to work and help the user get to where they need to go in a mode that is most suitable for them. That can only be determined by the actual people that need actual technological assistance.

Substance Consortium

Substance.io (pictured are Oliver and Michael from Substance) is the leading solution for open source web-editing libraries. They are doing it the right way in a world where many others have failed. Unsurprisingly, it takes a lot of effort to get this right and hence an initially small, but well informed, group are working together to build a consortium around the open source project. If you would like to join the first consortium meeting it will be in Montreal on July 26 and 27.

substance1

The meeting will be of interest to those that are building, or use, editors online. To understand the importance of what they are doing it is important to understand that anytime you add any content at all through a web page you need an editor.

Substance.io is building libraries that support the building of almost any editor of this variety that you can think of and any kind of editor you have not yet thought of…. For example, just consider that when you enter content into an online spreadsheet (such as google docs) you are not actually leveraging the power of a spreadsheet – a spreadsheet is really just a table. You are actually using a powerful content editor operating ‘within’ that table without even knowing it. It’s the editor that is important, not the table. Similarly, Substance.io enables you to build the typical online editors you are used to (including as spreadsheets) but also, significantly, opens the door to innovation for online production environments.

Anywhere you want to innovate content production processes, you will need the best of breed solution. Substance.io is working to provide that for you, not by building the editors themselves, but the ‘under the hood’ libraries. These libraries enable you (us) all to leverage all that extremely difficult stuff (concurrency, source control, micro interactions, cursor placement, schemas etc) that most of us haven’t even thought about but are absolutely necessary for enabling robust editing environments.

This is naturally of interest to the publishing sector… if you are involved in the publishing of research then the meeting in Montreal is particularly interesting since a primary objective of the meeting is also to build a shared roadmap, and share the effort, for the ongoing development and maintenance of the Substance ScienceWriter (built on top of the Substance libraries).

The ScienceWriter is an editor designed for the production of scientific research materials. ScienceWriter will inevitably be the best of its class and the intention is to build collaboration amongst friends and competitors alike to solve the long- standing need for a solution of this type. Imagine sophisticated math editing, the inclusion of dynamic look-ups for references, figure support, ‘living figure’ integration, native support for JATS and HTML source formats, ORCID lookups, inline inclusion and management of new content types etc etc etc…

If this is of interest to you then your attendance will mean you will gain insights into where this product is going, have the opportunity to directly affect its development path, learn how to contribute to it, and learn how to use the product.

If you would like to learn more about what they are doing, there is a webinar on 22 June 2016. If you would like to participate in the first Consortium meeting, come on July 26 and 27 (link below).
http://substance.io/consortium/

Collaborative Product Design Sessions Scratch Pad

This is a rough v0.5 version of a Collaborative Design Sessions method template. Many thanks to Arthur Attwell for working with me to improve this.

Collaborative Design Sessions are one or (more likely) a series of events as part of the Collaborative Product Development cycle, that help an organisation design a solution. In many cases, this solution is a change of behaviours (cultural change) supported by technology (an open source product).

Collaborative Product Design is a new branch on the Systems Development Life Cycle tree. SDLC methods include Spiral, Joint Application Design, Xtreme Programming, SCRUM and others (including those which conform to Agile Manifesto values). Collaborative Product Development is such a method, posited within the free software / open source sector where the cultural rules are quite different to environments where teams are employed to work within a more formal business or corporate structure.

The Sessions

These Collaborative Design Sessions are facilitated-processes and work better as physical gatherings with a facilitator and a wide range of stakeholders. These stakeholders may be from a single organisation, or from a number of organisations with similar needs. Sessions can be 2 hours (no less) or more, in some circumstances they may take several days. Commonly a session is a morning or afternoon (4 hours or so). It is sometimes necessary to break these up over an extended period of time. Each case is different and no ‘one size fits all’ strategy is possible.

The Product

It is assumed that an open source product is already in mind when going through this process and that this product can be adapted to meet the needs of the organisation. It is also assumed that the introduction of any product to an organisation is only in part a technical question, the larger issue is generally cultural.

