Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

9
SCIENCE vs SORCERY

Transcript of Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

Page 1: Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

SCIENCEvs

SORCERY

Page 2: Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

JULIE SARGENT

SARAH ROSE CAVANAGH

• Head of Product Innovation Labs at Globoforce• Previously at Monster.com, Boston.com,

telegram.com• Cannot help examining, experimenting, and

optimizing (raised by engineers)

• Associate Professor of Psychology• Associate Director for Grants and Research,

Center for Teaching Excellence• Blogs on affective neuroscience for

PsychologyToday, author of The Spark of Learning, has appeared on Higher Education Today and The Martha Stewart Show

Page 3: Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

WE DO OUR MOST IMPORTANT WORK IN TEAMS

Page 4: Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

TEAMS RELY ON POPULAR DESIGN PROCESSES

AGILE LEAN DESIGN SPRINTS

Julie Sargent
we should remove lean and add design sprint
Page 5: Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

THESE PROCESSES WEREN’T DEVELOPED BASED ON SCIENTIFIC

KNOWLEDGE

Page 6: Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, SCIENTISTS ARE ACTIVELY STUDYING TEAM DYNAMICS

Page 7: Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

WHICH ASPECTS OF AGILE &

DESIGN SPRINTS HOLD UP?

WHICH DON’T?

Page 8: Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

AGILE

SELF-ORGANIZINGRETROSPECTIVE

‘NO ROLES’PRODUCT BACKLOG

‘DEFINITION OF DONE’‘SPRINT READY’

INVIOLABLE SPRINTTIME BOXED

SPRINT REVIEWDAILY SCRUM

DESIGN SPRINTS

STAGESSHARED

UNDERSTANDINGDIVERGE

DOT VOTINGTHE TIMER

STORYBOARDINGPAPER SKETCHING

USER TESTINGDEDICATED FACILITATOR

PHYSICAL ARTIFACTS

Page 9: Science vs. Sorcery: A SXSW proposal

WE’LL END ON A SCIENCE-BASED MODEL FOR

SMOOTH TEAM DYNAMICS