Home  >  Vision Chart

Session 03: Assessing Objectives

Published date

Session 02: Building Objectives
Session 04: Assessing Requirements

Hello and welcome to this session of the Vision Chart project where I am creating a chart of Cryptiquest’s progress toward the ideal state. In the last session, I went through an extensive and thorough task of translating the definition of the ideal state into measurable objectives. This session will focus on assessing those objectives and provided there isn’t a lot of prep work, will determine the tools and other requirements necessary to measure these objectives.

To start, I’ll pull in all 35+ objectives:

SUITE OF TOOLS

  1. User expectation regarding the suite of tools working seamlessly together is met at least __% of the time.
  2. User expectation regarding process guidance (from concept-to-launch) for each tool is met at least __% of the time.
  3. User expectation regarding sharing and collaboration content for each tool is met at least __% of the time.
  4. Tools are translated to support at least __% of users, globally. (access)
  5. User expectation regarding ease of use for each tool is met at least __% of the time.
  6. Solutions are discovered to provide tool access to at least __% of communities, globally.
  7. Solutions are discovered to provide tool access to at least __% of regions, globally.
  8. Solutions are discovered to provide tool access to at least __% of disenfranchised groups, globally.
  9. User expectation regarding game engine format is met at least __% of the time.
  10. User expectation regarding game engine integration is met at least __% of the time.

MEDIA

  1. Media follows Cryptiquest project management standards. (Process)
  2. Media is generated using Cryptiquest tools (as they are available). (Process)
  3. Media drafts are saved as versions. (Process)
  4. Media reviews report __% positive on inclusivity.
  5. Media reviews report __% positive on uniqueness.
  6. Media reviews report __% positive on consistency.
  7. Media reviews report __% positive on entertainment.
  8. Media reviews report __% positive on quality.
  9. Media reviews report __% positive on concision.

BRANDING

  1. More than four brands are profitable.
  2. Brands are popular among at least __% of creators, globally.
  3. The brands span at least three different media types.

REPUTATION

  1. Third party reviews of the company are positive __% of the time.
  2. __% of users report that Cryptiquest is an honest company.
  3. __% of users report that Cryptiquest treats its employees well.
  4. __% of employees report that Cryptiquest treats them well.
  5. __% of users report having a meaningful relationship with Cryptiquest, its brands, or its products.

PRESENCE

  1. Cryptiquest is returned on the first page of results __% of the time when users search for targeted keywords.
  2. Cryptiquest is present at __% of industry events, annually.
  3. __% of users report seeing us at industry events.

EXPERTISE

  1. __% of users consider employees of Cryptiquest to be industry experts.
  2. __% of users consider partners of Cryptiquest to be industry experts.
  3. __% of employees consider employees of Cryptiquest to be industry experts.
  4. __% of employees consider partners of Cryptiquest to be industry experts.
  5. __% of users consider employees of Cryptiquest to be thought leaders.
  6. __% of users consider partners of Cryptiquest to be thought leaders.
  7. __% of employees consider employees of Cryptiquest to be thought leaders.
  8. __% of employees consider partners of Cryptiquest to be thought leaders.

The objectives were renumbered and the context was refined and bolded, with the assumption that the same tool might measure objectives of similar context. Next I’ll address those groups of objectives:

Suite of Tools

Quality Control

  1. User expectation regarding the suite of tools working seamlessly together is met at least __% of the time.
  2. User expectation regarding process guidance (from concept-to-launch) for each tool is met at least __% of the time.
  3. User expectation regarding sharing and collaboration content for each tool is met at least __% of the time.
  4. User expectation regarding ease of use for each tool is met at least __% of the time.
  5. User expectation regarding game engine format is met at least __% of the time.
  6. User expectation regarding game engine integration is met at least __% of the time.

Ideally, each release would track users and send them a survey after they’ve used the new release. Methods for tracking users must not impede access so collecting user feedback will have to be more passive and abstract.

I have to address something: collaboration. I am not sure how people are supposed to collaborate. Assuming person A wants to create a character, what would person B bring to the collaboration? Equipment? That could be done without extra collaboration functionality. Oh. Once the game engine is in place, I could see people collaborating on world building.

The survey will focus on the following metrics with items in brackets relative to the tool in question. I will still need to identify what percentage of positive responses are considered successful.

