r3 - 25 Apr 2006 - 10:11:05 - MimiYinYou are here: OSAF >  Journal Web  >  MimiYin > PrioritizingElementsOfTheVisionExercise

Introduction

Last week, Katie sent out an email detailing our process for 1.0 Product Planning. http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Projects/ProductPlanProcess

In it, there was a section titled: Elements of the Vision and the idea that we would go through a prioritization exercise with the Core Team to try and rank order these Elements in a way that might be helpful to nailing down a Product Plan for 1.0. Here is a more detailed explanation of what this exercise involves. Please respond with any questions and/or your Prioritization List + Answers to the questions listed below.

Thanks! Mimi

Elements of our vision at OSAF

All important but here's my priority order in term of how this shape the product strategy:
  • Small workgroup collaboration (find innovative ways to solve problems that prevent people from using existing tools)
  • Calendars without IT support
  • Agenda 2.0: flexible organizational system, user controlled semantics
  • Standards-based interoperability
  • Interoperability with existing clients
  • Extensible/customizable pim
  • Cross platform pim
  • Access to data from multiple avenues (rich, hip and thin)
  • Open source contributors collaborating with us to get more work done
  • Open source contributors participating in the design process to create a more innovative project
  • Web 2.0: social networking, mashups, etc.
  • GTD as inspiration for managing too much information
  • Data hub, semantic web

What is the point of this exercise?

To collect as many different perspectives on in order to help us answer the Million $ Question: Given what we have today, what can we ship in 12-18 months that is unique and compelling to users?

Our Vision for The Chandler System has always been expansive. Now is the time to prioritize the elements of this vision so that we can:

  1. Narrow our focus and produce something complete within a reasonable timeframe (ie. 12-18 months); without
  2. Throwing away core concepts that are unquestionably valuable but that can only be realized in the fullness of time.

In other words, we're looking for low-hanging fruit.

What are we going to do with everyone's input?

Take them into consideration as the PPD team puts forth a formal proposal under the guidance of the OPS team. However, this is not a voting exercise. Results will not be tallied. Instead, we're hoping to mitigate the danger of tunnel vision by gathering input from as many people* as possible (aka Core Team: People who have enough context about the projects to participate in this exercise in a valuable way.)

When prioritizing the Vision Elements please take the following into consideration:

Q Which elements are feasible? given that our goal is to get a working version of The Chandler System into the hands of early adopters in a 12-18 month timeframe.

Q For elements that are Feature Areas, to what degree to we need to realize each element of the Vision?

  • Hyper-usable More usable than what's out there right now. For example, the recent generation of AJAX web calendars has upped the ante on web calendaring. Google could just make something comparable to Yahoo calendar. To get users, they needed to make something hyper-usable.
  • Usable Meets the current bar for usability in this space. (Cite a comparable app if possible.)
  • Experimentally usable / Dogfood-able The functionality is so new that there is nothing in the market today that compares to it. As a result, we get to set our own bar for usability.
  • Plausible Not a 1.0 "feature area" per se, but there's enough there that with a little bit of context, someone could easily see how The Chandler System will evolve to become a mature product in this space.
  • Initial Enough there that someone could cobble together a solution with some help from Core Team members...and OSAF is interested enough in these scenarios that we'd be willing to provide the help if someone was interested. (Similar to what it was like for an outside developer to write a parcel in 0.6)
  • Embryonic Nothing is stopping someone with the right technical skills from using The Chandler System to realize this dream. But they're not going to get very much help from the Core team.

Q What elements need to go together?

Q Which elements are dependencies? In order to have B, you need to first have A.

Q Which elements will drive adoption?

Q Which elements, if any, by themselves make for a complete product? Which elements are clearly part of a larger solution?

Example Prioritization

  • 1 [Usable - e.g. MS One Note][Complete in and of itself] Small workgroup collaboration (find innovative ways to solve problems that prevent people from using existing collaboration tools)
    • [Usable - e.g. Apple iCal, mature web calendars][Drives adoption] Calendars without IT support
    • [Dogfood] GTD as inspiration for managing too much information
    • [Dogfood] Agenda 2.0: flexible organizational system, user controlled semantics
    • [Dogfood] Interoperability with existing clients (Email clients, Apple iCal)
    • [Dogfood][Drives adoption] Access to data from multiple avenues (rich, hip and thin)
    • [Usable][Drives adoption] Cross-platform PIM

  • 2 [We need to have Plausible 1 to inspire 2] Open source contributors collaborating with us to get more work done

  • 3 [Dogfood][Part of a larger solution] Standards-based interoperability
  • 4 [Plausible][Drives adoption][Part of a larger solution] Extensible/customizable PIM

  • 5 Open source contributors participating in the design process to create a more innovative project

  • 6 [Initial][Part of a larger solution] Web 2.0: social networking, mashups, etc.
  • 7 [Embryonic][Part of a larger solution] Data hub, semantic web

-- MimiYin - 24 Apr 2006

Edit | WYSIWYG | Attach | Printable | Raw View | Backlinks: Web, All Webs | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | More topic actions
 
Open Source Applications Foundation
Except where otherwise noted, this site and its content are licensed by OSAF under an Creative Commons License, Attribution Only 3.0.
See list of page contributors for attributions.