[Sigia-l] Re: Sigia-l digest, Vol 1 #650 - 20 msgs

[Listera]

"Hal Taylor" wrote:
> Architects can now more-or-less sketch ideas in CAD software, evolve the
> model, and generate final blueprints all within the same system.

So can AI/UI/UE designers.

> Most of them still start by scribbling on the back of a napkin. Anything wrong
> with that? 

Yes. Napkins should not be used in presentations, especially to VPs/MDs.

> Or should we rather tell them that they shouldn't be using CAD at all,
> because the final product they're developing is physical, so there's no
> point in working in the digital domain?

I fail to follow the reverse logic here. Architects do not generate 100%
digital artifacts, we do. They may or may not use digital technology to
design buildings. (In fact, there are probably tens of  thousands of
architects around the world who never use PCs to design buildings.) Our end
products, however, are built entirely by computers and run exclusively on
computers. You can't run a website on post-its, neither should you pretend.
 
>> Yep, and my doctor asks me to write my own prescriptions and sometimes my
>> surgeon just lets me operate on myself. Are you serious?
> 
> If your doctor does not depend on and value your input when doing his job,
> you need another doctor.

Who said anything about not getting input? Did I not say several times
already in this thread that I spend a lot of time with users and
stakeholders one-on-one or in small groups, and, in fact, constantly sketch
out stuff on a pad. You really need a reading doctor. Go back and re-read
what that passage refers to:
 
>>> I also hold that I am not the designer of best systems that I create but
>>> the users are - on the best projects I just compile and edit their ideas.

Your doctor does *NOT* just listen to your input, compile and let you
self-diagnose, neither does your surgeon let you operate on yourself,
regardless of how loquacious you might have been with your 'input.' Is this
so difficult to grok? We should *not* be in the business of asking users to
design/develop complex digital systems. If it were that easy nobody would
need us. One day, hopefully, it may become that easy, but we're nowhere near
that.

> Right, because only high-tech tools are adequately macho to be taken
> seriously.

We *are* in the business of building technology products. That's what we do.
If you are not willing to use the products and tools that you are asking
your users to use, you shouldn't be in this business. It's not OK, for
example, to use post-its and then ask your users to collaborate digitally.
 
> 50 minutes for us is fine. Are you going to also insist that any member of a
> client organization who wants to contribute must also invest those 50
> minutes? Or is it, "ok, you can contribute, but you can't touch anything"?

"You can contribute and you do not *have to* touch anything."
  
> And don't forget, Ziya, that your hypothetical MD/VP/whatever may actually
> have gotten where he is because of his skills in business and/or with
> people, and not because of outstanding computer skills. In fact, I've often
> found that the higher someone's position, the less he is likely to know (or
> care) about technology.

May be you missed it but in another post I mentioned that one should *not*
involve such people in the minutia of design/development process at all.
Frankly, they should be dealing neither directly with Visio nor handling
colored post-its on a board. They should be engaged at a much higher level
of abstraction. I think there's "something wrong" with the notion of VPs/MDs
playing origami with post-its.

I'm fairly certain the same VP/MD didn't get to where he is by playing with
colorful pieces of paper either. And I'm also certain that no VP/MD at a
large org today can possibly survive without computers, whereas there's no
job requirement that they know how to mess with stickies and crayons.

Ziya
Nullius in Verba