Comments on: Resolving Group Name Differences in a KJ Analysis http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/08/24/resolving-group-name-differences-in-a-kj-analysis/ UIE\'s latest insights on the world of design Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:46:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: KJ Analysis is Sweeping The Company! » UIE Brain Sparks http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/08/24/resolving-group-name-differences-in-a-kj-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-93866 KJ Analysis is Sweeping The Company! » UIE Brain Sparks Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:41:23 +0000 http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/08/24/resolving-group-name-differences-in-a-kj-analysis/#comment-93866 [...] while back, I wrote about a question our friend Cheryl had about the KJ [...] [...] while back, I wrote about a question our friend Cheryl had about the KJ [...]

]]> By: Jared Spool http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/08/24/resolving-group-name-differences-in-a-kj-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-86002 Jared Spool Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:14:52 +0000 http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/08/24/resolving-group-name-differences-in-a-kj-analysis/#comment-86002 <em>Ian:</em> For the K-J Technique, I tend not to vary it too much. That said, it's not good for everything. It's best when you're working on a single question for which there are lots of data elements you want to make sense of, such as all the observations from a usability test or when you're trying to process a project postmortem. <em>Barry:</em> You are correct in that the Crawford Slip method was invented around 1925. However, this is <em>not</em> the Crawford Slip method. In the CSM, you do a lot of the analysis offline, without the team, then report the results back. With a K-J, the team does the analysis together. Ian:
For the K-J Technique, I tend not to vary it too much. That said, it’s not good for everything. It’s best when you’re working on a single question for which there are lots of data elements you want to make sense of, such as all the observations from a usability test or when you’re trying to process a project postmortem.

Barry:
You are correct in that the Crawford Slip method was invented around 1925. However, this is not the Crawford Slip method. In the CSM, you do a lot of the analysis offline, without the team, then report the results back. With a K-J, the team does the analysis together.

]]> By: Barry Welford http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/08/24/resolving-group-name-differences-in-a-kj-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-85937 Barry Welford Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:34:18 +0000 http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/08/24/resolving-group-name-differences-in-a-kj-analysis/#comment-85937 It is amazing that such a simple technique can have such powerful results. However each time I see it referred to as the KJ Analysis, I ask myself why the earlier creator of this approach does not get credit. I believe Professor Crawford invented the Crawford Slip method in the first half of the 20th century. I believe he was a Californian. It is amazing that such a simple technique can have such powerful results. However each time I see it referred to as the KJ Analysis, I ask myself why the earlier creator of this approach does not get credit. I believe Professor Crawford invented the Crawford Slip method in the first half of the 20th century. I believe he was a Californian.

]]> By: Ian Turner http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/08/24/resolving-group-name-differences-in-a-kj-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-85901 Ian Turner Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:35:47 +0000 http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/08/24/resolving-group-name-differences-in-a-kj-analysis/#comment-85901 I find these group brainstorming techniques fascinating. Having used similar methods myself I know the power of these methods in allowing a group to brainstorm an issue, but to stay on track whilst doing so. Is it necessary to rigidly follow a technique to get the best out of it, or should the technique be varied depending on the context, the participants and the question being answered. I know that when I am brainstorming on my own I do find it best to very how I do it, but does a group need more structure to work effectively? I find these group brainstorming techniques fascinating. Having used similar methods myself I know the power of these methods in allowing a group to brainstorm an issue, but to stay on track whilst doing so.
Is it necessary to rigidly follow a technique to get the best out of it, or should the technique be varied depending on the context, the participants and the question being answered. I know that when I am brainstorming on my own I do find it best to very how I do it, but does a group need more structure to work effectively?

]]>