Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] The way forward according to technicians (Marc of Meinungsfindungstool)

["marc" <marc AT merkstduwas.de>]

Mike said:
> Marc said:
> > (4) Then we analyse this with PM Delta. The outcome of the analysis
> > should be a better understanding of how the different designs are
> > related to each other. How big or small the common ground is, to
> > build upon. What are the aspects that separate and connect us.
> >
> > (5) Then we focus on the things that connect us rather than separate us!
>
>   Compare the technical designs
>     |
>     V
>   Identify the common ground (4)
>     |
>     V
>   Focus on the common ground (5)
>
> I'm not sure, yet.  These appear to be practical steps as requested
> (thanks), but I can't picture what you mean by "common ground".  Can
> you give a few specific examples, just to make it clear?

We need to find out, what the "common ground" might be. I would tend to say 
that software always exists for a reason (e.g. to earn money, to learn 
something or to solve a concrete problem). Therefore I think we might find 
the common ground by comparing the reasons why each design exists first.

We at AG MFT processed the following steps, before we started to implement 
something: problem analysis, requirements engineering and the technical 
design.

Maybe we could compare these three aspects of each two designs?

(A) What problems does it try to solve?

(B) What requirements are given?

(C) What design patterns are used?

What do you think?

Cheers
Marc