[Request]: Consider further content testing of De-risking Guide 2.0 with non-technical program managers

[ameliaswong]

A description of the work

This was an idea from TTS director Ann Lewis, after she read the guide during the approval process. She wondered how non-technical agency program managers "who have a budget and choices to make around bringing on a vendor to do work, but don't have access to product managers to consult (yet), and don't necessarily understand the technical considerations of the project they are managing" might interpret the De-risking Guide's content in terms of tone and vocabulary. For instance: How would staff in such positions interpret what "success" and "failure" of a technology project is, and how might that affect their interpretation of the guide's recommendations?

In general, this ticket would use content testing to assess how the De-risking Guide 2.0 is received by non-technical program managers. Goals for research would be to understand how they interpret the guide's language and concepts, and if it would be worthwhile to add definitions or other content for this user group. As testing the guide as a whole would be laborious, I would suggest testing parts of every section except for Resources.

Context: When the FFS Team revised the De-risking Guide, it kept a list of backlog items for possibly addressing in future iterations. As the project lead during close-out, I transferred that list to the Guides repo.

Point of contact on this issue

Amelia Wong

Reproduction steps (if necessary)

No response

Skills Needed

• Any Human
• Design
• Content
• Engineering
• Acquisition
• Product
• Other

Does this need to happen in the next 2 weeks?

• Yes
• No

How much time do you anticipate this work taking?

A month

Acceptance Criteria

After content testing, synthesizing findings, articulating recommendations for any new content, if needed, and creating new tickets for any new content to add/revise in the De-risking Guide, also if needed.