Current GTM product roadmap

Raw source preview

Raw, unprocessed file text shown below. Preview truncated for readability.

export type ProductRoadmapHorizon = "now" | "next" | "later";

export type ProductRoadmapItem = {
  title: string;
  fullWidth?: boolean;
  initiativeType?: string;
  effort?: "Small" | "Medium" | "Large";
  layoutOrder?: number;
  layoutSpan?: "Tall";
  problem: string;
  currentUnderstanding: string;
  target: string;
  status?: string;
  completion?: number;
  closedIn?: string;
  closedNote?: string;
  caution?: string;
  whatWeKnow: string[];
  evidence: {
    source: string;
    note: string;
  }[];
  openQuestions: string[];
};

export type ProductRoadmapColumn = {
  horizon: ProductRoadmapHorizon;
  label: string;
  target: string;
  summary: string;
  items: ProductRoadmapItem[];
};

export const productRoadmap: ProductRoadmapColumn[] = [
  {
    horizon: "now",
    label: "Now",
    target: "July-September 2026",
    summary:
      "Current delivery work across July-September, including end-of-July cleanup and the August-September tranche that keeps the build focus in one place.",
    items: [
      {
        title: "Multi-language translation functionality",
        initiativeType: "New Functionality",
        effort: "Medium",
        target: "End of June 2026",
        status: "Done",
        completion: 100,
        closedIn: "June 2026",
        closedNote: "Closed from the June launch-readiness tranche.",
        problem:
          "Researchers need to run multi-market studies in multiple languages while keeping all responses in one coherent dataset.",
        currentUnderstanding:
          "V1 supports multi-language surveys, Excel translation import/export, staggered market launches, translator access, and reporting filters by language or market. AI translation and automatic retranslation tracking are later.",
        whatWeKnow: [
          "Market and language are distinct, using locale-style codes such as fr-FR and fr-CA.",
          "Each market can launch independently as translations are ready.",
          "Translation QA includes real-time question-level preview and topline/crosstab filtering.",
          "Translator role support is part of the June roles work.",
        ],
        evidence: [
          {
            source: "Quantitative Research Platform / Survey Design",
            note:
              "Existing portfolio spec says translation support should reduce manual spreadsheet coordination and let teams review translations in context without repeated live survey tests.",
          },
          {
            source: "Roles and Permissions",
            note: "The Translator role exists as a defined platform role for translation-only access.",
          },
        ],
        openQuestions: [
          "What exact QA checklist confirms a translated market is ready to launch?",
          "How should outdated translations be handled when English source text changes after June?",
        ],
      },
      {
        title: "Trust Centre",
        initiativeType: "New Functionality",
        effort: "Medium",
        target: "End of June 2026",
        completion: 100,
        closedIn: "July 2026",
        closedNote: "Closed at the end-of-July roadmap cleanup.",
        problem:
          "Teams need to know whether survey data is real, unique, and engaged while fieldwork is still live, before poor-quality responses enter reporting.",
        currentUnderstanding:
          "June scope includes Real and Unique signals plus Engaged checks for open-end gibberish/relevance, adaptive speeding, attention checks, and carousel attention. Respondents are flagged for human review, not automatically removed.",
        whatWeKnow: [
          "Signals roll up into Real, Engaged, and Unique ratings.",
          "Critical respondents are those failing the Real / Engaged / Unique thresholds.",
          "Review decisions happen at respondent level.",
          "Rejecting a respondent removes them as a complete and updates quotas automatically.",
          "There are no daily review prompts in June scope.",
        ],
        evidence: [
          {
            source: "Survey Deployment / Trust Centre",
            note:
              "Portfolio materials frame Trust Centre as the live respondent-quality review layer for survey fieldwork.",
          },
          {
            source: "Trust Centre competitive analysis",
            note:
              "Competitive work positions the differentiator as transparent, human-reviewable data-quality control rather than a black-box quality score.",
          },
        ],
        openQuestions: [
          "What exact UI language should be used for respondent-level accept/reject?",
          "Which review states should be visible in toplines and fieldwork monitoring?",
        ],
      },
      {
        title: "Survey Redirect Question Type",
        initiativeType: "Existing Tool Improvement",
        effort: "Small",
        target: "End of July 2026",
        completion: 95,
        problem:
          "Researchers need to send participants into specialist external tasks without breaking completion, attribution, or respondent flow.",
        currentUnderstanding:
          "V1 is leave-and-return safely: redirect from a fixed survey point, pass configured URL parameters, return to the next question, and capture returned URL variables plus the exact outbound URL used.",
        whatWeKnow: [
          "Participant ID identifies the respondent across the redirect.",
          "Only complete-and-return is in scope for V1.",
          "There is no external completion validation in V1.",
          "The respondent returns to the next question after the redirect question.",
          "Complex data exchange is future scope; V1 is URL variable based.",
        ],
        evidence: [
          {
            source: "Quantitative Research Platform / Survey Design",
            note: "Survey Redirect Question Type already exists as a portfolio item marked near-term.",
          },
