Team Practices Group/Design engagement/Post-interview roadmap

From MediaWiki.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Goal[edit]

Outcome[edit]

  • Shared understanding of the purpose of design at the WMF
  • Increased trust between design and its stakeholders
  • A sense of ownership, identity, and collective voice of design
  • The ability to collaboratively prioritize and execute on improvements for pain points relating to design at the WMF

Output[edit]

  • Collaboratively defined statement of purpose of design at the WMF, reflecting the input of design and its stakeholders.

Why[edit]

There is no clearly defined or shared understanding of the purpose for design at the WMF. There are arguably as many different conceptions of ‘purpose’ as there are people in design-related roles and stakeholders to design. Without a clearly defined and shared understanding of purpose, it is impossible to identify, prioritize, and execute on areas in which to improve in a way that reflects the genuine need of the WMF and design-related constituents: we do not know what we are solving for. The process of collaboratively defining a statement of purpose with design and its stakeholders will address some of the overarching symptoms of current pain points: strengthening the shared voice of design, increasing a sense of ownership in resolving their challenges, as well as rebuilding trust between design and their stakeholders. Once we have a shared understanding of what we are trying to solve for, then we can identify the most important pain points and figure out how to resolve them in a way that serves the common purpose.

Who[edit]

  • Design
    • Design researchers
    • “Designers”
    • UX Engineers
    • Communications/Brand
  • Stakeholders
    • Internal to WMF
      • Audience heads
      • Product managers/owners
      • Software engineers
    • Wikimedia community
  • Facilitators
    • Team Practices Group
      • Primary: Arthur
      • Support: Grace

Process roadmap and timeline[edit]

Warning Warning: Dates are estimates only and subject to change

  1. Design defines initial proposal of statement of purpose phab:T139995 Yes Done - August 22, 2016
    1. Collect design input
      1. Divide design into 2-3 workgroups
      2. workshop with each workgroup to brainstorm, prioritize, discuss
    2. Arthur + 1 rep from each workshop synthesizes, drafts statement
    3. Share draft statement w/ all of design
      1. Solicit further feedback/input
    4. If needed, refine statement til deemed ‘good enough’ by design
  2. Validate draft with immediate internal stakeholders phab:T139996 (August 22 - October 14, 2016)
    1. Identify two representatives from design to assist with this phase (Sherah, Nirzar) Yes Done
    2. Abstract high-level aspects/themes from draft Yes Done
    3. Schedule validation sessions with immediate internal stakeholders (product managers, lead engineers, managers, etc) Yes Done
    4. Asynchronously share high-level aspects/themes and draft statement with stakeholders Yes Done
    5. Run validation sessions, collect feedback (September 19 - September 30, 2016) Yes Done
    6. Design refines draft statement based on feedback Yes Done
  3. Validate drat with all WMF and broader community (November 10 - November 27) Yes Done
    1. Asynchronous period of comment and input on public wiki Yes Done
    2. Statement refined to incorporate feedback Yes Done
  4. Statement finalized and published (End of calendar year, 2016) Yes Done
  5. Use statement to prioritize focus areas of improvement and define plan for improving top-prioritized area (TBD)

Additional thoughts/considerations

  • Strive to balance individual time investment with involvement in the process
  • Balance getting it done with getting it right
  • Be sensitive to feelings of wanting to get this ‘fixed’ NOW
  • Strive to preserve autonomy and ownership within the design group
  • Foster and maintain empathy between stakeholders and design
  • Be cognizant there are/will be major scheduling challenges between all members of design and their stakeholders given diversity of the groups as well as competing time commitments