Link to recording: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OW475r9jgOE53pZnFP3os9qSJIOUNl4E/view
Kyle:
We’ve created this weekly product update rhythm (Mondays, 1pm EDT) with the goal of educating the broader PathCheck company of what the tech group is doing.
We are continuing to build squads around specific features over the next few days. Spectra is going to be finalizing that effort this week.
Jennifer will be running the community member squad, understanding that we are reprioritizing university concerns as the focus of this next phase and will need to adjust release time frames for 2-3 weeks out on the community member piece.
Spectra:
We need a better connection between the product team and new customer questions and requirements. Maybe an Airtable or a phone call between Implementation and Product after a new customer is onboarded? Will discuss further with Jeff Kushmerek.
Jeff Kushmerek:
There is a need for documentation for new customers to help them understand what they will need to do to be successful with our products. A discussion with Sam Zimmerman was started to address this, with the understanding that some sales type functionality is needed even if the cost of the products is $0.
Welcome to Michael Kielstra who is leading the student implementation effort
Kyle:
Product Roadmapping
Go-to-Market Insights
No value for downloading the mobile app outside of a pilot HA jurisdiction
Digital contact tracing is being “invented” (no best practices to follow)
No structural incentives to drive app adoption
No single location tracking / contact sensing protocol is good enough for all use cases
Significant fragmentation developing in the marketplace with tremendous pressure to further fragment
Go-to-Market Goals
how to make our solution valuable in the real world
establish clear market leadership
how to scale our solution globally
Most epics should have Product Requirements Documents (PRDs) with them, and should be created in Jira. Jennifer and Omar are going to continue organizing the Mercury Jira board.
Ali: we also have a cold-start challenge within HAs. How should we prioritize that? Kyle: I think there is a lot of overlap with the community cold-start challenge, and where there is not, we have a much more direct feedback loop with them.
We need to divide up the tasks for Mercury, how best can we do that?
Christian: we need people to ask for pieces that they are really interested in, but also work on finding gaps and assigning / recruiting people to cover the list.
Jennifer: the Rocket way would be to take a design first approach, going off of rapid prototypes. In Mercury, we have fewer epics than MVP#1, so where possible, we should have fewer PMs working on each theme.
Emma: we can also expand the user research to better define our design prototypes. *
We need to follow a two prong approach: 1) people who are available, come up with what they would like to work on (top 3), better own one thing thoroughly and 2) we need to watch the whole thing and keep an eye for where we can recruit / assign.
Welcome to Jeff Kushmerek who will be focusing on program management
Welcome to Brad Peters, a PM / UX intern on the project
Recent discussions about “Mercury Priorities” (Ranna)
MVP1 what would make external stakeholders more comfortable using the product
“Mercury” will focus on getting more HAs involved, cold start problem (“Why should I use this if no one else is using it?”), buy-in w/ community members (esp. those who are HA free) by building personal value in the app (things it can do for you as a singular user) [link to confluence prod doc]
RICE style prioritization
Reach - how many people do you want as users “99999”
Impact - rated 1-low to 3-high through discussion with the project personnel and research
Confidence - how confident in the Reach and Impact factors
Effort - What can / should be put into the effort
Link to Mercury feature evaluation table: https://pathcheck.atlassian.net/wiki/x/-4C7BQ
Desire to engage in more user research to determine what features would encourage participation. Perhaps Gretchen might take the lead on this? The design leads will be meeting with her again today to discuss.
Link to PATHS Exploration Apr / May Figma: https://meet.google.com/linkredirect?authuser=1&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.figma.com%2Ffile%2F79OwaKqHvSeriExpYzAvVN%2FPATHS-Exploration-April-and-May-2020%3Fnode-id%3D4041%3A205
Link to UX Research (high level) slide deck: https://meet.google.com/linkredirect?authuser=1&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fpresentation%2Fd%2F1f-mnvhisOtyJ5jgxYKZ0mCzLqZcqHvw9V3utGGQdbCc%2Fedit
Recommendations need to be cited from other sources. PathCheck is not a health authority
John Kane - organizing research efforts, probably fit better in a Gemini time frame - this is added to the prod doc linked above “Applied Research - short term” and “Extensive Research - Apollo time frame”
FYI - order of NASA human spaceflight program
Project Mercury: 1959 - 1963
Project Gemini: 1965 - 1966
Project Apollo: (1961 - 1975) first launched: 1969
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflight_programs
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c8ZRnrjq0Y7ws3JLzxOVGe8NKgg-TqQGAdt-RxM9S14/edit#