<dave> Iteration is all around us. The question is do we
create a structure for acknowledging it and do we take iteration to a
Time for a reality check! I've got a couple of jobs live at the moment, to
do with quality-managing the IxD process - what gets signed off, how and by
whom. The tradition of QM seems to me to be hierarchical. Sign off the
business need, move on to concepts. Sign off the concepts and move on to
embodiments etc. This is what I'm struggling with. Thinking about details
often makes you question their underlying concepts - the
'hold-on-a-moment-why-are-we-doing-this' question. Now, clearly it would be
daft to build a QM system that did not allow signed-off decisions to be
changed - although that is how QM systems are often used despite the best
intentions of their creator. So I want to try to develop a system that
actually encourages designers to question the assumptions underlying the
task in-hand. I think it will be a better QM system if it has iteration
built in to it structurally.
Just to be clear, iteration often has all sorts of unfortunate connotations
of 'going round in circles' or 'spiralling off in ever decreasing circles'.
What I am talking about is a minimum but (I feel) necessary challenging of
higher-level assumptions as the design progresses into finer details.
So, anyone been down this road? Any ideas, suggestions? Anyone got a
hierarchically organised QM system but it works just fine? Anyone got an
iterative QM system that makes them weep? Anyone got ant sort of generic
sign-off (QM) system for IxD that they actually like?