          {
            source: "Survey Deployment",
            note: "Existing deployment notes already mention routing and URL-variable capture patterns.",
          },
        ],
        openQuestions: [
          "How should researchers configure outbound and inbound parameters without making the setup feel technical?",
          "What troubleshooting surface shows the exact link delivered to each respondent?",
        ],
      },
      {
        title: "PureSpectrum sample supplier integration",
        initiativeType: "New Functionality",
        effort: "Medium",
        target: "End of July 2026",
        completion: 85,
        problem:
          "Survey launch is slowed by external sample-provider coordination, project-manager handoffs, feasibility checks, and cross-platform setup.",
        currentUnderstanding:
          "The active V1 is a full PureSpectrum integration excluding sample boost and automated bad-sample reconciliation. Project Managers and above will configure sample, check feasibility, approve quotes, launch, soft launch/pause, close, and use respondent exclusions.",
        whatWeKnow: [
          "Quote approval is an explicit human step.",
          "Soft launch is included.",
          "Each PureSpectrum audience has one quota group.",
          "PureSpectrum respondent exclusion IDs prevent duplicate invitations across added audiences.",
          "Trust Centre quota updates happen in-platform, while PureSpectrum reconciliation remains manual for now.",
        ],
        evidence: [
          {
            source: "Survey Deployment / Direct Third Party Sample Integration",
            note:
              "Portfolio materials describe direct third-party sample integration as a way to deploy sample without leaving the survey platform.",
          },
          {
            source: "Ideas Log / survey-platform differentiation",
            note: "Native PureSpectrum integration is named as part of the platform's launch-control story.",
          },
        ],
        openQuestions: [
          "What commercial/payment model should be used: pass-through, customer card, or connected PureSpectrum account?",
          "When should automated bad-sample reconciliation be added?",
        ],
      },
      {
        title: "Email invitation workflow and test sends",
        initiativeType: "Platform Communications",
        effort: "Medium",
        target: "End of July 2026",
        status: "Done",
        completion: 100,
        closedIn: "July 2026",
        closedNote: "Closed as part of the end-of-July roadmap tranche.",
        problem:
          "Project teams need tighter control over audience-level invitations, reminders, email content, and test emails so launch checks do not depend on manual workarounds.",
        currentUnderstanding:
          "The completed slice covers per-audience invitation sending, per-audience email content editing, baseline reminder behaviour, invite-status capture for later reporting, and repeatable test sends to one or more preview recipients.",
        whatWeKnow: [
          "Each audience can have its own invite email.",
          "Each audience invite and reminder can have editable email content.",
          "Survey reminders are limited to people in the audience who have not completed the survey.",
          "Discussion forum reminders are sent to all participants.",
          "Invite status is captured at individual level so it can support later reporting.",
          "Users can send test emails to specified email addresses as many times as needed.",
          "Test recipients can click the link in the email and validate that the intended exercise starts.",
          "Tracking test-email delivery performance is out of scope.",
        ],
        evidence: [
          {
            source: "Email deliverability modernisation planning note",
            note:
              "Stored at portfolio/platform-shared-services/email-deliverability-modernisation.md; tickets 1 and 4 are in final QA in the July slice.",
          },
          {
            source: "User roadmap update",
            note:
              "Desmond confirmed that the email invitation workflow and send-test-email ticket are already in feature.",
          },
        ],
        openQuestions: [
          "What invite-status fields should be exposed when reporting is added later?",
          "Should the future 48-hour suppression rule apply across a tenant, a project, or an individual study only?",
        ],
      },
      {
        title: "Discussion Forum V2 improvements",
        initiativeType: "New Functionality",
        effort: "Large",
        layoutSpan: "Tall",
        target: "End of July 2026",
        completion: 90,
        problem:
          "Discussion forums are dated and make it hard for qualitative researchers to invite the right people, inspect participant-level answers, label segments, and turn raw responses into useful evidence.",
        currentUnderstanding:
          "V2 is mainly a UX and data-viewing upgrade, plus Direct Upload audiences. It adds all-participants views, participant labels, participant-level answer review, AI topic summaries, and PDF summary exports.",
        whatWeKnow: [
          "Direct Upload is available for CSV invite lists and manual participant entry.",
          "Studies can be deployed to as many audiences as needed.",
          "Researchers can configure email templates, but invite resend is later.",
          "Labels are manually applied and intended as reporting variables.",
          "AI topic summaries include headline, top highlights, key themes, and opportunities.",
          "Moderation tools and raw data export are out of scope.",
        ],
        evidence: [
          {
            source: "Qualitative Research Platform",
            note: "The qualitative platform already includes discussion forum planning and analysis surfaces.",
          },
          {
            source: "Ideas Log / Discussion Groups",
            note:
              "Disc