I want to achieve the same productivity, but I'm very concerned about fatigue. I'm thinking we'll need to break our ideation sessions down into a greater number of shorter sessions.
Virtual meeting fatigue is real because there aren’t as many natural breaks. It is important to make sure that people know they can excuse themselves for water/food/bio breaks.
I’ve also found that virtual whiteboarding is slower for me as I’m used to picking up a dry erase marker. It takes time to adjust to the different work stream but a huge benefit is the quality of the end product (no sloppy hand writing, easy to modify).
I don’t have any direct advice geared towards your situation as our white boarding and planning phases are quite different in my industry.
In addition to the software, make sure your team has good hardware. A screen large enough with high enough resolution is critical to see the whiteboard. What’s also important is that video from meetings takes up screen real estate and with multiple participants, having enough size and resolution to see them all helps you stay connected. External webcams that can be adjusted are helpful also.
(Adding an index to your database for city or however the queries are formed would probably also help).
It can be useful to be remembered of places you like but haven’t been in a while as well.
In most cases, the people who are giving the requirements either: 1) don't actually know them (e.g. they are in upper management but the software will be used by line workers) 2) have internalized the details of the process so long ago that they are essentially subconscious now. They would tell you the real requirements if they could, but they just can't, they will instead tell you what they think the requirements are. Then, once you build it and they try to use it, like the native speaker of a language hearing you speak a sentence in it using the grammar rules they just told you, they will immediately know that it's wrong.
So, the best way to find the _real_ requirements for the software, is to build the software, and have them try to use it. Stop planning and endlessly documenting someone's fantasy or best guess at what the requirements are; the only way to really discover the requirements is to build the thing.
This was before heat map software and click tracking which can do a great job of augmenting customer feedback.
The key part that we found out is that if you take this approach, you have to couple it with high quality software support. We hired and trained folks who knew the entirety of our business and tech (Linux, DNS, HTTP, hosting, etc). Our tech support reps were paid much more highly than others in the industry but it gave us more benefits than just being able to support customers when beta software was ship to prod, it also gave us a training ground for future software engineers, QA folks, SysAdmins, and Product Managers.
What I think a lot of people forget is that software is one piece of the puzzle in solving a problem, it’s absolutely not the whole solution. If you design a process based around connecting with customers on a regular basis and having feedback flow throughout your company, you won’t have to “make perfect features”.
I’ve only worked with a small number of companies since that have understood this. Most I’ve worked with have created communication silos and sit in rooms trying to dream up the perfect set of requirements.
If you’re trying to replace human interactions and relationships with your employees with single question surveys, you’re going to miss out on all the important context.
Getting good output isn’t about rushing as fast to a goal as possible and not taking time to make sure things are going well. It’s about setting goals that are measurable, coming up with hypothesis about how to get there, and checking in regularly with an objective lens to see if you’re on track or if there’s a better approach.
1. New car,
2. Which cost almost $60,000, with
3. Fewer than 6000 miles,
4. Suffer a catastrophic failure (i.e. couldn't start with a jump),
5. While parked,
6. And had the manufacturer not communicate the source of failure,
7. Or how long it would take to fix?
That, to me, seems almost unbelievable. I have entertained the idea that our family's next car would be a Tesla, but stories like this make me want to wait another generation or longer.
Statistically, a few hundred thousand model 3s have been delivered and many are well past 6k miles. I think you should wait and hear what Tesla’s reaction is before writing them off.
Things you should consider are:
- they have sold so many cars in the past 2 years that service center growth is struggling to keep up and wait times are long
- Tesla vehicles cannot be serviced easily by third parties so you have no option if Tesla says something you don’t like or wait times are long
Choosing the one broken car out of hundreds of thousands delivered as a reason to not buy one doesn’t make much sense. All manufacturers deliver defective vehicles. Looking at statistics on how many are defective per capita from each manufacturer would be a more reasonable course of action.