Idea Board Project Briefs

Expected Impact

https://github.com/openedx/platform-roadmap/issues/167

Initiative ID

gov

• 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.)

• 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.

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:

• Initiative: introduce product management core contributors in order to directly include the community in the product management function

Out of scope:

• (…)

1. https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3487301637

<TBD>

• @Jenna Makowski

• @Xavier Antoviaque

• @Faqir Bilal

• @ShellyU

Expected Impact

https://github.com/openedx/platform-roadmap/issues/174

Initiative ID

prod-nar

• 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).

• Open edX’s product vision is unclear which leads to challenges in articulating its value proposition and determining the PMF.

• 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.).

• There is a lack of shared understanding about how Open edX compares with other platforms in the market in terms of functionality.

• There isn’t a clear articulation of what Open edX does well today. And what it doesn’t do as well and why (For example: not suitable for L&D because of lack of learning pathways feature).

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:

• (…)

1. Writing a product narrative

<TBD>

• @Jenna Makowski

• @Faqir Bilal

• @Santiago Suarez

Expected Impact

Initiative ID

pain

• As a start point for building a broader product strategy, identify major/consistent pain points reported by users (learners, course authors, etc.)

• (…)

In scope:

• Create and maintain an active list of major points reported by users, the community, and the partners. Also track frequency of the number of times

Out of scope:

• (…)

2. Some pain-points shared by the Product WG

3. Do an overview of the most asked questions in the forum (this probably relevant to SysAdmin, and slightly to course authors)

<TBD>

• <TBD> (DRI)

Expected Impact

Initiative ID

audit

• Conduct audit of all features in current install mapped against usage/maintenance/usability

• Identify duplicate features or features with very similar functionality

• 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.

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:

• (…)

1. List of Features | Open edX

<TBD>

• <TBD> (DRI)

Expected Impact

Initiative ID

store

• Compile a list of XBlocks and their current status

• Create a marketplace for free and paid XBlocks

• The current directory of XBlock is a static web page. An XBlock marketplace 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.

In scope:

• (…)

Out of scope:

• (…)

<TBD>

• <TBD> (DRI)

Expected Impact

Scoped for BTR:

Initiative ID

WG-sup

• Provide guidance to align all working groups around the shared product vision/strategy

• Align Open edX Roadmap to BTR needs and get ahead of Olive release

• Support Marketing with clear product vision and roadmap/strategy language

• Triage issues with BTR and DEPR working groups

• As noted previously that a lack of product vision/strategy leads to challenges in defining the product roadmap for Open edX. The lack of share vision also leads to challenges for other working groups in startegizing and planning for their respective functional areas.

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:

• Review the existing marketing collateral in collaboration with the marketing WG to ensure alignment of the language and content with product vision and narrative.

Out of scope:

• (…)

<TBD>

• @Dean Jay Mathew

• @Jenna Makowski

Expected Impact

Initiative ID

LTI

In scope:

Out of scope:

• (…)

<TBD>

• <TBD> (DRI)

IN GROOMING

Expected Impact

Initiative ID

PR

• 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.

• There is currently a lack of clarity and predictability on the ability to obtain product reviews on work being contributed upstream. This results in less work being contributed and more remaining in forks, as an upstream-first approach has unreliable timelines for merges.

In scope:

• Review the steps where product reviews are expected in the OSPR process

• 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:

• (…)

<TBD>

• @Xavier Antoviaque @Jenna Makowski