Chapter 25 — Team project studio
Lesson map
Lesson 25 published. Map, example, EX073.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["25.1 The studio project"]
N2["25.2 Roles"]
N3["25.3 Reviews"]
N4["25.4 Scope and dependencies"]
N5["25.5 Usable deliverables"]
N6["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6
N6 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX073"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["25.1 The studio project"]
N2["25.2 Roles"]
N3["25.3 Reviews"]
N4["25.4 Scope and dependencies"]
N5["25.5 Usable deliverables"]
N6["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> Q["EX073"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[25.1 The studio project]
|
v
[25.2 Roles]
|
v
[25.3 Reviews]
|
v
[25.4 Scope and dependencies]
|
v
[25.5 Usable deliverables]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX073]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) plan a team project with roles and milestones; (2) run short design reviews; (3) manage scope and dependencies; and (4) produce a deliverable a site can use.
25.1 The studio project
Teams of three take one NCS improvement from idea to deliverable in six weeks. This cohort's brief: a "contractor visit pack" — the procedure, forms and checks that let a refrigeration contractor do remote or on-site work securely without slowing repairs.
Priya's team took this brief, and its first version failed the most important test: the night operator.
Version one took the contractor 14 minutes to complete, and the night operator could not find who to call for approval. The team had six weeks, three owners and a weekly review with the facilities manager, which is where that failure was reported and acted on.
25.2 Roles
One student owns the procedure text, one the technical checks (jump-host configuration, visit-log integration with monitoring from Chapter 19), one the user test with a real contractor and operator. Each role has a named reviewer from the site. Shared work lives in one versioned folder.
In Priya's team, the user-test owner ran the session with the contractor and the night operator that exposed the 14-minute form. The technical-checks owner tied the visit log to the Chapter 19 new-talker alerts, so a contractor laptop on site during a ticket is expected rather than flagged.
25.3 Reviews
Weekly 20-minute reviews follow one format: what changed, what we learned, what we need, what is at risk. The site reviewer can stop work that would affect operations.
At NCS the site reviewer was the facilities manager, and the format worked in week three, when the team reported the 14-minute test result under "what we learned" and the missing approver number under "what is at risk". The review decided to put the approver rota on the first page before any more procedure text was written.
25.4 Scope and dependencies
The pack depends on the jump host existing and the on-call approver rota (Chapter 18). If either slips, the team writes the pack against the agreed design and marks the dependency, rather than inventing a workaround.
In Priya's team the dependency was real: the jump host was still being configured when the pack was drafted. The pack therefore describes the agreed design, sessions through the jump host enabled per ticket, and marks the jump-host steps "pending C-04 deployment" rather than describing a temporary workaround through the desktop-sharing tool that the project was meant to remove.
25.5 Usable deliverables
Test with the people who will use it. If the contractor cannot complete the visit form in under five minutes at 3 a.m., it will be skipped.
Priya's team learned this directly. The first version of the contractor visit pack took 14 minutes to complete, and the night operator could not find the approver's number. Version two put the approver rota on the first page, cut the form to six fields and pre-filled site details. The retest took four minutes, and the contractor asked for a copy to use at another site, which is the best evidence a usability test can produce.
Worked example (synthetic NCS)
Priya's team tests the pack with the contractor and the night operator. The first version took 14 minutes to complete; the operator could not find the approver's number. Version two puts the approver rota on the first page, cuts the form to six fields and pre-fills site details. The retest takes four minutes, and the contractor asks for a copy for another site.
Synthetic case — Northgate Cold Storage. The team, pack and timings are invented.
Errors and limits
Teams under-estimate review time; plan for it. A pack that is not owned by the site after handover will decay.
Exercises
- EX073 — A review report. Write the four-line weekly review for week 3. Rubric: 3 = changed, learned, need, risk all specific; 2 = three; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
- EX074 — Handling a slipped dependency. The jump host is delayed four weeks. What does the team do? Rubric: 3 = write against design, mark dependency, inform site, no workaround; 2 = partial; 1 = invent workaround; 0 = none.
- EX075 — Measuring usability. Propose two measures for the user test. Rubric: 3 = completion time and errors/missed steps (or user rating); 2 = one; 1 = "feedback"; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Studio work succeeds when roles, reviews and dependencies are explicit and the deliverable is tested by the people who must use it.
Continue studying — chapter 25 of 30
← Chapter 24 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 26 (draft) →