Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [board-discuss] Some problems.

Am 13.07.20 um 16:58 schrieb Italo Vignoli:
we have a peculiar development process which is IMHO rather difficult
to steer according to the usual marketing process.

To be honest: The part with "from which our product development" was a joke, knowing the facts as 
well. ;-) 
(btw. the product is that mature it seems rather difficult to me to find useful new features which 
affect more than a dozen people - except UI improvements maybe)

But what's about "sound analysis of requirements of our market from which our market communication 
is coherently derived?"

Let's say we have three sources of knowing user requirements:

1.) Bugzilla end user requests for new features
2.) Askbot questions on features mostly existing but not known (which for the user asking makes no 
difference to 1)
3.) Anticipation of upcoming market developments (i.e. increasing WFH) and requirements which may 
come out of this

Getting these analyzed on more than a face-validity base may guide our communication to be more 
targeted on user requirements and therefore more interesting or compelling for them (i.e. how to 
set up a workflow with lots of off-premise users). Maybe even the ecosystem takes profit out of 
such an analysis - developing LOOL wasn't decided after the fifth beer in a bar, I presume.

And a user requirement must not necessarily be a function of code. Is there a requirement for 
single seat support contract? Mike says no, but maybe this is also a hen/egg situation?
Is there a need to have some expert talks on i.e. how to do product neutral call for bids? Which in 
return may get us some ecosystem partners?
Or maybe we need no more better hairnets but a hairspray kind of idea? 

Meant just as examples.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Uwe Altmann

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.