This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 10, 2020. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
Problem statement
Alex Pandel edited this page Apr 23, 2018
·
14 revisions
For more on the problem statement update, see our January 2016 research summary.
The USEITI website was intended to meet these goals:
- increase transparency and dialogue about the U.S. natural resource revenues system
- increase trust and dialogue between natural resource sectors (industry, civil society and government)
- meet the requirements of the international EITI standard in a modern (read: online) way
We have observed that the USEITI website isn’t:
- engaging audiences, and therefore is not inspiring dialogue
- explaining and providing information about the EITI reconciliation requirement in a way that is both understandable to a non-specialist audience and meets the EITI standard
which is causing these adverse effects:
- our project is at risk of being irrelevant (not reaching target audiences)
- our project is at risk of either not being approved, or not reaching target audiences because in order to meet international EITI requirements we made content too complex
measurable criteria for success:
- website views increase
- our site becomes a generally-accepted source of information on this sector
- congressional staffers call us or use our site’s information on this sector
- both civil society and industry use our site
- the USEITI Report is approved by international EITI
- non-specialists can get what they need from our site and not be turned away by complex content about the EITI process (ie, reconciliation)
The USEITI website was intended to meet these goals:
- increase transparency and dialogue about the U.S. natural resource revenues system
- increase trust and dialogue between natural resource sectors (industry, civil society and government)
- meet the requirements of the international EITI standard in a modern (read: online) way
We have observed that the USEITI website isn’t:
- meeting the contextual requirements of the international EITI standard
- explaining the relationship of EITI/USEITI, stakeholders, extractive revenues (leading to a ‘...this is cool, but what is it?’)
- engaging audiences, and therefore is not inspiring dialogue
which is causing these adverse effects:
- our project is at risk of being irrelevant (not reaching target audiences)
- USEITI may revert to a paper EITI Report if EITI requirements cannot be met online
measurable criteria for success:
- USEITI 2015 Report is delivered as a wholly online experience with only a short executive summary PDF
- website views increase
- our site becomes a generally-accepted source of information on this sector
- congressional staffers call us or use our site’s information on this sector
- both civil society and industry use our site
- Problem statement
- Product vision
- User scenarios
- What we're not trying to do
- Product risks
- Prioritization scale
- Joining the team
- Onboarding checklist
- Working as a distributed team
- Planning and organizing our work
- Sample retro doc
- Content style guide
- Content editing and publishing workflow
- Publishing a blog post
- Content audits: a (sort-of) guide
- User centered design process
- Research norms and processes
- Usability testing process
- Observing user research
- Design and research in the federal government
- Shaping process
- Preview URLs
- How to prepare and review PRs
- Continuous integration tools
- Releasing changes
- Github Labels