>
> To us, it's a pretty simple artifact, but to our
clients,
> it's often been the silver bullet. Each item is
color-coded
> and prioritized from
> 1 (must haves) to 4 (sometime in the future). Those
> prioritizations come from discussions with the business
unit
> and are framed around the Customer and Business needs.
So, if
> it's a 1, it's because both the customer and business
unit
> think we have to have it. If it's a 2 (We really want
it, but
> if something has to slip before launch, that's one
that gets
> cut) then the Business has decided that we can live w/o
it
> (either it wasn't critical to the business or the
customer,
> or possibly either/both).
Interesting. I've used this approach in the past for
requirements
gathering and prioritisation, where I've given each
requirement (usually
things like "Allow single sign-on" or
"Enable users to subscribe to news
via RSS") three scores: a commercial priority, a user
priority and
usually some other dimension like brand. The total of these
scores then
determines their overall priority for the project.
I like your idea of making this a more persona focussed
analysis though
and would be very interested to see an example.
Jonathan
____________________________________________________________
_________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.
------------
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments
Searchable Archive at http://www.in
fo-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
Most presentations/papers and posters have been loaded to
the IA Summit 06 website:
http:/
/iasummit.org/2006/conferencedescrip.htm
http://iasummit.
org/2006/posters.htm
________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l asis.org
Changes to subscription: http://
mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
|