<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Product Ownership on Bitfern</title>
    <link>/tags/product-ownership/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Product Ownership on Bitfern</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-nz</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:42:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="/tags/product-ownership/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>What and Why skills vs How skills</title>
      <link>/blog/what-and-why-vs-how-skills/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>/blog/what-and-why-vs-how-skills/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;John Cutler asked a &lt;a href=&#34;https://twitter.com/johncutlefish/status/1535412311057240064&#34;&gt;great question on Twitter&lt;/a&gt;; how do we describe less visible skills like qualitative research in comparison to technical skills like software development?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Initially I was intrigued by the parallels with &lt;a href=&#34;https://www.kent.edu/appling/matranslationonline/blog/translationvsinterpretation&#34;&gt;translation vs interpretation&lt;/a&gt; in linguistics. I can see similarities between a software developer translating requirements into code. And a design researcher interpreting customer interviews to help produce the right software requirements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I also liked a response by Tiffany Chang suggesting that one skill is more concrete and the other more abstract. That resonated with human centered design approaches for me. And the idea of not jumping straight from problem to solution:&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
