Use cases vs user bases

This space is to continue the thread on use cases vs user bases which began in the OEP-57 conversation:

Ghassan: This document Use Cases and MindMaps is using the term “Use Cases” to refer to who might use the product, i.e. goverment, Unis, off/on campus, NGOs, companies…etc. But here you/we are using it to refer to “IT infrastructure”.

I think since both might have extesive doc, discussion, lets come with a unique term…But I also not with using “user base” I don’t think its too meangingul for our context. Probably would agree with  “Use cases” if it weren’t already used in simlair yet different context 

Kyle:that’s a good point.

I do think we could use “use cases” to encompass both the application (unis, NGOs, etc) as well the infra/scale (single server, k8s, etc). They are often intertwined: for example, I think “Higher Education/Public Education/National Platforms” (essentially: MOOCs) implies massive scale, whereas “Higher Education - Residential”  implies a medium-to-small scale.

Alternatively, we could come up with a different term for scale / IT infrastructure. I agree that “user bases” is ambiguous… to me it sounds the same as “use cases”. If anyone has suggestions I’m keen to hear them.

Jenna: From a product perspective, yes, I define use case as who uses the product and to what end, ie what do they need to accomplish. And the answers to those questions guide the decision about which features are included in the Core Product and which are not.

When I read Kyle’s new wording -

The Core Product is defined as a clear articulation of which features, experiences, and use cases come fully supported by the default configuration of the community-maintained Open edX installation. -

I interpret it through a product lens rather than an IT infrastructure lens, and I think that’s the appropriate angle for the purposes of this OEP.  I don’t know what the parallel words would be for the IT infrastructure bit though?

Xavier: To make it fully explicit, and ensure that these aspects aren’t too easily overlooked by someone reading this in the future, could we then maybe use:

The Core Product is defined as a clear articulation of which features, experiences, use cases and user bases come fully supported by the default configuration of the community-maintained Open edX installation.

“User base(s)” might already be included in “use cases”, but this way it’s clear that we consider the use cases of multiple separate user bases, not just the use cases of one uniform user base – which was what prompted my initial comment.

For addressing @Ghassan Maslamani's further comment that someone might understand “user base”  as only the end-users who use the website itself and omit the technical users, we could also be explicit about this, and add right after:

The supported user bases can include end-users of the Open edX sites such as learners, but also technical or administrative users who setup and manage the sites.

We want this document to be generic enough to not have to be amended, but it’s still worth being precise enough that the meaning we have in mind is clear and explicit, while leaving out the definitions of who/what is supported exactly for other places.

Sarina: I find the term “user bases” awkward and confusing (may just be me though). I agree with Jenna in that reading Kyle’s rewording I interpreted it from a product lens; I don’t see the disconnect that Ghassan mentions - “use case” is a product term that means “how a product is used”. He writes, “which features, experiences, and use cases come fully supported by the default configuration” → the “use cases” referred to here to me are IDENTICAL to what Jenna has defined previously. I do not interpret this as anything to do with IT, despite the word “configuration” used. The “use cases” that come fully supported are cases like… the university use case! the NGO use case! etc.

I am fully in support of Kyle’s original wording and against throwing in the wording against “user bases” because that seems pretty redundant. I fail to differentiate between these terms and don’t want to add a new term to the doc. And I’m saying this as someone who was a product manager for years.

Kyle: okay, agreed, I’m doubling down on my original suggestion:

The Core Product is defined as a clear articulation of which features, experiences, , and and use cases come fully supported by the default configuration of the community-maintained Open edX installation.I’m saying this as someone who would like to pitch an IT-oriented use case for inclusion in the Core Product: running the platform on limited hardware in a place with slow internet. The current wording makes me feel empowered to pitch that to the PWG. Similarly, “running the platform at massive scale” easily fits into “use cases”.

I propose that we resolve this thread and redirect the energy here towards the actual definition of the first Core Product, which comes after we land this OEP.