Re-loaded Game
Jermale Kunstler
OVERVIEW: What is it?
This item is a vintage 126 cartridge with the original backing paper - re-loaded with 35mm film. Because 35mm film contains more sprockets than 126 film, the image area will bleed into the sprockets. It is designed for folks who process and scan their own film since it is re-loadable. (If you send your film out, request your cartridge, spool and backing paper back so you can reload) After shooting, you can take the cartridge and re-load it yourself with 35mm film.
Will it work with my 126 camera?
Re-loaded 126 cartridges work best with the Kodak Instamatic X-15, X-35, Keystone 126, Imperial MagiMatic, Agfa 100 series cameras cameras, It "may" work in the Kodak 100 series and Hawkeye 126 camera but may be "crunchy" advancing. One tip (especially with the Keystone and Imperial MagiMatic cameras) is to hold the shutter button DOWN while you advance to the next number.
LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
In February this year I published my first "Product Management Process Flow" diagram for "Thriving with Agile in a Major Corporate". I've learned a lot, (and even more since publishing this post, see some of the comments at the end!) and want to say that his has not been only my own thinking, there have been plenty of individuals that have helped me move the conversation forward, namely those Product Owners/ Leaders in my current team: Tim Adams, Ryan Walker, Kate Clark, Aris Barcelona, Haroon Suleman, as well as Rick Koo and Tim Stannard, plus countless hours of feedback from Technology, Legal, HR, Customer Service and Business leaders (too many to mention, but thank you, you know who you are!). I want to be clear (after some of the comments below), that this is not a pure Agile flow, it borrows from lots of different disciplines or models (Design Thinking, Lean Startup, User Centered Design, yes Agile, and Kanban), but it isn't really about trying to influence you or convince you about the worthiness of any of these, but much more to say that I think outside of the usefulness of each of those, there are other challenges we face when using them in a Corporate setting, and those are the observations I want to focus on here.
Since the last process flow model, we've put the model through it's paces and I wanted to update my thinking here, and share the latest best practice with you. I'm not going to go over old ground, but I will take you through some of the changes I'd recommend now. You can get a high resolution version of this diagram by clicking the diagrams below (don't worry, no need to enter email address, credit card details etc, just a free to use download from my Google photos album!). Refreshing eh?
The first big shift, is that in the old model we were concerned about how do we get the right validated details in to our delivery team as quickly and accurately as possible, but what we have realised is that we need to push back much more on the stakeholders and ideas people who are sponsoring projects or holding the purse strings. We need to spend more time (with them) in what we now call the "Blue Zone". The Blue Zone is about getting really concrete about the vision, before we rush to dive in to design and development. We do this on purpose, because if we rush to design and development without fully understanding the problem we will either waste a lot of money or end up doing a lot of rework, or most likely both!
Whereas previously we had Strategy & Vision in a single box, we are now expanding that out in to a whole section/ theme in itself. In Foundational Research, spend time on Market Trends, Competitor Analysis, Data Mining, Client Interviews, Customer Journey Mapping, Personas, User Experience Maps or other kinds of secondary research). You need to build a picture of the problem, and fall in love with it! Only then will you be in a good place to get to the first "gate" (the yellow dot between the Foundational Research and the Vision, Strategy & Measures of Success hexagons). This first gate is about articulating the challenge, injustice or hypothesis you have. What is it? Can you articulate it succinctly in one sentence? "The issue is that people cannot transact", or (a hypothesis) "We believe that by reducing the number of steps at checkout we will get a higher conversion of check outs". Try a few of these statements, and refine them. You'll know when it is right.
