Launchpad Enhancement Proposal Process

Where's the beef? Go to the List of drafting, approved and archived LEPs! Go to the template.

• Process Name: Launchpad Enhancement Proposal process

• Process Owner: JonathanLange

• Parent Process/Activity:

• Supported Policy: None

Description

A way of proposing an enhancement to Launchpad, so that we're ReadyToCode as quickly as possible.

Do I need to follow this?

Ultimately, it's at your discretion. If you end up spending a lot of time on something, then others on the team are going to want something like a Launchpad Enhancment Proposal to read.

Some rules of thumb:

You probably don't need to follow this process if

• you are making a change that's not visible to users,
• you are fixing a shallow defect, or

• you already have answers for each item on the ReadyToCode checklist

You definitely need to follow this process if

• you are adding a new feature
• you are reworking an existing feature
• you are extending or changing the workflows of an existing feature
• you have spent more than thirty minutes talking about the change without doing it

The second list overrides the first list. When in doubt, ask the Product Strategist or the relevant Team Lead.

Rationale

Launchpad regularly develops new features. We'd like to make sure that these features are implemented well, and that they are what our users actually need.

This process is successful if it helps us make exactly what users want, with no wasted extra features and no crappy pain points in the new interfaces.

In particular, we want to have feature definitions that:

• Produce requirements for use by Launchpad developers
• Can inform QA
• Make it easy for timely input from people who are interested

Triggers

This process is triggered when you want to do a new feature, or when the Product Strategist schedules the implementation of a new feature onto the Launchpad RoadMap.

At this point, the feature is already expected to have a user story associated with it.

Roles

• Product Strategist
• Analyst
• Stakeholders

The Product Strategist triggers this process and approves any output from it.

The Analyst is the author of any of the outputs. The Analyst can be any Launchpad developer or community member. The Strategist should be available to take the role of doing the actual writing, particularly if the Analyst finds it a burden. The thinking must come from the Analyst.

Inputs

The input should include a user story with a form like:

• As a $PERSON
  I want $FEATURE
  so that $BENEFIT
  

There must also be a list of Stakeholders — people who are actually interested in the feature.

The input should also include a written reason as to why we are working on this feature right now, instead of other features that we could be doing.

Any existing user research data should be considered as input.

Process

Collect the inputs

Make sure you have:

• A list of Stakeholders

• Some kind of UserStory — don't be too fussy here, whatever helps

• A reason for doing this now

Create the wiki page

1. Make a page on https://dev.launchpad.net/, give it a short, punchy name

2. Consider using the LaunchpadEnhancementProposalTemplate

3. List the Stakeholders at the top
4. Add the story
5. Add the reasons for doing it now

6. Add the wiki page to the "Drafting" section of LEP

Talk to someone

Talk to someone, anyone. Talk over the phone and make notes with something like Gobby, or just on the wiki page directly.

Good people to talk to include Stakeholders and the Product Strategist.

Talk to the product strategist

Just in case you missed it, you should really talk to the Product Strategist.

Start adding constraints

A constraint is some condition that the solution must satisfy. The constraints listed here should be:

• specific, avoid “motherhood and apple pie” statements such as “feature must be awesome”

• testable, it should be clear when the constraint is satisfied

But actually, the more the merrier. Get them down first, get them right later.

It's important to work with Stakeholders at this stage. Remember to ask “why” a million times over so that we get the right constraint down.

These constraints should not specify a solution.

Often, it's very helpful to describe what things are not included as part of the feature.

Jot down sub-features

Thinking about the problem will probably lead you to discover sub-features, smaller things that can be delivered independently and will add value while building up to reach the bigger story.

These sub-features can have their own feature document / blueprint thing, or they can go down in this document.

Either way, each sub-feature should go through a process very similar the one of the overall feature.

Identify workflows

Any new feature will have a bunch of workflows in the UI. Get as many of these down as possible. Once you've got them down, start making mockups for them.

Get it reviewed

Move the link to the proposal on LEP from "Drafting" to "Needs approval".

Review the output with the Product Strategist, who will move it on to "Ready to code" or bounce it back to "Drafting".

This process is complete when we feel we have enough information to start designing a UI. Remember the process is iterative. It's expected that the actual constraints will be better understood as we start to design & implement.

Success criteria

Answer the following questions:

• How will we know when it's done?
• How will we know if it's done well?

Output

A wiki page and a link on LEP.

If not already, the LEP should be raised for discussion on the development mailing list.

Consider blogging or tweeting about it.

If the LEP is really, actually to be done, then make sure that it is linked from the RoadMap.

When doing user testing of this feature, use the LEP as a reference.

Notes

What is a requirement?

• A constraint on a feature
• Makes the "value" of the feature apparent
• You can do an experiment that shows whether or not the requirement is met
• A requirement is always for someone for some benefit
• Is not set in stone
• Does not specify a solution

Supporting Documentation

• LEP Implementation Review Process