Methodology [was] Re: Guinea Pigs [was] Re: EPP [snip]

[Eric "Shubes"]

Trent Shipley wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Fine.  I want to find and interview domain experts.
> 
> a) We have Dennis K. and the Install Fest folks.
> b) An event planner _per se_ (possibly a friend of Joseph's)
> c) Bryan has worked with people at ASU's Herberger College for the Performing 
> Arts.
> d) I have volunteered for the city of Glendale, and might be able to find 
> someone there who basically works as an event planner.  Perhaps at the civic 
> center or for the Libraries.
> e) I could go through the phone book calling funeral homes and wedding 
> planners.
> f) I might be able to go down a couple of connections and find a concert 
> promoter.
> g) I could call the major arenas and civic centers in the greater Phoenix 
> area. 
> h) In some municipalities, Parks, Rec, and/or Libraries do events -- like 
> concerts in the park.
> i)  I could call larger hotels and resorts that host conferences.
> j) I could call a large company, like MacDiznie, that plans many, many events.
> k) I could call the state and local party headquarters.
> l) I could try to get in touch with advance teams for marketing or political 
> campaigns.
> 
> I welcome ideas for others.
> 
> More important, the EPPP coordinator needs to give me some direction.  For 
> example, I am guessing that since we want to focus on a full-fledged n-tier 
> version, big diverse fish like Herberger, MacDiznie, and the resort chains 
> take precedence over wedding planners who work with one computer out of their 
> home.
> 
> In short, I need managerial input on how to target the research.
> 
> Also, I am thinking of signing up for one credit of independent study or some 
> other form of university affiliation to force development of disclosure 
> documents, third-party ethics review, and to give me a stronger basis to 
> appeal for cooperation.

Whew! I was afraid things were getting a bit off track. I think that 
it's important for project participants to have a common understanding 
of and agreement on the development methodology that will be used. My 
impression thus far is that there has been a somewhat of a failure to 
(effectively) communicate, though there's been no lack of effort. Kudos 
to everyone.

I think that Trent is on the right track here. Whether you call it data 
gathering, requirements definition, research or story cards, to me it's 
all the same thing - learning (and documenting) what the user does and 
how it's done. Not a fun task for (some) techies, it still needs to be 
done (a system can't be developed in a vacuum). This is the 
architectural phase of development, where the goal is to describe what 
it is that is going to be addressed and for whom. Such a description 
should be largely void of technology (which gets added in the Design 
phase), in the same way that an architect's drawing is void of 
construction materials (although the architect would have ideas). The 
product of this phase will provide input necessary (required) for 
subsequent phases of development (Analysis, Design, 
Construction/Testing, Implementation).

IMHO, most of the other subjects of discussion (e.g. platform, 
integration)) are premature.

Keep in mind, the "system" is not just the technology, but includes 
users and non-automated processes as well. A good automated system is 
usually a good manual system that's been automated.

I like Trent's start here: Identify the universe of users, then classify 
and whittle it down. Learn what's out there, then choose where to focus, 
and go into more detail (what they do, how they do it). I think that 
this is the right thing to do at this point, and deserves as much 
attention and support as we can muster. So anybody have any ideas on how 
to target research?
-- 
-Eric 'shubes'
"There is no such thing as the People;
  it is a collectivist myth.
  There are only individual citizens
  with individual wills
  and individual purposes."
-William E. Simon (1927-2000),
     Secretary of the Treasury (1974-1977)
  "A Time For Truth" (1978), pg. 237