Here are the slides of the workshop that you presented last week, at Agile Brazil 2013, Brasília DF.

From graphics to code, graceful way

The workshop with the participants started going out with stories and graphics to support a specific scenario. Most things were left open, so they were asked to reach something, either by making assumptions or asking some questions about how to deal with their mission.

Then they came to the group. I asked every pair / collection of the following questions:

1. How many stories you have reached?
2. What is the most important or difficult part?
3. Was there something else you would like to add?

Some have chosen the lean starting method of Go Go, and choosing some stories to implement them before testing this for their customers and moving forward with the rest of the application; Some have made the traditional way to reach the entire design, with symbols, welcome page, search … all these jazz.

After presenting them, I threw a curve ball: The owner of the producer has returned to a challenge and provided one of the three different methods achieved by the fake company. The next task was their demand to change their currently, and to re -make their stories and drawings to their new fate. Then, of course, they must serve again.

The second round of the exercise, the curve ball, was intended to test the extent of thinking about the belief that the participants had done it before verifying the validity of their assumptions on their educational trips. It was a great exercise, although painful, some of them see that the majority of their work goes to waste because they discovered that the curve ball had already opposed with what they initially believed that the money maker was. They had to cancel things from the areas they thought were the most complex, because a completely different functional area was the key to generating revenues. On another level, this was to simulate a situation in which they deal with a lot of ambiguity, and they should think about it What is the least amount they must do to verify their thinking, before producing more works that will risk the transition? In my opinion, a decisive element in the set of skills of any analyst.

At the end of each exercise, we had a quick work in the entire experience, and we made them talk about what they felt when doing the exercise, whether it reflects their realistic experience or not. This was a great way to listen to how some people realize the usual way of work, in contrast to this particular exercise.

The workshop then ends with a quick participation in an example on the field, with notes explained on how to deal with changing the amount of information that you should put in each story suitable for the environment of their project. This was an eyelashes as the differences between a joint team with a distributed team (for the latter, there was a lot of light because they did not usually expect to include the story of more details).

In general, it was really good – by the end of the workshop, a group met to ask more questions (about 30 minutes in addition to the 80 -minute workshop, talked about dedication!) That are driven by many areas that we touched on, and of course, exchanging more experience. I hope that more people have inspired new techniques and ask more good questions that will help improve their way of working.

Thank you, Brazilia!

About Jenny Wong

Here are the slides of the workshop that you presented last week, at Agile Brazil 2013, Brasília DF.

From graphics to code, graceful way

The workshop with the participants started going out with stories and graphics to support a specific scenario. Most things were left open, so they were asked to reach something, either by making assumptions or asking some questions about how to deal with their mission.

Then they came to the group. I asked every pair / collection of the following questions:

1. How many stories you have reached?
2. What is the most important or difficult part?
3. Was there something else you would like to add?

Some have chosen the lean starting method of Go Go, and choosing some stories to implement them before testing this for their customers and moving forward with the rest of the application; Some have made the traditional way to reach the entire design, with symbols, welcome page, search … all these jazz.

After presenting them, I threw a curve ball: The owner of the producer has returned to a challenge and provided one of the three different methods achieved by the fake company. The next task was their demand to change their currently, and to re -make their stories and drawings to their new fate. Then, of course, they must serve again.

The second round of the exercise, the curve ball, was intended to test the extent of thinking about the belief that the participants had done it before verifying the validity of their assumptions on their educational trips. It was a great exercise, although painful, some of them see that the majority of their work goes to waste because they discovered that the curve ball had already opposed with what they initially believed that the money maker was. They had to cancel things from the areas they thought were the most complex, because a completely different functional area was the key to generating revenues. On another level, this was to simulate a situation in which they deal with a lot of ambiguity, and they should think about it What is the least amount they must do to verify their thinking, before producing more works that will risk the transition? In my opinion, a decisive element in the set of skills of any analyst.

At the end of each exercise, we had a quick work in the entire experience, and we made them talk about what they felt when doing the exercise, whether it reflects their realistic experience or not. This was a great way to listen to how some people realize the usual way of work, in contrast to this particular exercise.

The workshop then ends with a quick participation in an example on the field, with notes explained on how to deal with changing the amount of information that you should put in each story suitable for the environment of their project. This was an eyelashes as the differences between a joint team with a distributed team (for the latter, there was a lot of light because they did not usually expect to include the story of more details).

In general, it was really good – by the end of the workshop, a group met to ask more questions (about 30 minutes in addition to the 80 -minute workshop, talked about dedication!) That are driven by many areas that we touched on, and of course, exchanging more experience. I hope that more people have inspired new techniques and ask more good questions that will help improve their way of working.

Thank you, Brazilia!

About Jenny Wong