,
8 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/8 When I unpack "the work" with teams, we invariably see *many* "shapes" of work. 15+ typically. There's absolutely no way a single process/workflow will work in all cases. You might get lucky to have four broad buckets, but still...
Excuse lame gifs.
Excuse lame gifs.
2/8 One of the central questions here is what "team" means in your context. To @cagan's post earlier this month, are you working on actual product team. Or is this "delivery team" or "feature team". The differences are very important and worthy of a discussion.
3/8 Without answering this question, you'll just go in circles. If indeed your organizations perceives engineers as "delivery" people, and designers as "make it ready for engineers to deliver" people, and product as "design this"...then you've already answered your questions
4/8 Meaning that when you are designing how to work to facilitate handoffs between these groups, and not really operating as a product team...then by all means fire up the handoff process and get to work. VELOCITY!
5/8 "Sprints" are routinely abused. They are meant to be a healthy enabling constraint. Once you understand the spirit of enabling constraints, then you are free as a product team to explore different ways of work...ways that are more friendly to collab.
Avoid Tetris
Avoid Tetris
6/8 What would it take for you, as a team (<< the operative work), to form working agreements that make sense for the shape of work you're grappling with? Maybe that means a bit of advance research, bring the whole team along. Maybe you're in the groove, fire up those wireframes
7/8 What you find is design teams that are severely understaff, and this is the single thing driving this Q (not value to customers). So you first need to ask whether you are willing to hire more designers, as this will help you answer this question. amplitude.com/blog/hire-more…
8/8 So the third, better way is to 1) figure out if you have actual cross-functional product (or experience, @jmspool ) teams, 2) see if they have the freedom to tweak their approach, or beholden to some godforsaken "train", and 3) the revisit the question
