Joe Forestal
VP, Solution Delivery
Most of us have probably seen the decades old cartoon of the Tire Swing. This cartoon depicts various renditions of the classic tire swing, as construed by different groups. Using the same basic building blocks, engineers, managers, and marketing have developed wildly different definitions for what the customer wants. While this cartoon was originally intended to convey the broad and deep misunderstandings that can exist within highly departmentalized groups, I believe it also provides a wonderful analogue for the process of exploring, gathering, and capturing application requirements.
Our industry once believed that through masterful, disciplined requirements management, one could describe a piece of software through written statements. Would you purchase a piece of furniture for your home based on the following 
narrative: “This piece has a sturdy wood frame that’s corner-blocked for stability. Generous rolled arms invite hours of relaxation, while plump polyester-wrapped cushions and steel seat springs provide support and comfort along the seat and back. The seams offer detailed inseam with piping.” Sure it sounds nice but this is not how my family selects a new sofa. We need more. We need visualization. We need the experience. The fact that I don’t like the dimensions and fabric of a sofa is apparent from the written word, that I don’t like how it looks is apparent from a picture, but the fact that my wife and I can’t both snuggle on it is only revealed by laying on it.
Enter interactive visual design. Using a collection of sophisticated visual application modeling tools, we can create an actual working blueprint of what an application will look like and how it will function. Through this tool, we can not only view the design, but actually interact with the solution and its data as if it were the real thing. These tools and related methodologies allow builders and users to collaborate to more fully explore the vision of a solution.
As I once heard Kevin Dostalek say something to the effect of “People don’t want to use software, they want to preempt issues, solve problems, or entertain themselves.” These methodologies and tools allow for a new level of exploration of the underlying business problem. They allow us to build and test key solution concepts within the context of the human beings tasked with addressing those problems. They expose key information that is not apparent from the written work. Realizations that “When I’m on this screen it would also be helpful to know this other piece of information” or that “This flow does not really match how I would like to work” become commonplace elements of the design process.
Sound visual design and modeling offers software developers huge benefits. Not only does this process leave all parties with much crisper communal expectations regarding what is possible, what is going to happen, and how long it’s going to take, but it also offers a robust baseline for project change management and a much firmer foundation for estimating.
While clearly not a panacea, our Visual Design and Modeling Practice presents us with a profound and exciting alteration in the way we approach application development. While there will always be elements of application behavior that cannot fully be depicted with modeling and high fidelity interactive prototyping, we can finally leave a requirements and design activity with a shared vision and understanding.
No more building tire swings…