How to implement a consistent UX across different teams with Nexus

Overall, I believe that your idea is sound.

Assuming that the most senior UX expert is the person who can make final decisions regarding UX, then putting them on the Nexus Integration Team is a good decision. This is consistent with the fact that the Product Owner is more closely aligned with the Nexus Integration Team and provides support and guidance to each of the Scrum Teams as required. Work such as maintaining design guidelines or a design system or conducting user research would likely be more closely aligned with the work of the NIT than any of the Scrum Teams.

Something that is missing, however, would be getting the UX knowledge onto the development teams. It could be rather taxing for a single UX expert to support 3 teams doing active development and providing guidance while also doing product-level planning with the Product Owner.

I think the strategic question to consider is if you are going to be growing by hiring people who are UX designers or who are developers with a strong UX design background. The three roles (Product Owner, Scrum Master, Development Team member), in my experiences, doesn't fit so well with UX designers on Scrum Teams. They work in a different context than the members of the Development Team building the product, so their processes and workflows are different. There can be some friction trying to fit UX design work into the same Sprint context as building the product. If the bulk of the actual UX design is done at the NIT level with the more tactical high fidelity design and implementation at the Scrum Team level, I think you may be more successful.

It sounds to me like you'd be having the NIT do some of the work, rather than ensuring that Scrum Development Teams do it.

Wouldn't it be better to have a Product Owner who can fully manage for product value? Someone who liaises with team members to assure UX consistency in a "Done" product?

Hi Thomas, hi Ian,

Thanks for your replies.

I've been thinking about what you said the last 2 days and would like to "challenge" the ideas - not to insist on my view but to dig deeper and discuss. I hope you'll do the same. :-)

First, let me start with the potential misunderstanding "It sounds to me like you'd be having the NIT do some of the work, rather than ensuring that Scrum Development Teams do it.":

That was not my attend. The development teams are responsible for UX. The development teams are responsible for the integration. The NIT is only accountable for the integration. I was just wondering, what counts towards integration and how far does this accountability go? Is it only the processes and integration automation (e.g. pipelines) or also integration on a conceptual (e.g. IT architecture) level? And, if so, why should integration on a conceptual level for UX and design be excluded for the NIT? I did not find anything against it in the Nexus Guide but also no strong validation in favor of it. Maybe you can help me out and point in the right direction?

If I would have to summarize your approaches, it would be 

1. Do the UX in advance (and therefore separately)

2. Let the PO be responsible

Those ideas also came up and I see the following issues with them. Could you describe why you still went with them?

1. Doing the UX in advance: I agree that in practice it's a good way to start. That's also how we started with the Scrum team I'm currently working in. It's working and it's OK but I would not consider it as the perfect solution. In my opinion, the ideal case would be where the cross functional team iterates during the sprint to find the best solution and considers different views from different experts. Even though it's hard and often just impossible, I'd argue it's what you should strive towards. I'd also use Conway's law to argue to put UX and the other development team members together. We don't want to have UX research/design and the product implementation disconnected, right?

Regarding the concern that you, Thomas, mentioned about the skills in the team, I was considering this to have been solved already ( -> "So far, UX research and UX design have been week and they want to strengthen the teams skills in this regard, partially by hiring new people with those skills.") and my struggle is only about how to bring them together. The "Spotify model (it's not a model)" has guilds. Is there a Scrummy pendant to it?

2. Let the PO be responsible: To build a successful product, you have to make it feasible (technical side), viable (business side), and desirable (human side). The PO is accountable for everything, because she/he is, in the end, responsible for the success of the product. But the development team is responsible for achieving the feasibility. Now I understand that you, Ian, make the PO also responsible for the desirability of the product? Most people I discussed this with saw this responsibility in the development team. Could you elaborate and explain why you have this opinion?

I read and like this sentence: The PO has to be skilled enough that she/he could do it but smart enough to not do it. Especially considering the case that the PO has 3 Scrum Teams working on this product, delegating as much as possible is necessary to do the POs job: Maximizing the value. Figuring out and deciding on UX issues is definitely something the development teams can and should do.

I might misinterpret your argument here but I'd say you could use the same logic to conclude that the PO has to take on very many responsibilities, such as the overarching IT architecture. I assume you would not support this claim, so where is the difference and why would a PO have to be the UX expert and take over UX responsibilities in addition to all the responsibility she/he already has?

I was just wondering, what counts towards integration and how far does this accountability go? Is it only the processes and integration automation (e.g. pipelines) or also integration on a conceptual (e.g. IT architecture) level?

Is that conceptual integration necessary in order to have a Done increment? It might be, in so far as inspection ought to happen as closely as possible to the time and place of work being carried out. This might potentially include some design activities.

If so, it ought to be captured in the Definition of Done, and the NIT would be accountable for ensuring that teams in the Nexus perform this conceptual integration in a timely manner.

Hi Ian, 

Thanks again. I appreciate your opinion very much.