Facilitation

Facilitation is a key ingredient for Collaborative Design Sessions, no group should attempt this process without a facilitator. Some important things to get right going into the event include:

  1. The facilitator is not a Benevolent Dictator
    The facilitator here is not the Benevolent Dictator For Life, cat herder, or Community Manager (or other models) commonly found in open source; rather the model is closer to an unconference-style facilitator. Don’t confuse these very different approaches!
  2. Organisational neutrality
    The facilitator should not be part of the organisation that is in need of the solution – this frees the facilitator from internal politics and dynamics and enables them to read the group clearly and interact freely.
  3. Domain Knowledge is not necessary but useful
    A facilitator may be entirely neutral or, in the case where an organisation is working already with an open source product in mind, be part of the open source product development team or community. The facilitator of these sessions may or may not have domain or product knowledge. If there is no domain knowledge, it is recommended product and domain experts be present. This helps a great deal to keep the process anchored to ‘product reality’.
  4. Tools
    You may wish to have tools such as post-its etc, but generally a large whiteboard and markers (or large pieces of paper) will take care of it. Most shared objects are documentation but it may be necessary at times to use other facilitation tools and tricks to move a group process along.

Note: this document assumes some experience in facilitation. This document is not intended to train facilitators (indeed, experience is the only way to learn facilitation), rather it is intended as a suggested framework-guide for those wishing to try this process.

Here are some things to remember when facilitating Collaborative Design Sessions:

