After the requirement is determined, it comes to the requirement design step to start the realization of the design function, and it needs to be displayed in the form of a prototype diagram.
The complexity of this function does not lie in the simple operation status change of a single patient, but in the whole system, many functions are associated with patient status information, such as: patient transport, pathological specimens, safety verification, etc. The operations of these functions are Associated with the patient's surgical status.
After the patient has added the second operation state, how other functional modules need to change the judgment of the operation state must country email list be considered from the overall system perspective, so this function affects the whole body.
At that time, a design plan in two directions was initially conceived. The first one was combined, that is, the operation of the second operation was based on the information and records of the first operation; the second was divided, that is, the operation of the second operation was the same as the second operation A procedure keeps records associated but operations separate. After the initial communication with my colleagues, I thought that the situation of the combination would not affect the page display of the system, so I designed it according to the first combination method, and produced a prototype diagram.
My habit is to only produce a prototype diagram before the review is passed, because I personally think that before the requirements design is not reviewed and passed, the prototype diagram can be used to let everyone quickly understand my ideas, and it is also convenient for me to make rapid changes and iterations.
Some colleagues write the requirements document after designing the prototype diagram and then review it. As a result, when the requirement design is rejected and then make changes, the previous document workload is wasted, and the subsequent document change workload is sometimes not as good as directly writing a document. article new.
Fourth, the needs assessment
After the requirement design is completed, colleagues from product, R&D, testing, and relevant leaders are invited to review the requirements.
During the review, especially the research and development, it was suggested that this method of combination does not change the page; but for other functional modules that rely on the operation process nodes to make judgments, the background needs to be changed too much, and it is impossible to predict the possible changes. The functional bug that caused the impact, so the first review did not pass this combined plan.
After coming down, considering the page changes and other functional modules involved, I redesigned the sub-scheme. In this scheme, when you click on the re-operation function, a secondary operation record will be generated independently, so that the operation information is the same as the first operation. The second operation is associated, but the operation flow node follows the second operation on the page.
Although this scheme will change the page where all patient information is displayed and add a second operation record of the patient, it has little impact on the node judgment of the operation process by other related function modules; The design proposal was approved in the second requirement review.
In fact, I didn't pass the first requirement review, and when I decided to overturn it all and design a new plan, my colleague said, "It's such a pity, then the previous design was not done in vain." In fact, I don't think so, because knowing how to do it is A growth, but isn't it a growth to know why not?
Another point is that I have also participated in other people's judging meetings as a participant, and I found that when I participated in other people's judging meetings, I subconsciously had a feeling of wanting to refute.
Will be refuted and cut off, and will not be completely passed; so when we prepare for the review, we can appropriately add some content on top of the content we have prepared, which will definitely be cut off. The lost design not only satisfies the desire of others to refute, but also protects the design that you really want to do.