III | How do other ILS systems handle prioritization?
- continue
- Coral: no prioritization process; steering committee that decides
- Koha: no real ranking or voting; built-in up-vote function; if someone really needs soemthing can try to have it financed (find an interested group)
- QA team then agrees
- more mature system; rather bugs or more specialized functions
- Sierra: list kind of like UXPRODs and customer could select a certain amount; could vote
- QuickMARC in Folio: use mentimeter; may not be robust enough; rather having presentations and have people interact
- LDP4P2 Cohort - FunRetro: like Trello; tool to be used at the end of a project/a release; what has been done, what needs to be done
- same with Miro: may work better at SIG level
- Google forms could be an option as well to use as a tool
Tools that stood out:
- Miro to be used on SIG level and Idea Exchange (not free)
- https://uservoice.com/
- https://uservoice.com/integrations
- Institutional rankings vs. SIG rankings
- institutions need an overview over important features
- in JIRA: why do we want to move away from JIRA
- can the rankings be displayed at the bottom of the ticket
- ranking fields only to track own rankings
- two use cases to use JIRA that need to be differentiated: Ranking vs tracking own features
- we should not need shadow systems
- invite someone to explain why JIRA should no longer be used for ranking and what the display options are → Jana Freytag & Martina Schildt
- decluttering and deduplicating the JIRAs is needed
- the roadmap should be informed by the prioritization process as well
- NFRs need to be ranked as well → maybe by the TC? POs? Devs?
- some percentage of dev time per release should be devoted to NFRs
- industry standards should not need to be ranked
- rankings need another level: something may be R1, but how long can I wait for it (until next release, 2 releases)