You can’t short-cut the essential steps, no matter how many or few people are involved in the overall ISD/LXD process IMO – except for the “hand-off steps” – just as a lone runner need not worry about handing off the baton that relay runners need to do successfully – as that can too often be easily fumbled.
If one person does the Analysis and another does the Design – who “hands-off” or facilitates that hand-off?
My default is for the person assigned to be the Project Planner/Manager (PPM) is to see that the Analysis Data fully gets to the person doing Design – but I usually have the PPM also be the Analyst (which is how I operationalized my detailed, but flexible processes).
From the Appendicies of my 1999 book, lean-ISD.
It always depends (the Plan’s details) on Role assignments.
I use detailed Data reports – for example: the Analysis Report – and F2F briefings for Q&A.
Designers should know what to expect and can clarify anything that isn’t crystal clear.
In the 80s and 90s I often did Design after others did Analysis and their Output variances drove me crazy – so I soon fixed that – as it always forced variation in what I had to do at the front-end of Design Team Meetings in data generation/recovery.
One memorable (and sad) example of that – was for NASA and a Management Curriculum Design effort in 1987 – too soon after the Challenger accident. I was brought in after my 3 colleagues – who were already doing work with NASA when that tragic day occurred. As management got the blame – training was prescribed. Of course, the Training defined in our CAD effort would be needed by new managers in the system – but wouldn’t get at the root of the probable cause(s) – that congressional investigations and others would point to.
Post from 2011
It’s All in the Details IMO
Of the plan and execution. Which I have covered in numerous books, including these most recent three.
See all of my books on my Amazon Authors Page:
Free – PACT Practitioner Development Paths