/
2025-09-10 BizDev WG Meeting

2025-09-10 BizDev WG Meeting

Agenda for Open edX Biz Dev Meeting

  • Meeting Details:
    Open edX WG-BizDev
    Wednesday, 10. September · 17:00 to 18:00
    Timezone: Europe/Berlin

  • Meeting Link: https://meet.google.com/xxd-cntx-mjv

  • Bring your creativity and energy - let’s make it count!

Please review this agenda, prepare in advance, and contribute your ideas beforehand.

Also refer to the meeting notes from previous BizDev meetup - https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/5139431425

Objectives for Today:

  1. Strengthening BizDev ↔ Product Feedback Loop (Reference: Slack thread & Communication)

  • Should https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4404543516/BizDev+Working+Group?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiZTA4YjFmMTI1ZGZhNDBjNmFiMzcxODk1NGExZDgwNzYiLCJwIjoiYyJ9 prepare consolidated feedback reports for Product on a recurring basis?

  • How to integrate insights from client conversations and lost deals into Product workflows.?

    • Suggestion 1:

      • Use Salesforce comments (loss reasons) as the primary intake.

      • Reason: Anonymizing provider/client details to avoid competitive sensitivity and reduce “chaos” on public channels.

      • process: @Eden Huthmacher (and/or a delegated helper) aggregates comments → AI-assisted summary → share trends with BizDev & Product on a recurring cadence.

      • Rationale: Open sharing on Slack/Confluence risks revealing provider-specific sales info; central admin-level aggregation provides safety and consistency.

    • Caveats:

      • Many reps don’t fill the comments thoroughly; need a nudge for richer detail from each provider.

      • One person shouldn’t manually chase all data; AI summarization can help once comments/feedback are populated.

  1. Barriers - providers face in using the https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/5089886250 → possible survey.

  1. Enterprise Capability Survey - review by Sep 19, 2025; no in-meeting discussion.

  1. Alignment and Updates with Product-Market Alignment - If any activity happened elsewhere around the OKR’s of the Market alignment Sub group?

  1. Alignment and Updates from https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4711514127 ’S - If any?

  • Representatives: @Poonam Singh and @Pankaj Bhatia

  1. Recaping the https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4566810643 activities - If any?

  • Representatives: @Eden Huthmacher

  1. Alignment and Updates with https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4567662620- If any?

  • Representative: @Natalia Vynogradenko & @Esteban Etcheverry

  1. Alignment and Updates with https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4567466000 - If any?

  • Representative: @Ayaz Quraishi

Attendees: @Abdul Ahad @Angie Ruíz @annabel.cellini @Eden Huthmacher @Ege ORHAN @Jaimin Pavashiya @Jorge Londoño @Juan Camilo Montoya @Mahnoor Sarwat @Marco Morales @Nadheem Abdulla @Omar Al-Ithawi @Santiago Suarez

Date: 10.09.2025

Meeting Highlights

  • Feedback loop decided: Providers will record Closed-Lost reasons in Salesforce, which Axim (@Eden Huthmacher) will aggregate (AI-assisted) and share as anonymized insights via a Google Sheet on a recurring basis.

  • Email intake improvement: Do not block personal emails, but strongly prefer “Work/Corporate email.” Form copy and labels to be updated; consider anti-spam safeguards (e.g., CAPTCHA).

  • Provider ops pain point: Some providers lack export permissions in Salesforce Experience Cloud. Eden to assist Angie; explore easier exports (Kanban → copy/paste, or permissions fix).

  • Product proposal process revamped (3 tracks):

    1. Fast-track small changes → GitHub issue → single PM review → PR.

    2. Feature Ideas (discovery) → Discourse post to gauge interest; no approvals.

    3. Formal Proposal → Confluence doc with TL;DR, designs, data, optional 2–5 min video; submitter coordinates review; lazy consensus after tagging area stakeholders.
      Gaps noted: LTI reviewer missing, e-commerce deprecated, add “Mobile” area.

  • Reality check from providers (@Omar Al-Ithawi): Keep process flexible; not all impactful work fits formal funnels (e.g., mobile apps, Tutor, new payments plugin). Avoid hindering parallel innovation and customer-funded timelines.

  • Enterprise focus: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sd-lKPEGRmD_kDCm__6mQZKlAKz_XaCh_qgBz_y1mRU/edit?tab=t.0 shared (Pearson); requested feedback by Sept 19.

Agenda & Discussion Summary

1) Strengthening the Product Feedback Loop

  • Proposal: Use Salesforce Closed-Lost “Comments/Reasons” for all provider leads (Axim Experience Cloud).

