The development method in phase II seems to have been less well defined or at the least it was not described to me. I think they just continued to develop in the same way but without the prototyping workshops to give the process structure and a timetable (00286). A contributing factor in the problems with phase II were the change in emphasis in development strategy which was not recognised clearly or early enough by the development team (00391, 00636, 00113, 00100).The recommendation from the Post Implementation Review of phase I, supported by Stuart, was for a more throwaway approach to prototyping. In this approach the workshops would be used to model the user interface and then from this the system would be designed, built and tested (01032, 00752). During phase II, Gordan was still enthusiastic about the evolutionary approach (00286) and although he later recognised more clearly the design problems caused by the evolutionary prototyping he still felt that it was a good development strategy particularly for small self-contained applications (00768).
Social influence: |
|
Technical influence: |
Process: Methodology |
![]() |
Commentary |
![]() |
Social influence |
||
![]() |
Technical influence |
![]() |
© Clare Tagg 2000