RE: Responsibility
"Mary Poppendieck" <mary-HbiO4H7KobzuT2QgWa/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.extreme-customering |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <003101c2a25c$6e024a50$0500000a@poppendieckllc> |
Interesting, you perceive that my approach builds walls and I perceive that your approach builds walls. You can see why I hate this media for communication. I'm sure we would not misunderstand each other if we were talking. Mary Poppendieck www.poppendieck.com 952-934-7998 From: "Kent Beck" <kent-hJ4WY/gWbur3XBa+dPFJ6Fr/[email protected]> Subject: RE: Responsibility What I see from my perspective that you don't seem to see from yours is that the customer, those whose lives are intimately affected by the software we build, is part of the team. Nygard went over this ground long ago in Participatory Design http://www.cpsr.org/program/workplace/PD.html. The game where we separate ourselves (as technical people) from those whose responsibilities rely on the products we create is a nice, but limited, game. Is this passing the buck, abrogating responsibility? Not at all. The customer service representative who will have people screaming at them on the phone is responsible for transforming that unhappiness into further business. Saying, "We should know their business better than they do," sounds to me like arrogance. After I implement 5 CSR systems, sure I'll know some technical details better than any given CSR, just through sheer perspective. However, I still won't know what they know in their guts. The recent dock strike on the west coast was exactly about these issues. The dock owners wanted to introduce a system that the individual workers saw as taking away their power and security. Nobody bothered to try to turn the process into a win-win(-win-win...). As the world gets more interdependent, "We're from development. We know better." is going to be decreasingly viable. You pushed a button. I've seen so much harm done by people building walls instead of bridges. XP is intended as an invitation to build social networks between people with desires and people with possibilities. Because it is extended from the possibilities side, folks on the desire side have trouble seeing the invitation as it was intended. That's what this list is about. Kent