2023-02-01 - Product Committee

Presenter

Time

Notes

@Wes Brown

5 min

• Jaume: Still working on the translation, will have content to share in March. Will be traveling to Mauritius and Madagascar and will be presenting materials in French on what GovStack is.

• Ayush: still working on the master directory with Yolanda and Ramkumar. Will work more on it, following the Djibouti mission.

@PSRAMKUMAR

10 min

• All are asked to review the terminology in gitbook and provide input - GSCIJ-30 Added new terms and definitions to Terminology section of Playbook.

• Ramkumar: presented a document with proposed definition - will circulate to get more feedback.

• Margus: On the section with the Rubik’s cube diagram, does it align with all the other documents and approaches which we have in the government enterprise reference architecture and so forth to ensure consistency?

  • Are the definitions taking into factor the differences within governments and the terminologies they use - the existing laws and regulations when it comes to building services that are program oriented or focused on developing core functions?

  • Calling services the same as programs could be an issue.

• Ramkumar: If you break down common program services, you will find common capabilities in building blocks that can be reused and therefore our building block based approach is valid.

  • We can say program/initiatives when describing the services that fall under them.

  •  

• Jaume: Important to separate the top priorities

• Wes:

@Sainabou Jallow

15 min

Draft EPR Use Case: https://app.gitbook.com/o/pxmRWOPoaU8fUAbbcrus/s/YLLEfCKTnmzAMDSDzJJH/product-use-case/env-1-extended-producer-responsibility-epr

Sourced from GIZ/ITU EPR Rwanda Use Case (GIZ SharePoint)

EPR Comments

• Sarah: what are the generalized boundaries. Some definitions with a use case, who is it targeted at and what are the producers.

  • Who are the intended audiences, who do we believe are going to read it and what are the high-level piece we expect.

  • More framing on what part of the use case is for which business users. Adding more color to the description might be more useful.

  • Add a section explaining how it applies to the business users. More additional framing speaking about who the different actors are.

    • Have a section on the target users.

  • As these use cases get written, it would be helpful to keep a log of what steps/BBs/workflows are shared between different use cases. Identifying the commonalities will mean that we get optimize in the future. (Perhaps a tech committee task)

    • I am not familiar with EPR, but would a complaints redressal process need to be called out as a step (distinct from M&E).

• Yolanda: have a round of iteration of the EPR use case - need to include other building blocks: UX UI, digital signature etc,.

• Wes: all can make comments on gitbook via comment or send an email for input and comments. Country user journey being turned into a use case. Then next week hand it to technical team for comments and input.

• Taylor: main audience - technical committee to be able to read these and provide scope for the work that they are doing, and business users/end users - saying if this will be of value.

• Meelis: need information/ guidelines on the feedback that is needed. It would be easier to orient to set the goals. Have a system/ structure, clear goals and expectations beyond goals.

  • More challenging to give information, if you are not knowledgeable about the topic area.

• Nico: Write on confluence - target group, value proposition, to be more clear on what to include and not include. If it is business group.

  • Have we agreed on the review process and pipeline.

• Wes: primary audience will the Technical Committee and secondary will be the end users who will implement things.

@Moritz Fromageot

20 min

There was a lengthy discussion in the GC Meeting. Need to agree on way forward (Timeline, Outputs, Resources)

• Moritz: he is leaving GIZ - Nico will now be the lead.

• Nico: version 1 of specifications need. For now focus is on having an interim solution to apply this concept. Tests currently not being automated.

  • Hard to state when this concept will be enacted.

• Wes: agrees with the idea of working with what we already have. Concern is that some building blocks are not ready. We should be creating APIs to support functionalities required for the use cases.

  • Next steps should be to decide what to prioritize, where to document things.

• Ramkumar: since APIs have been prioritized, we have to jointly take a call - shortlist of APIs for UST use case.

  • If we go use case by use case we can’t say that we will have an API for every building blocks.

• Taylor: what the Technical Committee is doing is reading use case documents and checking

@Steve Conrad / @PSRAMKUMAR

15 min

@Wes Brown

5 min

Using the term “product” for this committee has been confusing for a long time. Let’s figure out a better (or at least less overloaded) term and use it instead

@Wes Brown / @Martinez, Yolanda (Deactivated)

15 min

10 min

Wes - Is there confusion around this and, if so, what needs to be clarified?

@Wes Brown

@Wes Brown

5 min

Based on feedback from the various partners, we are going to target the end of March, 2023 for our GovStack 1.0 release.