  1. [This tool] works seamlessly with other Cryptiquest tools.
  2. I used [this tool] to help conceptualize an idea.
    • [This tool] helped guide me through the conceptualization process.
  3. I used [this tool] to help design a(n) [element].
    • [This tool] helped guide me through the design process.
  4. I used [this tool] to help produce a(n) [element].
    • [This tool] helped guide me through the production process.
  5. I used [this tool] to publish my [element].
    • [This tool] helped guide me through the publication process.
  6. I used [this tool] to share my [element] with the others.
    • The sharing process met or exceeded my expectation.
  7. I used [this tool] to collaborate with a project and my expectations were met or exceeded.
  8. I was able to use [this tool] without difficulty.
  9. I used [this tool] in [tool format] and my expectations for the [format] were met or exceeded.
  10. I experienced my [element] in the [game engine] and my expectations were met or exceeded.
Requirements:
  • Items 1 – 10: At least one Cryptiquest tool; Feedback collection method; Survey
  • Item 1: Multiple Cryptiquest tools
  • Item 2: Conceptualization functionality
  • Item 3: Design functionality
  • Item 4: Production functionality
  • Item 5: Publication functionality
  • Item 6: Sharing functionality
  • Item 7: Collaboration functionality
  • Item 10: Game engine

Okay. That’s what it’s all about right there. These requirements are starting to paint a picture of future projects that are necessary for the vision to come to fruition. Moving on…

User Access

  1. Tools are translated to support at least __% of users, globally. (access)
  2. Solutions are discovered to provide tool access to at least __% of communities, globally.
  3. Solutions are discovered to provide tool access to at least __% of regions, globally.
  4. Solutions are discovered to provide tool access to at least __% of disenfranchised groups, globally.

The ideal structure for this is that there would be a global map that shows where people live and the regions are color coded depending on what access locks have been unlocked.

Requirements:
  • Items 1 – 4: At least one Cryptiquest tool; Data Map: population, info access demographics (internet, mobile, etc.)
  • Item 1: Map data about languages spoken.
  • Item 2: Map data about access to information.
  • Item 3: Map data about cultural/legal restrictions.
  • Item 4: Map data about disenfranchised groups.

This will be very difficult to achieve, I think. But it is not impossible.

Media

Process

  1. Media follows Cryptiquest project management standards. (Process)
  2. Media is generated using Cryptiquest tools (as they are available). (Process)
  3. Media drafts are saved as versions. (Process)

This seems straight forward enough. Protocols need to be put in place to ensure these objectives are met. Though, on second thought, I don’t know why items 1 and 3 aren’t also applied to tools, especially since tool revisions are part of the mission statement. I am concerned that there is no mention of IP protections. These objectives should be removed from this section and placed into a new one about Process:

Process

  1. Tools and media production follow project management standards.
  2. Tools and media production use Cryptiquest tools (as they are available).
  3. Tools and media follow draft and version protocols.
  4. Tools and media follow branding and legal guidelines.

Requirements:

  • Items 1 – 3: Project management guide; Project success checklist
  • Item 2: At least one Cryptiquest tool.
  • Item 3: Draft and versioning protocols
  • Item 4: Branding guidelines; Legal guidelines

Okay, back to media:

Media

  1. Media reviews report __% positive on inclusivity.
  2. Media reviews report __% positive on uniqueness.
  3. Media reviews report __% positive on consistency.
  4. Media reviews report __% positive on entertainment.
  5. Media reviews report __% positive on quality.
  6. Media reviews report __% positive on concision.

So, the ideal situation here would be that there would be several review processes in this order:

  1. Inner-circle review
  2. SME review
  3. Confidant review
  4. Fan club review
  5. Release
  6. Public review

Hopefully, by the end of this cycle, the public reviews meet the positive threshold. Here is a survey to measure the objectives:

  1. I felt as though someone like me could exist in the setting.
  2. I could relate to at least one character in some way.
  3. This [media] seemed unique, fresh, and/or new.
  4. I felt the setting and plot were consistent with each other throughout.
  5. I found this entertaining and would recommend it to at least one other person.
  6. I feel that this version of the [media] was polished enough and requires no further edits.
  7. I was never lost or confused during the [media].

Requirements:

  • Items 1 – 7: Review process (as prescribed); survey
  • Item 1: Guide to writing inclusive

Branding

  1. More than four brands are profitable.
  2. Brands are popular among at least __% of creators, globally.
  3. The brands span at least three different media types.

