534
edits
Changes
Add my summary
[[:File:Sugarlabs-strategy-overview.webm]]
[[:File:Sugarlabs-strategy-overview.webm]]
=== Summary ===
[[User:Davelab6]] provided the following summary:
In the period 0m-7m, you say that that there should be 2 units of analysis, for Sugar Labs and for Sugar, and therefore 2 separate sets of Vision/Mission/Goals/etc, but these should be aligned. Is this correct?
Then 8m-18m, you describe a 7 phase model of a firm:
1. Inbound logistics (capital goods, labour)
2. Operations (production, combination of capital goods and labour to produce commodities; Sugar Labs )
3. Outbound Logistics (distribution, shipping, go to market; eg each sugar release being minted, and then a distro packaging it, or OLPC taking a sugar release and combining it with some distro)
4. Marketing and Sales (managing perceptions, which for a software freedom project is often not sales as in exchange of commodities for money, but instead the success of propaganda at converting neutral people to advocates who agree with the ideology)
5. Service (Consulting, eg the process of working with schools to realise the value created in earlier stages which may be obvious to us but not to them.)
You then group phases 1-3 as 'supply side' and 4-5 as 'demand side,' and note that traditionally OLPC has taken care of the demand side while Sugar Labs has taken care of the supply side; and note that such partitioning of supply/demand often creates conflict in free software projects which have more appreciation for the left side than for the right side; and note that the demand side needs attention as it increases the value of the software created.
This all seems sage to me :) Did I miss any essential point?
Then 18m-31m you describe a 5 phase model of strategy:
1. Vision (long term) 'dream statement' of where we dream to be in a few years - the world we hope to arrive into, the big picture we are moving towards.
2. Mission (long term) what are we, what do we do, why do we do it - this should hold good for the same amount of time as the Vision; what exists today, that powers us to move towards the Vision
3. Goals (mid term) expected outcomes that are not measurable, eg "Increase adoption of Sugar by non-English-native-speaking children". These typically arise from a SWOT analysis.
4. Objectives (mid term) specific targets that are measurable, eg "Increase 8 translation locales from 80% coverage to 100% coverage before 2017/1/1"
5. Tasks (short term) actual activities that are assigned to people to get done, eg "Chris Leonard to organize volunteers to meet the translation objective."
You noted that typically the common focus of activity of free software projects is at the 4-5 level, with bon mots like "release early, release often," while 1-2-3 change slowly and typically get much less attention from free software project contributors, and the Sugar project isn't alone in this.
Again, I concur. Something I found missing from your presentation was a guide to how long (ie, in word count) these statements should be. What do you think?
You also noted that while there is no general recommendation for what duration to consider long, mid or short term - as this is relative to each given project - and the core idea is that the earlier phases change less often than the latter ones - you give some recommended durations for the lifespan of these statements for the Sugar Project.
I therefore propose the following concrete dates for these durations, that are within your recommended durations:
1. Vision (now - 2020/1/1)
2. Mission (now - 2020/1/1)
3. Goals (now - 2018/1/1)
4. Objectives (now - 2018/1/1)
5. Tasks (now - 2017/1/1)
You also note that this phase strategy is a framework for situating the SWOT analysis that Sean called for, that is, it is a method for defining Objectives. You point to the 2x2 matrix graphic on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis and note that Strengths/Weaknesses are internal to the project - aspects that we control - while Opportunities/Threats are external, beyond our control; and these can be combined to generate 4 categories of objectives:
1. S + O = things to pursue
2. W + O = things to convert
3. S + T = things to reduce
4. W + T = things to defend
However, since this is phase 4 of 5, and we haven't finished defining the earlier stages, I propose to postpone a SWOT analysis until those stages are wrapped up.
Finally 31m-33m you conclude that the approach to drafting a vision statement with wide consensus is not productive when done via email or an IRC board meeting, and you want SLOB and the community to understand there is a specific process you have in mind for developing these productively, and to be patient as this process can take time to wrap up; and you offer to do some other screencasts to present further details of that specific process.
This is awesome! I'm looking forward to the next screencast so we can learn how to participate in defining the vision productively :)