Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 24
Next »
Faqir Bilal: . Due to lack of context around some ideas, I made assumptions regarding what the proposed idea/iniative entailed specifically. If you were the author of an idea and the explanation doesn’t match what you proposed, please free to fix the language as needed.
Contents
1. Governance model for the Product Working Group
Status | IN PROGRESS | Expected Impact | Very high (5.0) |
---|
Epic on Board | https://github.com/openedx/platform-roadmap/issues/167 | Initiative ID | gov |
---|
Objectives (what?) | Define the scope of the working group Develop the governance model and the structure for the working group Outline the framework and process for making product decisions (for example: priotizing features, capturing opportunities from the community, etc.)
|
---|
Business case (why?) | There is an apparent leadership/strategy gap in the Open edX ecosystem in owning and managing the product lifecycle, and owning and articulating the product vision (including what the product does/doesn’t do today, what it will do/be in the future, etc.). There is no ongoing and organized effort to capture insights from the users and partners about how the platform needs to evolve and connecting that to the product vision and strategy. Due to a lack of a supporting process/sufficient designated members, product reviews in PRs can be blocked for a long time, hampering the community's ability to contribute improvements. The product working group can help address this gap.
|
---|
Scope (how?) | In scope: Create, publish, and disseminate a charter for the product working group (WG structure, mandate, key processes, etc.) Formulate and document a framework/process for making decisions
Provisionally in scope: Out of scope: |
---|
Resources | Charter
|
---|
Timline (when?) | <TBD> |
---|
Members (who?) | |
---|
2. Build a compelling product narrative
Status | IN GROOMING | Expected Impact | Very High (5.0) |
---|
Epic on Board | https://github.com/openedx/platform-roadmap/issues/174 | Initiative ID | prod-nar |
---|
Objectives (what?) | Articulate what the product does today. And of those things, what does it do well/best. Understand how Open edX compares to other products in the space. Identify feature gaps for different use cases (for example: What is missing in Open edX in using at as a residential LMS solution in a higher ed setting).
|
---|
Business case (why?) | Open edX is generally perceived as a generic LMS which can be used for a variety of use cases making it less competitive against purpose-built LMS for different verticals (K12, Higher ed, Workplace, etc.).
|
---|
Scope (how?) | In scope: Conduct a competitive analysis with LMSs catering to different verticals (Higher ed, K12, L&D, etc.) and create a report with a competitive matrix comparing value proposition, functionality, features, authoring capabilities, learner experience, etc.
Based on the product vision, market research, community feedback, and competitive analysis, craft a product narrative (deliverable format: a slide deck)
Out of scope: |
---|
Resources | Writing a product narrative
|
---|
Timline (when?) | <TBD> |
---|
Members (who?) | |
---|
3. List major/consistent pain points for users
Status | PROPOSED | Expected Impact | TBD (?) |
---|
Epic on Board | | Initiative ID | pain |
---|
Objectives (what?) | As a start point for building a broader product strategy, identify major/consistent paint points reported by users (learners, course authors, etc.)
|
---|
Business case (why?) | |
---|
Scope (how?) | In scope: Out of scope: |
---|
Resources | Data Use Cases - Raw Market Feedback Some pain-points shared by the Product WG Do an overview of the most asked quesitons in the forum (this probably releavnt to SysAdmin, and slightly to course authros)
|
---|
Timline (when?) | <TBD> |
---|
Members (who?) | |
---|
4. Feature audit
Status | PROPOSED | Expected Impact | TBD (?) |
---|
Epic on Board | | Initiative ID | audit |
---|
Objectives (what?) | |
---|
Business case (why?) | Open edX has some “dead-end” features including in cases where further development was suspended due to conflicting priorities. There are cases of duplicate features or features with very similar functionality which can adversely affect the user experience by making the product more complicated to use. Duplicate features also impact the product maintenance cost.
|
---|
Scope (how?) | In scope: Document all features and indicate usage/maintenance/usability for each feature. Document all cases of duplicate features and devise a strategy for merging or streamlining the functionality (by using a framework or on a case by cases basis)
Out of scope: |
---|
Resources | List of Features | Open edX
|
---|
Timline (when?) | <TBD> |
---|
Members (who?) | |
---|
5. XBlock store
Status | PROPOSED | Expected Impact | Very High |
---|
Epic on Board | | Initiative ID | store |
---|
Objectives (what?) | |
---|
Business case (why?) | The current directory of XBlock is a static web page. An XBlock marketplance integratable directly with each instance of Open edX can help admin users buy or “download” XBlocks directly from the marketplace from within their platform. The market place can help streamline the process of activating and updating the XBlock.
|
---|
Scope (how?) | In scope: Out of scope: |
---|
Resources |
|
---|
Timline (when?) | <TBD> |
---|
Members (who?) | |
---|
6. Provide support to other working groups
Status | PROPOSED | Expected Impact | TBD (?) |
---|
Epic on Board | | Initiative ID | WG-sup |
---|
Objectives (what?) | |
---|
Business case (why?) | |
---|
Scope (how?) | In scope: Create documents that outline the product vision and the product narrative and share them with the marketing group. With BTR, develop a shared framework for metadata and info required to inform Release Notes for tickets on the Community Roadmap. Develop a shared definition of “done” and “shipped”. Develop shared vocabularly for “supported”, “included”, etc. Ensure the workflows to define a Core Product Offering are translated/transferred to inform BTR flows. Develop small incremental goal/deliverable to improve Olive testing process.
Provisionally in scope: Out of scope: |
---|
Resources |
|
---|
Timline (when?) | <TBD> |
---|
Members (who?) | |
---|
7. LTI strategy, catalogue as xblock alternative
Status | PROPOSED | Expected Impact | TBD (?) |
---|
Epic on Board | | Initiative ID | LTI |
---|
Objectives (what?) | |
---|
Business case (why?) | |
---|
Scope (how?) | In scope: Out of scope: |
---|
Resources |
|
---|
Timline (when?) | <TBD> |
---|
Members (who?) | |
---|
8. PR Workflow Evaluation and Interventions
Status | PROPOSED | Expected Impact | TBD (?) |
---|
Epic on Board | | Initiative ID | PR |
---|
Objectives (what?) | Evaluate the end-to-end PR process to identify pain points that contribute to bottlenecks and delayed review turnover. Make recommendations for where and how the Product Working Group should intervene to remove bottlenecks and ensure timely reviews, such as prioritizing, coordinating, etc. Consider the PR process as it relates to elements of the BTR workflows, particularly around inclusion of product context in Roadmap Initiatives, definitions of “done”, and transfer of information about initiatives, etc.
|
---|
Business case (why?) | |
---|
(how?) | In scope: Evaluate the current practice by reviewing the tickets currently needing a product review, and by asking the community for feedback about them Improve the product review practice & steps; in particular, figure out a way to ensure contributions don’t end up blocked, along with detection & escalation of any missing product review
Out of scope: |
---|
Resources |
|
---|
Timline (when?) | <TBD> |
---|
Members (who?) | |
---|