  1. Build trust before products
    As a facilitator, your job is to build trust in you, the process, the group, and the outcomes. Each time you make a move that diminishes trust you are taking away from the process and reducing the likelihood of success. For this reason, you must put building trust, working with what people say and towards what people want, ahead of building ‘your’ product. Trust that the product and a commitment to it, will emerge from this process, and it will be better for it.
  2. Change is cultural, not technical
    Too often technology is proposed as the mechanism for change. Technology does not create change. People create change, with the assistance of technology.
  3. Even the best solutions have problems
    Own that even the best solutions, including the one you are representing, will have problems. There is no perfect solution, and if there is then time will inevitably make it imperfect.
  4. Technology is not a magic wand
    Make sure the group is not seeing technology as the magic wand. Change is not magically ‘embedded’ in the technology. Improvement, optimisation, or radical reworking of workflows requires people to do things differently.
  5. Leave your know-it-all at the door
    If you are part of a product team then you may be expected to be somewhat of a domain and / or product expert. Leaving that at the door is not possible of course, but you should be careful that you do not use this knowledge as heavy handed doctrine. Instead, it should manifest itself in signposts, salient points, and inspiring examples at the right moments. These points should add to the conversation not override it. Don’t over play your product knowledge and vision, you will lose people if you do.
  6. Cultural drives change, technology assists
    The group must be committed to changing what they do. The ‘what they do’ should not be posited as a function of technology, it is their behaviour that will always need to change regardless of whether there is a technology change. Behavioural and cultural change is a necessity, not something that ‘might happen’. The group needs to recognise this and be committed to changing how they work.
  7. Give up your solution before you enter the room
    If you are part of a product team it is a mistake to enter into a Collaborative Design Session and advocate or direct the group towards your solution. If the group chooses a technology or path you do not have a stakeholding in, then that is fine. The point is, however, that the likelihood is that they will choose ‘your’ technology, otherwise, you would not be asked to be in the same room with them. However, if you facilitate the process and drive them to your solution you will be reading the group wrong and they will feel coerced. You must free yourself from this constraint and be prepared to propose, advocate, or accept a solution that is not ‘yours’ or that you did not have in mind when you entered the room. This will not only free you up to drive people to the solution they want, but it will earn you trust. When they do they choose your solution, and chances are they will, then they will trust it because they trust you and trust the process. If they don’t choose it, they will trust you and come back another time when they are ready for what you have to offer and, additionally, they will advocate your skills to others.
  8. Focus on problems and solutions not technology
    As mentioned above, cultural change is necessary and many behavioural changes can occur that will produce positive results without the need for a technology change. It is important that you and the group can identify these issues and bring them into a focused discussion. For this reason, it is very important that the initial sessions focus on what the problems are, irrespective of whether they are born of technology or workplace process. If you can accomplish this then the group may very well propose changes that have nothing to do with technology. This is a very good outcome, as the end goal is to improve how things are done. If technology change is not always (or ever) part of the solution that is also success for the process.
  9. Involve a broad set of stakeholders
    The sessions should involve as diverse a range of stakeholders as possible. This will not only improve the product but increase stakeholder ownership of the solution and that in turn will help the organisation implement it. If people feel they own the solution, they will work towards seeing it implemented.
  10. Move one step at a time
    Move through each step slowly. The time it takes to move through a step is the time it takes to move through a step. There is no sense in hurrying the process, this will not lead to better results or faster agreements. It will in all likelihood move towards shallow agreements that don’t stick and ill-thought out solutions that don’t properly address the problem. The time it takes to move through a step will also give you a good indication of the time needed for the steps yet to come. Be prepared to re-scale your timelines at any time and to return to earlier unresolved issues if need be.
  11. Ask many questions, get clarifying answers, ask dumb questions, the dumber the better
    Ask many many questions. Try not to make them leading (note: sometimes leading questions are necessary for points of clarification or illustrating an issue). Keep asking questions until you get clear simple answers. Breakdown compound answers where necessary into fragments and drill down until you have the clarity you need. Dumb questions are often the most valuable. Asking a dumb question often unpacks important issues or reveals hidden and unchallenged assumptions. It is very surprising how fundamental some of these assumptions can be, so be brave on this point. If necessary feign humbleness and stupidity for asking an obvious question.
  12. Own stupid problems, laugh about them!
    Every workplace culture knows they do some stupid things. When you find these, call them out, and, if possible, laugh about them. Providing a context where people can bring forward and own ‘stupid’ processes in an easy way is going to help identify the problems and move towards solving them. It also sometimes gives people an opportunity to question things that they never felt made sense and this may, in turn, help others question the ways things are done – this is very valuable and is not always possible in the everyday workplace environment. Bringing these issues out can be very revealing, it gets people on the same page, and is often cathartic.
  13. Reduce, reduce, reduce
    The strongest point is a simple one.
  14. Get agreements as you go
    Double check that everyone is on the same page as you go. Get explicit agreement even on seemingly obvious agreements. Total consensus is not always necessary but general agreement is.
  15. Document it all
    Get it down in simple terms on whiteboards or whatever you have available. At the end of sessions commit this to digital, shareable, media.
  16. Summarise your journey and where you are now
    At the end of a session, it is always necessary to summarise in clear terms the journey you have taken and where you have arrived. Get consensus on this. It is also useful at various points throughout the session to do this as a way of illustrating you are all on the same journey and reminding people what this is all about. When doing this it is very useful to make points in this summary that illustrate that you understand them – bring out points that may have taken a while to get clarity on or that you may have initially misunderstood (there will be many of them if you are doing your job well!) so the group knows that you are embedded with them and not merely massaging them towards your own pre-designed end game.
  17. State your willingness to discard your own product
    Nothing builds trust more than statements to show that you are invested in helping them achieve what they need over what you want. Your investment in this, as with all your actions and statements, must be genuine. For this reason, too, you should accept conclusions that propose cultural solutions over technical, and other people’s products over yours. This also implies you need some fair understanding of products competitive in your space and you should not make denigrating comments about them, but instead recognise when they have value. The assumption is, however, that since they invited you here, and if you are doing a good job, people will choose your product anyway – but you must let them make that choice. It’s OK to highlight this dilemma and probably helps things if you do and do so in a light-hearted way.
  18. All solutions must be implemented incrementally
    Do not design and then build the final solution all at once. Solutions must be deployed incrementally and learnings folded back into the proposed solution. Build to a minimum proposition, try it, learn, redesign, repeat.
  19. Bring in the competition
    During CDS, it is sometimes a good idea to have complementary or competing technology providers at the session. You will probably find that his leads to great collaborations, each contributing what they excel at.
  20. Facilitation is an art of invention
    While this section has not been about how to facilitate, it is important to make a note about invention before the next section in the hope that no one just reads the below as an instruction manual. There are processes and methods that you can use ‘off the shelf’ as a facilitator but none of them will translate from paper to reality in a one-to-one mapping. People are too weird and contexts too variable to ever allow facilitators the luxury to do it by numbers. At the very least facilitation is an act of translating known patterns into a new context and tweaking it to fit. But the reality is that much of the what a facilitator does is to make things up. Instinct and the terror of failure force on-the-fly invention of methods, but each time a good facilitator makes it appear that the method has existed for a hundred years and has never been known to fail. When it does fail, a really good facilitator will ensure no one notices.

