from Michael Schlegel-Iten at
If you read my last two blog posts, Part 1 (Thought Model) and Part 2 (Rough Concept), you already have an idea of what this blog will be about. This time, we will delve into the content and artifacts of the detailed concept.
Content & artifacts of a detailed concept
When developing the detailed concept, we build on the content of the rough concept and answer the following questions:
- Based on the functional requirements: Which user interfaces are needed for which channels and how do we design them?
- Based on the functional requirements and process visualisations: What part of the business logic needs to be mapped in the digital solution in the form of software?
- Based on the solution architecture: Which systems will be connected and how will the interface be designed in detail?
When answering these questions, we always consider the solution from the three perspectives of our thinking model and develop artifacts that serve these perspectives. In most cases, these are the following artifacts:
- High-fidelity prototypes and visual designs (customer and business perspective)
- Detailed specification of technical and functional requirements (business and technology perspective)
- Software architecture development and description, including data and interface modeling (technology perspective)
Interaction between conception and implementation
As mentioned in the previous blog post, in the early stages of a project, it is not relevant to us which methodology will be used for implementation. This changes in our approach with the development of the detailed concept. We know two variants here:
- Classic approach (e.g. according to waterfall)
- Agile approach (e.g. according to Scrum or Kanban)
Although the content and artifacts mentioned above are necessary for both variants, we differentiate between the interaction between design and implementation depending on the approach.
In the classic approach, e.g. according to waterfall, the detailed concept for the entire scope of the implementation is first developed and approved from a business perspective and then from a technical perspective. Only then does the technical implementation begin.
The agile approach, on the other hand, allows a certain degree of parallelization of design and implementation work. The difference to the waterfall approach is shown in the following diagram.
Challenges during the detailed design phase
The challenges mentioned in the previous blog post usually remain in the detailed design phase:
- Unclear organizational and project responsibilities
- Insufficiently mature strategic content and preliminary thinking
- Access and availability of expertise on the customer side
- Lack of involvement of all relevant stakeholders
In addition, the following challenges are often encountered during the detailed design phase:
- Lack of stability in the project team
- Changing requirements
- Inadequate information and communication flow
- Interactions and dependencies between conception and implementation
These challenges also need to be addressed in a structured manner so that the available project resources (people, time, and budget) are used optimally and the project achieves its goals.
In the final "bonus track" of this blog series, I will explain how we address these challenges in the design phase (rough and detailed conception).
