2023-02-15 - Product Committee

Presenter

Time

Notes

5 min

• For live mystery directory document, Wes will create a ticket on Jira and assign this task to Ayush to complete once he can.

  • Jake: this seems like a tall task for one person, might be more feasible for each BB WG and Committee do their own list?

• Use case template updated and completed.

• Rachel - any content that needs to be documented should be on Confluence, however if its content that needs to be versioned. then it needs to be on Gitbook.

  • Wes to reach out to Rachel to coordinate and address next steps.

@Wes Brown

15 min

To support the country engagement activities, we are creating a team to create, review, and approve the EPR and Online Building Plan use cases, before they are handed off to the sandbox team to work on them.

• Proposed individuals to lead in providing feedback on the use cases:

  • Product side: Wes and Saina

  • Tech side: Steve and Ramkumar

  • Country side: Yolanda, Ayush and a person for the Ministry working on the the validation process of the country specific use case (i.e. with the EPR - Rwanda government official working on it)

  • Sandbox side: Nico, Farina, Satya and Mellis

• Nico: sandbox and country owner of the country specific use case should have some kind of communication with each other.

• Yolanda: team allocation for this was outlined during Geneva meeting. It is important to ensure government teams implementing the relevant country specific use case, are involved in this process. This can help them understand the product and technical specification associated to their country specific use.

  • Wes: important to engage representative of the country use case, however these use cases are supposed to still be generic - not country specific.

  • Jake: output of the GIZ sandbox project - goal is to create reference implementation and release as much of the DevOps and testing environment information - it is not supposed to be country specific - but reflects some of the requirements - set of artifacts that anyone can use and substitute in their own product.

  • Taylor: sandbox to support in reference implementation on some standard infrastructure - with these tools, anyone can create their own reference implementation on their own servers.

    • If Ministries can understand this then we are in a good spot.

• Sarah: are we relying on internal expertise to finalize the use case content for business level functionality?

  • Recommends that there should be some sort of 360 validation with subject matter experts or ground truth thing that should be a part of the research process itself and some of that of course can come from the countries, but some of it needs to come from those that have already done it before.

• Ramkumar: from a process standpoint - we should agree on a new Jira project tracking for each use case. What is the input and output for the accelerated work/tangible deliverables.

  • Wes and Steve: not implemented as independent projects, but one project and super epic to track specific use cases.

  • Wes: input - the source documents will depend on where the sources are coming from. Documentations from country user journeys (miroboards, wireframes, etc). Output - approved use cases and any requirements updates to satisfy each use case.

    • When the use case documents are published, it should include the example implementation steps.

• Ramkumar: we should have example implementation guideline on how this should be done in the use case.

@Steve Conrad @Wes Brown @PSRAMKUMAR

15 min

https://govstack-global.atlassian.net/browse/TECH-206

5 min

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

Saina to consult subject matter experts on the use cases to get their feedback and input. Outreach to EPR experts is already in the works.

• Ramkumar: clarification needed on the example implementations section for this use case.

  • Wes: the expectation is that all the example implementations will be filled out, at least one for each step.

• Yolanda: for EPR user journey, waiting for Rwandese government to provide feedback on whether they want to work with a DPG to implement the EPR. Next step for the Country Engagement team is to support Rwanda in deciding how to architect this service. Once this is done, they will provide feedback on the EPR generic use case.

• Wes: flagged that we shouldn’t be designing use cases or the building blocks according to specific products. We should be designing them according to functionality that is needed and the required digital services.

• Wes: two step process on address technical requirements for the use cases: 1st - the building block teams, or at least the lead evaluates each individual step and share feedback on whether any critical needs are being omitted. 2nd is building out an example implementation of the use case step.

  • The sandbox team is already making progress on the use cases shared with them.

• Saina: clarification needed on where user journey documents are documented and whether links to country specific user journey documents can be added to the relevant use case as source documents. Do we need permission from government officials i.e. with the EPR use case, do we need permission from relevant Rwandese government entity?

  • Yolanda: these are all available and kept up to date on confluence. The user journeys are documented in the following format via powerpoint, wireframes and miroboard. These documents can be used to outline the generic use cases.