Phases

The following is a rough structure for a CDS implementation. Facilitation of CDS is necessarily fluid and it is not expected that there are strongly delineated phases, rather that there will be some ebb and flow between each. As a rule, however, you should be moving forward through these stages in a somewhat sequential and linear fashion.

Each of the following phases are guides, and they may all be done in one CDS or over multiple sessions:

  1. Introductions
    No matter if everyone knows each other, always do a round of introductions. It sets a baseline expectation that even the obvious should be stated. It will also help you to understand something of the stakeholders present and the roles they play. Experienced facilitators also use this time to read the interactions in the group and start formulating strategies to get them collaborating.
  2. Why are we here?
    Ask the question – do we want change? Before starting on any Collaborative Design Session you must first confirm that the group actually wants to produce change. This should be explicit, the facilitator can actually ask this question outright. The answer is yes, but it is not the answer that it is important, it is  an affirmation by the group that they are prepared to undergo a process that will instigate change.
  3. Where are we now?
    We need a good understanding of the current workflow.

    • Start with a description of the current workflow
    • identify pain points
    • quantify time periods
    • identify roles & gatekeepers

    Turn all of the above into easily consumable artefact’s (may need to occur after the CDS) and share them.

  4. Identify Scope
    The problem space identified above may be huge. If this is the case then some scoping is necessary. Ask the group to define the most important problems to solve first. If possible you want one nice cohesive problem to solve. Avoid trying to solve too much.
  5. Solution Proposition
    We are now in search of the Solution Proposition. An SP is not a solution, it is a proposition. It’s very important to frame it this way. We are not under the illusion that the final design is a magic cure-all, rather it is a hypothesis that we are now prepared to test out. There are a number of ways you can develop an SP. Your choice of method is a product of observations about how the team works together, the problems they are trying to solve, and your experience as a facilitator. Here are some example methods to get there, these are some things that could work. However, facilitation is about invention. Invent processes like the below on the fly and then test them out in your sessions and learn. If you are doing your job well then you will be experimenting all the time, and if you are doing your job really well then no one will notice when one of your new inventions (possibly made up as you are saying it) fails. Those listed below work, but the first time I used each I made them up on the spot (shhh…).Blank Canvas
    Start with a very open-ended session. Ask how they would like to work, let the conversation roam. Document anchor points that seem important and/or repeated themes. Essentially what you are looking for is a starting point for the new story on how things will be done. This starting point might be very concrete, or it might be highly conceptual. It could also be that you think you have the starting point but find that actually, some in the group want to take the starting point back to the fundamentals of what they are trying to achieve as an organisation. Your job is to witness this and keep the process going until you find the point where most, if not all, participants what to start the new story.

    At this point, you need to make sure the new story is well documented and you are getting good clear, simple, points. There is no substitute for facilitation experience at this point, but if you are struggling then the best strategy is to try and make the starting point somewhat concrete and less conceptual. For example, draw a blank box and say something like”how do we start the new process in a browser?” (assuming we are discussing web-based solutions). Get to a blank canvas that is somewhat parameterized and contained. Then draw out concrete details about what ‘could’ happen in on this new canvas. Enable people to roam and use what you have learned from the previous phases and what you know about the domain and product to ‘keep the conversation real’. This will make your work much easier.

    Iterate like this and work towards building concrete steps that illustrate the new ways of doing things. It is surprising that in some situations this process will lead directly to a pretty good understanding of what user interfaces and flow you are building. Other times, you may need to keep the conversation going until something concrete will materialise. In general, the more experienced you are as a facilitator, the better this part of the process will proceed.

    Pitching
    Give each of the participants some large pieces of paper and ask them to each to draw a solution. Set a finite amount of time. Don’t let anyone claim they ‘don’t know enough’ about the problem space – ‘naive’ Solution Propositions often have very insightful points. At the end of the time limit, each participant is to pin their paper to the wall and speak to it in 5 minutes. These are not real pitches, just a light presentation of what they were thinking. Then have 5 minutes of questions and comments. Leave all papers on the wall (just add to them for every pitch).

