Quetiapine online purchase
Quetiapine and Quetiapine Quetiapine capsule Quetiapine canadian pharmacy Buy Quetiapine cod Buy cheapest Quetiapinebuy no prior prescription Quetiapine Buy Quetiapine american express Buy Quetiapine now Buy Quetiapine with a visa Where can i buy Quetiapine without prescription Order Quetiapine no rx
  1. saeed


    Thanks for the comment. I agree, personas must fit the company culture. The point I was making was related to the personal details that seem to be so prevalent in the personas I’ve seen. I’ve yet to work in a company that sees those as really useful. I’m not saying they are not, but that I’ve not found people receptive to them.

    I’ve left a comment on Adele’s blog post that referenced this article.

    buy Quetiapine american express

    Here’s a snippet of what I wrote about working with a couple of people from Cooper.

    They had a wall board with pictures of the individual personae (Charles the CEO, Lucy the Business Analyst etc.) along with their descriptions and back stories.

    Many engineers found this whole exercise quite irrelevant. I found a lot of the research very useful, but the outputs too distracting to communicate what needed to be said.

    You mention using persona to communicate across teams. That can be handy but I have to say a couple of things.

    1. I’ve never met a software executive that got down to that level of detail on users, buyers etc.

    2. There needs to be a real cultural buy in across all those teams to invest the time to support the research and then convey it across the company. It may be the right thing to do, but it rarely happens given different goals, alignment, cultures and objectives of those teams.


  2. next day delivery on Quetiapine saturday

    Hi Saeed,

    Thanks for addressing an interesting persona issue. Persona descriptions are important but they are not the central purpose of persona work. Personas are just the starting point for the truly important heavy lifting that goals, buying scenarios, user scenarios, and use cases provide. When a client asks us something like, “Why do I have to learn about these fake people?” we explain that the personas, as translators of customer research, are the jumping off place for scenarios (and then we might glide more quickly through those persona introduction slides). Personas provide context. How much time and to what depth you focus on that context depends on who the audience is and what your purpose is.

    As Adele Revella and others have pointed out, personas must fit the culture. Even though our business at Goal Centric is to create buyer personas, I’ll be the first to say that personas aren’t everything. A persona is a tool that must serve its users. So, for B2C marketers, include research-based details about the car the buyer persona drives. For B2B developers, emphasize the user persona’s role, tasks, and goals. Then, move your audience on to “the meat” of your persona research and analysis: the scenarios, which should provide that audience with insights and opportunities for marketing, product, and buying process innovations that will please your real customers.

    Having said that, there is value in making your personas memorable or distinguishable from each other with some level of personal detail. And there can be value in introducing the same personas to different audiences within your organization so that executives, marketing, sales, and product people all know they are talking about the same customers, even if developers are focused on what “Jeff” needs to do after hitting Submit, and executives want to know how many times this year “Jeff” is likely to buy the product (“Jeff” would be a consumer who both buys and uses the product). The value of personas is that they can be flexible for each audience and they can hold and communicate researched, relevant, focused information for each audience to keep all departments working in concert. (See Goal Centric’s work on Persona Ecosystems, which address multiple role personas and multiple audiences within a B2B context.)


  3. David

    Hi Saeed,
    I can see that developers and engineers will find it easier to get behind your role definitions compared to personas. They are functional specs. As long as the developers create a system that can provide the functions then it’s ‘job done’.

    I understand what you’re saying about personas. But I think your role definitions allow developers to think in exactly the kind of way that created a need for personas.

    Perhaps there is a fine line between humanising a user archetype and creating a ‘cardboard customer’ that just turns people off.

  4. buy cod Quetiapine

    Hi Saeed:
    I also want to make a distinction between “user” persona development — a practice which captures the essence of targeted users of the product — and “buyer” personas, where the intention is to understand each of the people who influences the buying decision. People who build personas need to remember the goal — to capture the information I acquired about the needs and priorities of a target audience (users or buyers), and then deliver that information to another audience (developers or marketers). When persona developers deliver buyer information to developers, they miss the point and invalidate what could be a really useful tool. Developers want data, sales and marketing people want stories. First rule of communication — think about your audience, please! (which brings me full circle back to personas — have you seen a developer persona)

  5. saeed


    Given that the personas are user archetypes, it wouldn’t be possible to run the new features past them. In fact, the reality is that the requirements are drawn by understanding the needs of the the key users. One can certainly validate the findings and derive requirements with some actual customers and then certainly after the designs are complete, things like beta programs etc. are certainly valuable.