  • Why: Anonymize client details; reduce competitive sensitivity; avoid Slack/wiki noise; create consistent data for analysis.

  • How: Providers must fill the comments box when closing leads. Eden will run periodic AI summaries and post anonymized insights to a shared Google Sheet for all providers; providers can add off-Salesforce context directly in the sheet.

  • Provider feedback (@Omar Al-Ithawi ): Wants comparative stats by region/segment to distinguish market issues vs. provider performance; cautioned about leakage risks when using AI - ensure anonymization.

Decision: Adopt Salesforce comments as the primary collection method and share findings via a community sheet. Providers to start capturing detailed reasons immediately.

2) Lead Intake Quality: Email Domain & Export Frictions

  • Issue A (Personal emails): Many inbound leads use Gmail/Yahoo, causing non-responsive prospects and slower cycles. - @Angie Ruíz

    • Considerations: Some gov/public sector leads start with personal emails; outright blocking may filter out valid leads.

    • Agreed Middle Ground:

      • Do not block personal emails.

      • Adjust form UI text to prefer Work/Corporate email (change label to “Work email” and include guidance line).

      • Explore anti-spam options (e.g., CAPTCHA, bot detection) without restricting legitimate domains.

  • Issue B (Data export): Angie lacks permissions to export structured lead data.

    • Workaround: Use Kanban view → copy/paste into a sheet.

    • Follow-up: Eden to meet 1:1 with @Angie Ruíz to streamline exports or adjust permissions.

Action: @Eden Huthmacher to propose copy changes and anti-spam options; schedule support session with @Angie Ruíz.

3) Updated Product Proposal Process (@Mahnoor Sarwat & @Marco Morales)

  • Scope: For features intended for Open edX core (not extensions).

  • Three Tracks:

    1. Fast-Track Small Changes: GitHub issue → single product manager reviews; if approved, submit PR.

    2. Feature Ideas (Discourse): Post problem statement + use cases to gauge interest. No approval required.

    3. Formal Proposal (Confluence): Full write-up with TL;DR summary, optional designs/market data/short video. Submitter is the coordinator; tag relevant area stakeholders for review.

      • Approval Rules: Lazy consensus - if one explicit approval and no objections, it’s approved; if silence and no objections, escalate to EXM Product/TOC after 7 days.

  • Gaps & Edits Needed:

    • Reviewer table still WIP; LTI has no named reviewer.

    • E-commerce is deprecated/archived - clarify status in areas list.

    • Add “Mobile” as a distinct area.

  • Adoption Plan: Documentation updates and GitHub categories not yet published; aim to finalize and publicize next week (then track volume of submissions as success metric).

  • Communications: Plan a blog post and slot into an Open edX Meetup to present the new process.

Takeaway: Lighter top-of-funnel and clear pathways should increase submission volume and surface recurring themes faster.

4) Balancing Process with Pragmatism (Provider Perspective)

Owner: @Omar Al-Ithawi

  • Point: Open edX ecosystem includes multiple contribution streams (Axim internal, community, provider/customer-funded work). Rigid process can slow urgent customer needs.

  • Examples: Tutor initiative, new mobile apps, payments plugin - some shipped outside formal proposal flow yet benefited the community.

  • Ask: Keep paths for parallel innovation while using the process to reduce duplication and improve discoverability.

Response: Eden/PMs agree - process is a coordination tool, not a gate. Upstream where possible; don’t block customer-driven timelines.

5) Subgroup Check-ins

  • Product-Market Alignment WG: Quiet recently. Members to reconvene, review OKRs, and schedule the next meetup (@Eden Huthmacher to look into it).

Decisions

  1. Use Salesforce Closed-Lost comments as the primary feedback source; Axim to anonymize & share via Google Sheet.

  2. Keep personal emails allowed but prefer Work/Corporate email via clearer labeling/copy; explore anti-spam.

  3. Adopt and publicize the 3-track proposal process once docs/categories go live.

Meeting Recording, Chat, and Transcript

Recording : Open edX WG-BizDev - 2025/09/10 10:56 EDT - Recording |  https://drive.google.com/file/d/15lLatUnGGyTcSFyZMQUVdAJF_m7m1VZM/view?usp=drive_link

Chat : Open edX WG-BizDev - 2025/09/10 10:56 EDT - Chat |  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SxmhEDo3CsLwhRjCI7O8-bcNGaN976I8/view?usp=drive_link

Transcript : Open edX WG-BizDev - 2025/09/10 10:56 EDT - Transcript |  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1835qdBNGnHvLvjKwHa-Y1pb3NENPWHbcf5wtn7zHC4U/view?usp=drive_link

NEXT MEETING:

Oct 1, 2025