SWOT - Spins

Thu Jun 24 10:38:33 UTC 2010

wonderer,

 considering your concern about on how to evaluate it on a later stage, I've
been thinking a bit on it, and I've been also trading some ideas and
concepts with Robyn.
 I believe we will present something soon about this. A bit thinking on
this, I've made this page:

 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/Focus_group_SOP

 Through Focus Groups we can probably get some qualitative research done.
This is somehow easier to produce and evaluate. It is not defined yet on how
we can use it and I need to build at least 2 more documents (a script and a
sample set of questions), which will be most likely done having in mind
aspects that we need for the SWOT.

 From my previous talks with Robyn in the last days, I believe that it is
currently on a state that we can work out together (marketing team and
whoever wants to join efforts on this) and define how we are going to
evaluate the progress on a later stage.

 I believe that Ambassadors can play a major role on this, specially if they
are interested in running focus groups, this could actually have very
positive input and help us providing better marketing materials in the
future. I'm not sure if there is interest, or how we can do it, but
eventually I'll make sure I'll be attending one of the events from Fedora in
Europe and try to help whoever is interested in running Focus Groups by
running one myself as a test. If we have like 10 people on a focus group,
for example Ambassadors, then they can use the same methodology with other
ambassadors so we can spread the method around the best we can.

 There is also another nice alternative, we can actually run Focus Groups by
the internet, but there is a problem, the method is patented since 1999. I
understand the concerns about patents (not only software), and I would
expect heavy opposition, so I wont give it any relevance.

 I'm not sure on how we can evolve on this subject and help each other. I
think you can expect more news in the future around this from Robyn. For the
time being, I'm just trying to place as much information as I can, in a way
that people can continue the work on later stages.

 As you mentioned before, I am not much community oriented, so as long as I
can provide a nice method all can understand and the relevant information to
guide the community to the results and improve their knowledge in those
fields,  I believe that it's the best way I can help. Given the obstacles
that FOSS communities have beaten in the past, this should be cake I hope.

 I'll keep the list informed when something relevant happens as I am doing
now.

 nelson.

2010/6/19 nelson marques <nmo.marques at gmail.com>

>
>
> 2010/6/19 wonderer <wonderer4711 at gmx.de>
>
> hy nelson,
>> > 2) Approach in a more objective and localized scope and treat SPINS
>> > individualy.
>> I would think it would be more the second choice, because spins are more
>> projects from smaller groups within. The mainfocus is and should be
>> allways the fedoraproject itself.
>>
>
> I see it this way, they are sub-projects or projects within Fedora, but as
> in a body you can't just strip the arm off. If they part of such body, I
> believe there are points that should be contemplated, like this for example:
>
>  * They increase notoriety of the main project.
>  * They offer a wider choice to users.
>  * In some cases, they are focused on segmented targets.
>  * They aim for different audiences
>
> But they are still a part of Fedora. It's true they can have their own SWOT
> and their own strategical lines defined by them. That's why I really don't
> how to approach it.
>
>
>
>> But first I would like to ask more about the SWOT going on at the whole
>> project. How far we are there?
>
>
> Well it's on the webpage. It's going at a slower pace due to some issues
> I'm finding. In my first approach, I went too much superficial and I've
> decided that such approach though would be 'correct' would not expose the
> whole process as I wished, so many people could still not understand what
> was behind it. So I changed the design of it, and forced to implement the
> 5M. Which eventually is wrong and is right, as there are other alternatives,
> though this one provides probably the best mechanism to expose the
> methodology for everyone to understand.
>
> Another thing I've done was in strategical points to start on the opposite
> way, by attacking the point as I wanted to bash it down. This had a purpose,
> to prepare myself to defend such such point already thinking on possible
> attacks to it. This delays the whole process, but the concepts are there in
> a way that I can defend them on a 'workable' conclusion.
>
> If we take a normal SWOT approach like I do on academical papers and
> ignore the exposition of the methodoly and just dump the technical
> terminology, that would make it faster to do, this way takes more time, but
> I assume it will be easier for everyone to understand.
>
> I really don't know how much is done, what I can say from what I am doing
> is that the real thing is actually focused on internal environment which are
> the points Fedora can actually work around. The External Environment, maybe
> for some Macro Environment isn't going to have much things, except the
> typical legislation, blockades, special cases and eventually something risen
> in other thread about M$ and Apple.
>
>
>
>> SWOT is an ongoing proces which can and
>> will be edited, formed and updated every time we use it. So I think it
>> will be best to begin with some points of the SWOT so far we have it and
>> look how this will go on.
>
>
> Theoretically, it should be done and analysed, from there, there should be
> a complementary part which is not present on that document, the real
> Analysis and a set of guidelines to follow in order to correct the flaws on
> the strategical side. Based on this, in a time frame you can judge how
> things went and if the problem was solved.
>
> At some point, I aggree with what you say, but we should actually define it
> for a cycle for example. If it happened on the beginning of the cycle, by
> the end of it we could take conclusions and rework it. Keeping it always on
> change, I'm not sure on how we can later evaluate things.
>
> Heirik, honestly, I don't care about the looks or on much people want to
> update rework, etc... it's more important for me for people to understand
> the concept so later editions can be worked faster and by everyone.
>
>
>
>
>> At this point I also have the question on how
>> to measure the results so that we can use them in the next Release
>> cycles...
>>
>
>  I believe I answered this already previously, but there should be a
> complementary part on it with the analysis itself where you relate
> everything, identify your flaws and proprose action on the things you want
> to change. Applying this to a release cycle, on the end you can judge it.
> This part should also contemplate the goals and how you evaluate your
> success. I haven't done this on the current document. While I want to make
> clear the methodology and can point the way with basic stuff so that people
> can work it after and have it as an example, such analysis, I believe it
> should be made by whatever or whomever wants to do it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards
>> Henrik Heigl - wonderer at fedoraproject.org
>>
>> PGP/GnuPG: 8237 D432 0616 D567 DBC6  3FE3 0D52 B374 F468 A5F0
>>
>> --
>> marketing mailing list
>> marketing at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
>
>
>
> --
> nelson marques
> nmo.marques at gmail.com
>

-- 
nelson marques
nmo.marques at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/marketing/attachments/20100624/10bc90e5/attachment.html 