A storm is brewing


Comments are closed.

Elliot Ward at 18:23 on 1 Oct 2016

I am leaving this so the bar can open.

Chris Seaton at 18:25 on 1 Oct 2016

An excellent overview of the concepts, giving a clear sense of structure to something that could easily lose focus. I'll definitely be integrating it into our process.

Only suggestion would be to spend a little more time going over the rules of poker, as some were not very clear on the rules.

Other than that minor issue, highly recommended.

Martin Price at 18:51 on 1 Oct 2016

Great tutorial, very interesting subject which I hadn't heard anything about before.

Event storming still feels like quite a young methodology, and hopefully over time it will become a bit more rigorous, as it felt slightly very open to interpretation at this point.

The approach does seem a very powerful tool for eliciting requirements for a software project, and given this introduction, I would like to give it a try some time for a real project.

Dave Redfern at 22:22 on 1 Oct 2016

A great session, really showing how you can get all your stakeholders involved in the development process, without it being a challenging technical challenge. Together with DDD concepts, it will be a really powerful concept to keep everyone on the same page.

If anything, more time was needed to get further through the process, and more background on poker as I know next to nothing about the game, which makes it harder to figure out the processes. Fortunately I think both groups had at least one person with some working knowledge.

As an extension, this session could have easily gone into event sourcing, which would have been better still.

Nicole at 23:43 on 5 Oct 2016

A good introduction to an interesting technique that I can definitely see myself using in future.

I would have maybe liked a bit more facilitation - more of a guiding hand - during the session. A handout summarising the different note types would have been useful for during the latter stages of the session especially, as well as serving as a handy reminder for afterwards.

Leaving a bit more time at the end to compare what the two groups had produced would have been interesting. A bit more information on what comes next in the process would have been good too.