eAgronom: a two-part build, two weeks apart

eAgronom took the practical implementation programme as a two-part build: theory and prototyping in the first session, then the same again a fortnight later to finish what was started.

Why two parts beat one long day

A prototype built in a single session is judged in that session, by people who have not yet tried to use it. Two weeks later, the same prototype has either been opened voluntarily or it has not, and that is a far better signal than anything anyone says in the room on the day.

The second session starts from that evidence. Work that nobody touched gets cut without ceremony. Work that people did use gets the remaining time, and usually gets finished properly rather than left at proof-of-concept.

What the format asks of the client

• ✳Participants need enough slack between the sessions to actually try what they built
• ✳Someone has to own each prototype between sessions, or nothing gets tested
• ✳The second session works best with the same people, not substitutes
• ✳Come to part two ready to abandon things, which is the point

The willingness to cut is what makes the format work. A two-part programme where everything from part one survives into part two has not used the gap for anything.

What came out of it

The two sessions produced more than seven products and MVPs. Among them: an assistant that handles the repetitive questions customers ask, grounded in the company’s own material rather than guessing; automated reporting that assembles what used to be put together by hand; and analysers that read operational data and return what changed rather than a dashboard someone has to interpret.

Seven working prototypes out of two sessions is a high number, and it is a direct consequence of the split format. The fortnight in between is what let the team abandon the ideas that did not survive contact with a normal working week, which meant the second session spent its time finishing things instead of starting more of them.