    After everyone has presented, it is good to break for a while as this was probably a long session. It is also good to break here to take some time and consider what your next step be. From the pitches, you must derive a single Solution Proposition. It is OK at this point to propose it yourself when the group returns to the room. Make sure that when you do this you are proposing ideas that the group has had and not your own pre-designed solution. Invite comment on the Solution Proposition.

    You should end this phase with a good understanding of the cultural changes necessary and what you are trying to build. It is not unusual to have whiteboard wireframes at the end of this process.

  6. Working Agreements
    Agree on how you will work together. What channels you will use, what information goes where, when the next face to face or remote meetings will be etc.
  7. Mocks and prototypes
    If there is ‘something’ to build, don’t build anything yet. Create image mockups, get feedback, iterate to sign off. Then move to some form of interactive prototype. HTML is often a quick way to do this, you don’t need all the functionality in place and not everything needs to be working. Get feedback, iterate to sign off.
  8. The Build
    As a result of the phases above, changes may need to be done internal to the organisation – this will quite probably not involve you. However a product, most likely, also has to be built hence following from the Collaborative Design Sessions is the build period. This is possible to do within group sessions as outlined above but is more likely to be done outside of these sessions. Generally, tasks are allocated to individuals with the necessary skills. UX people, for example, will generate mockups or developers will work on code. These materials are then brought back to the group for discussion, it may be that this process is conducted remotely in part or whole.

Iterative Book Production Manifesto

Something I wrote in 2012 for FLOSS Manuals and updated recently to:
https://github.com/greyscalepress/manifestos

We value:

  1. Contributors and facilitators over ‘editors’ and ‘authors’
  2. Collaboration over individualised production
  3. Here and now production over sometime soon production
  4. Meaningful credit for all contributors over single author attribution

Earlier iterations:
http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/2012-June/007446.html
http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/2012-June/007465.html
http://blog.booki.cc/2012/06/iterative-book-development-manifesto/
https://web.archive.org/web/20131225055321/http://blog.booki.cc/2012/06/iterative-book-development-manifesto/

book-development-manifesto

CPD – Collaborative Product Development

Scratch pad initial thoughts for CPD methodology

Guiding Rule

Diversity of Stakeholders + Collaboration = 
1. a better product
2. accelerated adoption

Requirements

  • product flexability
  • facilitator

Origin Steps

  1. develop a Solution Proposition
  2. start initial design and development any way you can
  3. diversify the product development team as soon as possible to include designers, UX people, devs, users, potential users etc
  4. begin outward general communication

Collaborative Design Steps (cyclical)

  1. seek those interested in adopting
  2. include potential adopters in Collaborative Design Sessions
  3. make their contributions visible
  4. develop, test and use the product
  5. repeat

Discovering ba

I recently started researching what a better Open Source Software Development Lifecycle might look like. On the path, I am discovering so many amazing things. Including the work of Ikujiro Nonaka. The following quote from an article about him illustrates why I’m so excited by his work:

“Nonaka told his interviewer that they were creating ba, a Japanese term that describes a field or space where people freely and openly share what they know in the service of creating something new.

Ba resembles the concept of “flow” as set forth by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: It is the mental state that occurs when a person is fully immersed in whatever he or she is doing. But unlike flow, ba is never solitary; it exists among two or more people. As Nonaka says, “In ba, there is no you or me, there is only us, sharing a here-and-now relationship.” Ba can occur in a work group, a project team, an ad hoc meeting, a virtual e-mail list, or at the frontline point of contact with customers. It serves as a petri dish in which shared in­sights are cultivated and grown.

Companies can foster ba by designing processes that encourage people to think together. ”

http://www.strategy-business.com/article/08407?gko=a1212

Some Open Design Resources

Some stuff I found. More information coming.

http://opendesignnow.org/

http://openusability.org/

http://opendesign.foundation/

https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/09/the-case-for-open-source-design-can-design-by-committee-work/

https://github.com/opensourcedesign/resources

http://opensourcedesign.net/

https://24ways.org/2014/why-you-should-design-for-open-sourceb

Perhaps Stop Using ‘Non-code’? Whatayarekin?

It is a rampant meme – ‘non-code’. Used to describe contributions to open source projects that are not code.

This kind of language creates insider-outsider boundaries and will signal to anyone that isn’t a programmer that they are secondary citizens and that their contributions will be valued accordingly. Not very motivating.