...
it is excellent, and frames how to move from waterfall thinking to breaking the work into pieces, and identifying high value places to start (prioritization) - this supports:
working in large, complex, legacy environments (aka gov): everything is broken, the ecosystem/connected service context is complex, there is urgency to improve, omg overwhelm, where to start!?, and
supports responding to a rapidly changing world
the course does not touch on working in specific frameworks such as scrum
🔥 The Digital Plan and Code of Practice lead with Design (being human-centred), whereas much of our operations and training leads with Scrum, with a lot of ambiguity, friction, and outright conflict developing in pockets of gov when trying to combine the 2 ways of working. None of the agile/scrum training references Design or how it fits into the process, sometimes even assigning accountability for human-centred work to Product Owners instead - some folks are confused
🔥🔥 It seems that the onus is being put on Designers to solve this for themselves on the ground, without guidance OR Design practice leadership. It means they’re being asked to do hard work, lead Design work (often as a team of one, technically working across several Design job profiles), teach folks around them how to work with them, defend their practice (potentially as they are up-skilling said practice and may not feel confident doing this yet), and problem-solve how to fit their work into these frameworks such as scrum (with some Scrum Masters pushing back: “you’re not agile”, “you don’t fit into this work”)
I believe the Digital Office needs to play a bigger role in advising how Design fits into frameworks such as Scrum, in a way that supports good practice and outcomes (see cautions below)
Tess Good was 1 of 3 auditors, materials (3 x 8 hour days of slide decks + resources) are restricted to honour the effort and intellectual property of the course. Happy to share elements as appropriate.
...