You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 6 Next »

How To Prioritize A New Product Request

impact

  • how many customers will use it?
  • how often will customers use it?
  • what is the approximate cost to license?
    • what is the funding source?
  • are there viable distribution mechanisms?
  • what is the support expectation? 
    • are we resources correctly for the SLA?

requestor

  • who is making the request?
  • is the product in keeping with MITs mission?

risk

  • are there other alternatives currently offered?
  • are there other alternatives on the market that deserve investigation?
  • is the product in keeping with IS&Ts business model?
    • will it help move MIT forward in terms of value to the community?

 

Low Priority

Moderate Priority

High Priority

Requester

  • an individual staff or student
  • a small group of users (<50)
  • faculty
  • a group of 50+ students or staff
  • VIP staff and faculty
  • large student organization or class
  • entire departments, labs or centers

Impact to the MIT Community

  • users do not intend to use the product that often (<once per week)
  • users only intend to use for a brief period of time (project based)
  • does not fit within MITs mission of advancing knowledge, education and research
  • purpose is specifically for one class
  • very specific purpose, not a flexible tool that can meet a variety of needs
  • fits MITs mission of advancing knowledge, education and research
  • potential for expanded user base over time
  • will be used on a daily or ongoing basis for coursework or research
  • clearly adds value to the MIT user experience

Risk To IS&T

  • no budget exists for licensing (no clear funding source)
  • alternative service offering already exists
  • lack of distribution mechanisms
  • lack of resources to support the required service level agreement
  • some funding exists
  • other alternatives may suit the need better in terms of cost and value to the users
  • support burden is not high
  • distribution mechanisms in place
  • funding can be identified
  • clearly fits within the current Distributed Software business model
  • brings maximum value to the community and good will for IS&T
  • No labels