Button thinking against a complete IT product

Who generates button ideas

Practice has shown that there are three types of human generators of button solutions. It will not be about specific positions in the project, because every member of the team can screw up. Programmers, QAs, designers, customers, investors and end users are potential button creators.

  • Torophies
    Imagine a situation in which a customer brings a problem. He shares this problem with Toropoga. What does Toropoga do in return? Feels the pressure, as if the customer is waiting for an answer, and immediately. After the customer’s question hangs a pause, and the answer in the head does not appear, the tension increases. In his imagination Toropyga already sees how the customer accuses the poor man of incompetence. Therefore, the customer is given a decision premature and thoughtless.

What should we do if we notice that we are in a hurry? First, realize that it is impossible to know all the answers. Thinking up a raid is not a sign of professionalism. Secondly, taking breaks in negotiations and meetings is the norm. Take a break, go think. Bring with you variants of decisions, risks on everyone, pluses and minuses.

  • Solutions
    The solutions are the pro guys who ate the IT dog. Ask them – they will answer right away. Although it is not a fact that they have serious projects and dozens of years of experience.

For Solutions, incoming problems and tasks are seen as typical, already solved. According to the Cynefin Framework, Solutions see the world in the Obvious square, well, maximum in Complicated. In other words, they already have a solution, you just need to choose the category of the problem.

Solutions deprive themselves of the chance to present a developed solution to the customer and grow on a new task.

The customer decided to be more terrible than the developer-solves, because he likes to push Pet Features into the product.

  • Rescuers
    Unexpectedly, a person’s head feels that if he doesn’t get up off his knees and lead the team, the end of the project, the product and even the company. He assumes the role of the Savior, hoisting the flag and leading people with him. Rescuers think in a push-button way with a special bigotry.

Yes, it’s a situational leadership, about which so much is said in the flexible approaches of development. Yes, it is. But not all situational leadership is equally useful. The problem arises when a person stops hearing others and adequately assesses the situation during the ascent. His decisions begin to be ultimatum, he is at war, he is the savior, he is the master of destiny.

If you have noticed the Savior in the project, try to lead a person out of this state. Slowly, but harshly, the sooner the better. He will then be saddened by his decisions made in a state of affect.

I am a powerful button generator

I don’t know which part of myself to attach to, but I’m also a great button generator and a fast decision maker myself. 10 years of experience and brain speed do not let me doubt my correctness. I decide with terrible speed and pleasure.

I’m sure there are steel-willed IT people in the world. They are able to keep themselves within strict limits, do not fall into the role of Solution or Savior. I do not belong to such and periodically roll down to one of the roles, and sometimes in their combination.

When I realize it, I hit myself on the cheeks, stab myself with a pin and slow down the decision. Not always successfully. And still train, it seems that with time it becomes better.

Mimicking User Stories and tricky Product Owners

The sources of button thinking have been dealt with. Now let’s figure out what to do with them. Why do we let the Decisions drive? Why don’t we throw away superficial ideas? What will prevent us from making our own decisions?

User Story as a filter

When I thought about filters that didn’t miss the button ideas, I remembered User Story. We use stories to form project tasks in everyday practice. The strength of User Story is that they make you describe its value. There is no value in history – there is no unnecessary button in the interface.

The work is built as follows. Introduce the idea → describe it in the form of User Story. Answer the question “To what?

You want to upload the report in Excel. OK, so what? To be just in case? In the trash can, we do not take in work.

Olya’s accountant said she liked it so much? In the trash can, do not take in work.

You consulted inside the department of economists, drew a button in the interface and now you want us to add it? So that what? Because this is your idea and you like it? In the trash can, we do not take in work.

You are a customer and you see it that way? There is no other “to what”? In the trash can, we do not take in work. (Although we sometimes implement Pet Feature, we start by talking about the risks and showing the uselessness of this idea.)

Cunning Product Owners

User Story is a tough way to sift through button ideas. Tested in practice. But there is a downside to the problem here. Product Owners and stakeholders realized that User Story is not going through, because they have to look for the answer to the question “To what? This is difficult if you come with Pet Feature. It’s complicated, but I really want to.

Product Owners have adapted to the new task definition model. They learned how to play this game.