'I think it was a classic prototyping approach whereby we ran workshops, defined requirements from those workshops, went away, produced a prototype, came back, presented it, reviewed it, defined enhancements, went away and several iterations of that. Now, of course, what would happen was that we didn't stop it at any stage and say right now we're going to develop this properly. What we had, became the final system. ... I've got some reservations about that, because I think. Maybe if we had stopped at some stage, we wouldn't have had to kind of re-engineer the database now, but we let it run like that.X022 page 019.01 (tape 03.1.01) Gordan Notes/Trans/Tape 27/01/94The other thing we were trying to do was develop a casualty element of the system, and a property element at the same time and we had problems with casulty underwriters saying one thing and property underwriters saying another. There were some problems in that respect. Now, I think what we should have done in hindsight, was start off and develop the property system and then go to the casualty underwriters with it and say, right what doesn't this do for you, what extra screens do you need, rather than try and do the two at the same time - that was a mistake.'
Social influence: | Team: Composition |
Technical influence: | Process: Methodology |
![]() |
Recording |
![]() |
![]() |
Story |
![]() |
![]() |
Social influence |
![]() |
![]() |
Technical influence |
![]() |
© Clare Tagg 2000