| <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> |
| |
| <html> |
| |
| <head> |
| <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"> |
| <meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive"> |
| <title>Unbenannte Seite</title> |
| </head> |
| |
| <body bgcolor="#ffffff"> |
| <h2>Guidelines for Accomplishing a Competitive Analysis on Feature Level</h2> |
| <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="black"> |
| <tr> |
| <td bgcolor="white"> |
| <p><b>Owner:<br> |
| </b>Christian Jansen</p> |
| </td> |
| <td colspan="2" bgcolor="white"> |
| <p><b>Last Change:<br> |
| </b><csobj format="LongDate" h="20" locale="00000409" region="0" t="DateTime" w="186">Wednesday, January 04, 2006</csobj></p> |
| </td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td colspan="3" bgcolor="white"><b>Goal of this document:<br> |
| </b>This guideline set assists intergration-Teams (i-Teams) to accomplish a competitive analysis (CA).</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td colspan="3" bgcolor="white"> |
| <p><b>Intended readership:<br> |
| </b>i-Teams, Project Leads, Specification authors / readers (Marketing, Development , Quality Assurance, User Experience, Documentation)</p> |
| </td> |
| </tr> |
| </table> |
| <p></p> |
| <ul> |
| <li><b>Who decides to make a CA ?<br> |
| </b>The i-Team decides if it is necessary to make a CA on feature level.<br> |
| The CA needs to be completed before the feature specification work starts<br> |
| <br> |
| As a rule of thumb - making a CA makes sense, |
| <ul> |
| <li>if the to be specified feature has to follow work flows users expect from other applications, or |
| <li>if the to be specified features targets a competitors' features in a special area. |
| </ul> |
| </ul> |
| <ul> |
| |
| </ul> |
| <ul> |
| <li><b>What are the benefits of making a CA?</b> |
| <ul> |
| <li>All i-Team members are getting the same level of feature knowledge.<li>The whole i-Team gets an overview of what currently "State-of-the-Art" is.</ul> |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| </ul> |
| <ul> |
| <li><b>Which products should be compared?</b> |
| <ul> |
| <li>This depends on the feature area. - For example, if you need to specify an IDE related feature compare Visual Studio, Netbeans and Eclipse. |
| <li>In case of improving an existing feature it also makes sense to compare the older version of OpenOffice.org to the feature which has to be specified. |
| </ul> |
| |
| </ul> |
| <ul> |
| <li><b>How many products should be compared?</b> |
| <ul> |
| <li>The minimum is one, but in general it makes sense to compare 2-3 products. |
| </ul> |
| |
| </ul> |
| <p></p> |
| <hr> |
| <p> |
| |
| </p> |
| <ul> |
| <li><b>What to address in your CA?</b> |
| <ul> |
| <li>List the strengths and weaknesses of the feature <b>from the customers viewpoint.</b> |
| <li>List precisely the product name, the product version and the products language. |
| <li>Compare the workflow of competitors' feature with yours. |
| <li>Understand the way how the feature works in the competitors' product. |
| <ul> |
| <li>The product help of the competing product is in general good source for this |
| |
| </ul> |
| |
| <li>Compare the terminology used in the competing product with the OpenOffice.org terminology. |
| <li>Measure the performance of the competitors' feature. |
| <li>A CA is "living" document. Your CA should be updated, if a feature changes in the competitors' product. |
| <li> |
| <ul> |
| <li> |
| </ul> |
| <li>The CA level of detail depends heavily on the feature requirement(s). |
| <li>Do not include just a collection of screen shots! |
| </ul> |
| |
| </ul> |
| </body> |
| |
| </html> |
