From watching the launch event and it's Q&A I get the impression that GS actually believe that they have provided the ACs users with the by them intensively requested roadmap. This is ostensibly not true.
Due to weak releases and a lack of engagement from GS the situation has become such that any aware user now have to ask if and for how long it will be able to remain effective and competitive using AC or if it need to move on to other solutions. This warrants a honest answer. So right now its the nitty-gritty aspect of the road forward that users are interested in. It is a question of if the road will support our next step - not how it might take us to a shining city on a hill.
There really shouldn't be a need for GS to reinvent something that seem to come natural to most contemporary application developers. It is therefore quite ironic (and sadly perhaps telling) that we have waited close to a year on a promise of a new wish list functionality which I think, if earnestly and properly implemented, would have done much to alleviate some of the current frustration.
So what should a credible roadmap look like under these circumstances? I think that GS in order to achieve credibility need to implement a process that facilitates and seeks accountability. Talking in vague and abstract terms about the future is avoiding accountability. Letting legitimate wishes and ideas sit unanswered in some unorganised mess year after year is avoiding accountability. Acknowledging an idea as good, giving it some number and expressing a hope of seeing it in some future version is avoiding accountability. Telling users that you have other undisclosed priorities is avoiding accountability. Simply telling users that it is complicated to implement is avoiding accountability.
So if I were GS and just realised where it all is heading I would take aim at becoming excellent regarding user engagement in the development process and I would try doing so by implementing a process along the outline below (and I would copy it for handling bugs/glitches).
Stage 1 - Wish/idea
A stage for users to post, rate and discuss a wish/idea of a function/feature. The rating system should be informative i.e negative/indifferent/positive with a public counter. A clear overview of wishes/ideas with ability to sort by date, rating and topic. There should be no doubt about what the current userbase think should be prioritised and any misalignment of the development calls for accountability.
Stage 2 - Feedback gathering
A stage for GS to elevate any wish/idea deemed feasible and of interest to develop as well as introduce any function/feature from the sidelines. By turning a wish/idea into a concept and surveying user's workflows GS take accountability for proper understanding of the requirements of the function/feature.
Stage 3 - Developing
A stage for functions/features that are in active development. Here a time frame should be introduced which holds GS accountable if developing simple functions/features turn into multi-year endeavors.
Stage 4 - Implemented
A stage for functions/features that have been implemented (regardless if it has gone through the whole process or not). This stage allows for direct feedback on the implementation and holds GS accountable for the quality of their work.
Stage X - Unfeasible/On hold
A stage for functions/features that are deemed to be unfeasible to develop and implement or for some other reason need to be put on hold. This would make GS accountable for their decisions regarding approach/direction and priorities.
Interestingly, it is stage X that has the largest potential to change the calculus of users trying to determine which application to use and thus invest in. Imagine how it would change if it was made clear that AC in 1/2/3/4/5 years wont have function x/y/z. That would be quite a way for GS to claim accountability and at the same time show credible confidence in their decisions.
I do agree with all what you suggested as a procedure of a road map. I wished in another post that we get a road map and I couldn't put it on better words than what you did.
I encourage everyone on this forum to support your post. I am pretty sure that Graphisoft read such posts and we want official response.
So let this post blows the wind of change towards users oriented development!
I agree with your suggestion.
Well said and great suggested structure! Transparency and communication of the progress of a wish to a concept to development and implementation is essential.
It's written very well and a good idea, because it was during the AC26 presentation that I expected to hear, what steps GS should take to stay ahead of the competition and stand out in an environment that favor monopoly (I mean the Autodesk product ecosystem). Your idea is exactly what it would be nice to hear from the GS about the roadmap.
Some software roadmaps for comparison:
Previous discussion about a Public + Precise + Easy to Follow roadmap: thread
Revit's roadmap seems to be the most versatile one: easy to understand, clear way to see how popular the wishes are (like counts), clear way to see which ideas come from developers and which come from users. It really isn't rocket science..
Vectorwork also does a great jobs through its main communication channel. According to its roadmap, this company tries to adapt as much as possible the drawing tools of the architecture version of its software to the generally recognized and accepted design process. This will make the tasks even more easier for architects and designers.
More then two months has passed in silence since we were called to build our future together. More than a year has passed since we were told that there was work on a new future for wishes. And during that time we have seen a user group initiative come and pass.
Will 2023 be the year when users get a clear and consistent understanding of where and how AC is developed or will we just keep passing time?