    The reality is that in most development cycles, there are only a few opportunities to get customer/external input, and feed that info back into the development cycle.

  6. Kevin

    Would it be a good idea to run new features past all of the personas to see how it affects them?

    The Admin Console was very useful for Developers as well as Administrators. For a few things we were even able to get some technical business types to use it.


  7. saeed


    Thanks for the comment and for reading the blog.

    You may be right…that I’m being a bit hard on people who include those extra details. But don’t misinterpret what I wrote. I intentionally put quotes are “marketing fluff” because, from the perspective of engineers, that’s how those extra details are typically received.

    I did focus my response on B2B software. Consumer software will likely be very different. For example, I can certainly see how personal details etc. would be very useful for products like Quicken.

    And agreed, personas (or whatever one wants to call them) must be based on first hand research and observation of real people. It can’t be just made up based on assumptions and conjecture.

    As I mentioned in my response to Steve, the issue is not the concept of the persona itself, but what extra details are actually relevant and useful for the task at hand.


  8. saeed


    Thanks the response. Most of what Kim Goodwin says in her article makes sense, but the part about the extra details — indicating that an uneaten sandwich is on the desk, vs. stating how busy the person is (btw, who’s not busy these days?), — is the heart of the issue.

    Who benefits from that? Virtually every developer I’ve met finds those types Yes, one can get over creative and that is a no-no. It comes down to a cultural issue really. Some company cultures may find that information useful. Personally, I’ve yet to work in a company that does.


  9. buy cheap Quetiapine free fedex

    I think you might be a tad hard on people who include “fluff.” Product managers are like comedians or musicians: you have to go with what works with your audience. Some development organizations want just the most immediately relevant facts. Others respond better when the persona seems a bit more human, or when the extra details say something about the subculture in which a target user lives.

    PMs might look as though they’re blowing smoke through some orifice when the persona is complete fiction. Better to pick a real person as a starting point than some Joe Schmoe invented from the ground up.

  10. buy Quetiapine pills in toronto

    I fear that many marketers think that creating personas is a creative writing exercise rather than a market data-based profile. It’s not about what kind of car they drive or if they’re planning a wedding. Instead a persona gives contextual information for development and marketing guidance such as computing skills, experience, and work environment.

    Thanks for an insightful post.

  11. saeed


    Thanks and while I agree that it depends on what you want to do with them, in my experience in primarily B2B software, the primary consumer of the persona is development and the extraneous details are just irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with the general concept of the persona though so don’t get me wrong, but it’s essentially the value of the back story and environmental details (like the sandwich on the desk) that’s debatable. And IMHO, those are the things that distinguish personae from standard role and responsibility definitions.

    As an aside, I once worked for a voice-applications company. i.e. sophisticated applications accessed through the telephone. The VUI (voice user interface) was of course critical for the success of the applications. The voice team created a number of personae with associated vocal recordings to help illustrate them. While “Mary” was the default voice in the applications, and provided a very clear, friendly yet authoritative voice for the applications, we also had “Zak” who was young, friendly but a bit “irreverent”. There were other personas as well with different profiles, each with a back story to “bring them to life”.

    In the end, no one, except the voice team and some people in marketing really cared. While these personae had a different function than the ones that Cooper espouses, it was another example of the lack of criticality of personae in application design.

  12. Richard

    I think that a lot depends on what you want to do with the personas. Marketing and PM may require a more rounded view of the target user whilst developers need a more focused view.

    Personas are important in that they let us understand the limits and constraints our users operate in. For example, I have one PM who has a fully set up Firefox extended browser who has no problem in remembering passwords via an addin and so on. Yet other users forget passwords and this will change their behavior when faced with different functionality.

    PM needs to ensure that the functionality will work for the target user group/personas with their whole operating environment, sandwich breaks and all. IT on the other hand is more interested in focused technical issues once the overall design and usecases have been defined.

    Of course, one has to be careful to not go too far when defining personas – I don’t care about a user’s wedding plans either.

We really want to hear your thoughts... buy Quetiapine in england

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Quetiapine order.