We then go to Vision, Strategy & Measures of success: Can you clearly articulate the vision? What will it look like when you get 'there'? "All users can seamlessly transact with their payment method of choice". Do you need to get people in a room for a day or two and use the Lean Canvas or Business Model Canvas templates, to really define it? The strategy should then define how you are going to set about achieving that vision. What are the key themes/ pillars that you will need to follow in order to achieve the vision? Then finally, what are the KPIs or success measures that you will need to measure. In my experience, too few projects set these KPIs upfront, but if you cannot measure it, frankly, your experiment or product is worthless, because you aren't learning from it, and you won't know what to tweak or improve once you launch it. Think about it NOW. What does success look like? Set some goals or hypotheses to test. "We expect to see the majority of transactions (65%) coming through Visa, which is cheaper" (Question: would it break your business model or erode too much margin if they all came through on American Express cards instead?). Set a number. When the Product Owners pick up your vision, they'll need to ensure that the right tagging is there to ensure you can in fact see the results, so you can dis/prove your hypotheses.
In the second yellow dot, we are then in a place to decide whether we want to fund a pilot. Here is another key learning: Don't be tempted to fund a $500k project at this stage. Fund a $5k or $25k pilot. The decision gate here is: "Do we have enough confidence to bet a bit of our money on this?". Not all ideas should pass this test. There will be a natural attrition at this stage, so don't worry about saying no to a good number of ideas.
Next we develop some High Level needs, much like we did before, but at this stage they are just high level. We aren't going to the detail anymore of defining detailed user stories at this stage, we need some more feedback before we do that - another departure from the earlier model. We are defining only the big "stories" (or Epics) that make up this experiment/ Minimum Viable Product, as far as we know it right now. We then take these ideas in to our feedback loop.
The feedback loop can be anything that gives you feedback, but typically might include doing user or client interviews, observing users reacting to your high level ideas, role play, generative sessions, workshops, surveys, getting feedback from paper based prototypes or sharing your ideas with partners. For those who haven't read the earlier post, we are at this stage validating the question: "Are we designing the right thing?"
Once you have gathered the feedback from users, you will have a bunch of new insights. Don't be tempted to take them all onboard. Qualify them against your core mission or hypotheses. Does the feedback help you solve the core problem? Someone may say "Why are you only selling Giraffe safaris, when there are so many other animals?", remember that you you are (at this stage) testing an MVP. So, stick it on your backlog for the future, but don't be tempted to widen your scope, if it isn't relevant.
Once you have enough feedback from users, and been through the process of Divergence (adding new ideas) and Convergence (narrowing ideas down to a succinct defined set of epics) - yes, I am borrowing from the Design Councils' "Double Diamond" here - then you can get to the final decision gate in the Blue Zone, which is Scope signoff for your MVP.
At this point you want to be thinking: what is the minimum "version of a new product which allows [my] team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort". This is the true Lean Startup definition of MVP (Minimum Viable Product). You have a hypothesis. Can you test that with a paper prototype? Then do you need to code? Seriously. What is the quickest way to learn. Is putting up a button that says "pay now" enough to test whether someone would buy your book online, or do you need to build all the transactional capability? This MVP scope isn't all the scope, it's the first set of stories that will give you useful feedback from which you can learn and pivot. As the boxer Mike Tyson said: "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." This is the point.
Get punched early, and gently. You don't want to be in your championship fight with your product on a world stage when you get floored by a punch - imagine Uber without a payment mechanism - so... make plenty of mistakes early on and always be geared up for feedback, because if you aren't learning you are wasting your time and precious resources.
If anything in this section has changed, it is that we have added more areas to consider. In the previous model we had covered some great areas to think about, but through failing (fast), we have realised there is a bunch more teams you need to be drawing in and getting feedback from in your research spikes, especially in a Corporate setting. Also, this isn't (especially in a corporate) a one-off conversation, it will likely go on for a while, and the best thing would be to kick-off a series of workstreams with each bit of your organisation, with whom you stay in constant dialogue, until you are ready to launch.
Once you've been round these groups, you will want to feed the feedback (learnings) back in to your product/ MVP scope. The next yellow dot (between Feasibility and Solution design) or gate is to ask: "Is it feasible to continue?" Again, don't be afraid to say "no" at this stage, otherwise what is the point of doing the feasibility study! Use the learning to inform your decisions about what to build, otherwise you will be building something that you get either cannot launch eventually or get hit with a major road block or dissatisfaction when you do take it out.
c80f0f1006