small medium large xlarge

Photo 1_pragsmall
12 Sep 2011, 06:27
Antony Marcano (3 posts)

There’s been a development in this area of Feature Injection… The “Stakeholder Story” is useful in one sense but while we gain one thing we lose another.

The sequence “In order to,As someone, I need” my best serve the process of understanding how we meet the stakeholders wishes with a user capability but it doesn’t necessarily help in the conversation with the people who have to implement the user capability. The ‘So that’ should be the benefit to the user…

Furthermore, often a single story small enough to have acceptance tests rarely has marketable benefits. I’ve found that the “In order to” information works best in a ‘theme’ for a collection of stories.

This approach allows you to get the best of both worlds… Understand the stakeholder benefit, derive the product capabilities from the benefits sought and still get the context of why your users would want them:

In order that PrintCo printer cartridge sales go up by growing the mailing list:
  As a PrintCo Customer
  I want to be prompted for my e-mail address
  So that an e-mail reminder can help me avoid those times when I need
    to print something but the ink is empty
 
  As a PrintCo Customer Services Rep
  I need to be prompted to ask for the customer’s e-mail address
  So that I increase the points I get for e-mail captures, improving my
    position on the high-scores display
 
  As a PrintCo Customer Services Rep
  I need e-mail captures shown as one of the columns on the high-scores display
  So that I can see that the points I earn for e-mail captures affect my
    position on the high-scores display

More discussion on this here: http://antonymarcano.com/blog/2011/03/fi_stories/

Avatar_pragsmall
21 Sep 2011, 09:46
Matt Wynne (92 posts)

I see, so you’re attributing multiple bits of behaviour (aka stories) to a single benefit. I like that idea.

Where do you think we should explain that in the book? We do mention the feature injection template but we’ve deliberately tried to play it down: I personally hate seeing formulaic descriptions at the top of features–I think that space is better used for freeform descriptions of the feature, links to other documentation etc.

So I think this is a useful tool, but I’m wondering where it would fit into the book, since we don’t talk much about the analysis part of the process. Maybe you think we should talk about it more? Where would it naturally fit in, do you think?

You must be logged in to comment