II | Requirements analysis


Looking at the current ranking and the past pointing process - what went well, what could be improved?

FeedbackChallengePossible solutionComments / Discussion
Ranking in JIRA combines all information in the same spot /MSThere are not enough JIRA accounts for every institution to rank
  • Ranking per service provider

The GBV is ranking as a service provider for its libraries currently: GBV ranks for its libraries; that includes preranking to find agreement amongst the libraries

Either everyone ranks via service providers or no one (except for libraries hosting themselves); so we need to overcome the current mixture, otherwise its not fair and balanced; networks and providers could get more points than libraries ranking for themselves - when we go this way

Ranking in JIRA enables institutions to track features via dashboards /MS 
  • Keeping JIRA as ranking system
  • libraries should not need to have a shadow system to be able to keep track with the highly ranked features
  • on the other hand: maybe libraries already have shadow systems to get feedback to the community 
Involve SIGs better into ranking process /MSfind a fair ranking mechanism within SIG; everyone needs to be able to give feedback
  • Add a SIG ranking to JIRA
  • add label to JIRA tickets
  • voting system within Slack channels of SIGs - pro: people could take part without attending SIG meetings
  • use Confluence ranking possibilities (was used in ACQ SIG several times)
  • individual features (where possible) should be grouped into epics and the epics are voted on.
  • Context is very important
Hard to understand many UXPROD:s /MWi
Group related features together and describe them with an straightforward language  /MWi
  • Features need enough information so that everyone understands and features can be differentiated
  • Maybe we should make sure that there are no Jiras that are not connected to some Epic.
  • SIGs could help describing features - inside or outside of; SIG could describe outside of JIRA for people to vote, then bring back to JIRA
Only highly ranked UXPROD:s was in Kiwi pointing /MWiSome features not visible  /MWi

Many UXPROD:s to rank in Kiwi pointing /MWi
Group related features together  /MWi
Some UXPROD:s was partly overlapping in Kiwi pointing, hard to distribute points /MWi
Group related features together  /MWi
Non-fancy technical issues are not attracting votes. (In some cases it was tricky to determine if a UXPROD was a feature or a technical non functional requirement in the Kiwi pointing.) /MWiThe foundations of the systems are not prioritzed this way.  /MWi

Technical issues handled outside of the prio process? /MWi

+1 Always devote e.g. 20% dev time to NFRs and rank separately /MS

Each community institution was forced to prioritize during Kiwi pointing, could not say that every desired feature was of highest importance. Good. /MWi
If using Jira, a limited number of R1 could be allowed? /MWi
Each community institution was treated equally during Kiwi pointing. /MWiSmall and/or instutions far from implementation has the same weight as large and/or already implemented institutions. Good or bad?  /MWi
  • newer institutions should be able to rank equally to the ones that can rank in JIRA
  • how are legal requirements weighted - higher weight needed?

  • more weight for libaries putting in dev resources

Pointing process was independant from the number of features a dev team can do /MSIndependant from rankings or pointings: every dev team can only develop a specific number of features Having multiple rankings per apps, one per development team /MS, TT