These objectives are not about the production of something but the assessment of ongoing entities. These will require a different perspective. I suppose the idea here is that there would be some sort of scheduled monitoring system for profits and a map of popularity (both by brand). The other two measurements (number of brands and media is pretty easy to manually calculate.

Requirements:

  • Item 1: More than four brands
  • Item 1: System for calculating brand profitability
  • Item 2: Map data about brand popularity
  • Item 3: Products of more than three types of media

Reputation

User Perception

  1. __% of users report that Cryptiquest is an honest company.
  2. __% of users report that Cryptiquest treats its employees well.
  3. __% of users report having a meaningful relationship with Cryptiquest, its brands, or its products.
  4. __% of users consider employees of Cryptiquest to be industry experts.
  5. __% of users consider partners of Cryptiquest to be industry experts.
  6. __% of users consider employees of Cryptiquest to be thought leaders.
  7. __% of users consider partners of Cryptiquest to be thought leaders.

This seems survey-based but I have no idea who would receive this survey, in what fashion they would receive it, or how often. Like branding, this survey would not be based on the production of something but the assessment of ongoing activity.

I suppose this will have to be tackled through reaching out to registered users and fans via social media though I think there is merit in reaching out to people manually (perhaps classrooms or community centers or what not).

Note: I got rid of the “thought leader” objectives for two reasons: (1.) Expertise can cover thought leaders and (2.) not everyone knows what a thought leader is and questions designed to get this information sounded very similar to asking about expertise.

The survey would look something like this:

  1. I have a meaningful relationship with Cryptiquest, its brands, or its products?
  2. How honest do you think Cryptiquest is?
  3. How well does Cryptiquest treat its employees?
  4. Where would you rank Cryptiquest’s employees in expertise?
  5. Where would you rank Cryptiquest’s partners in expertise?

Multiple choice answers should look something like this:

  1. One of the [worst]
  2. [Worse] than other companies
  3. Haven’t given much thought to it / [About the same as] every other company
  4. [Better] than other companies
  5. One of the [best]

Requirements

  • Questions 1 – 5: System for feedback collection; Registered users; Users
  • Question 1: At least 2 products
  • Question 3 – 4: At least 2 employees
  • Question 5: At least 2 partners

Employee Perception

  1. __% of employees report that Cryptiquest treats them well.
  2. __% of employees consider employees of Cryptiquest to be industry experts.
  3. __% of employees consider partners of Cryptiquest to be industry experts.
  4. __% of employees consider employees of Cryptiquest to be thought leaders.
  5. __% of employees consider partners of Cryptiquest to be thought leaders.

The survey and requirements would be the exact same as for users. There’s nothing new to add here.

External Perception

  1. Third party reviews of the company are positive __% of the time.

In the last session, it was determined that the third party reviews should be limited to reputable sources. These will need to be identified? Oh. No – there should be an objective guide to determine whether a reviewer is reputable or not. Then as reviews pop up, the reviewers can be assessed.

Requirements

  • Guide for determining reviewer reputability
  • Reviews

Presence

Online

  1. Cryptiquest is returned on the first page of results __% of the time when users search for targeted keywords.

I will need to determine a system for figuring out how and when to check this, identify SEO rules, and build a list of targeted keywords.

Requirements

  • System for checking online presence
  • Guide for SEO
  • List of targeted keywords
  • Users

Events

  1. Cryptiquest is present at __% of industry events, annually.
  2. __% of users who go to industry events report seeing us at industry events.

This will require a list of industry events and, ideally, a way to reach out to users who attended the event but did not see us. How is that possible? Perhaps if there was an available register of attendees that could be cross-referenced with an internal register of users? I’ll need a system for collecting feedback.

Requirements

  • Objective 1 -2: List of industry events
  • Objective 2: System for collecting feedback from our users who attended event; Registered Users; Users

Wrap Up

The requirements for the objectives are starting to build milestones. The next step will be to identify capability thresholds based on these requirements. That will be attempted in the next session – see you there!

P.S. Based on the work done in this session, progress for Cryptiquest in the Vision Chart may be reduced to these six major segments:

  1. Tools
  2. Media
  3. Process
  4. Branding
  5. Reputation
  6. Presence

Action Items

  • None
Session 02: Building Objectives
Session 04: Assessing Requirements

Categories:Vision Chart

Tags: