How to do well in demand analysis

Product people will always produce a variety of new ideas, which a very few "occasional and reliable" ideas can become products, to benefit netizens, and more product ideas will only become a conversation, or blog material, such as the next in the idea. So is it wrong to have an idea that is not the right one? I do not think that this "generation of ideas-the idea of the game-the idea of destruction" process, for a product newcomer, at least a kind of speculation on the internet market, the user needs analysis, the creation of product planning model. The key is whether they can through a simple market research, rational demand analysis, an idea of their own to do an autopsy, insight into its value. This process of anatomical analysis is the process of exercise and growth.

So, I put this idea down on the autopsy table, and simply evaluate its appropriateness or otherwise, according to the process of "producing-decomposing-analyzing-realizing-and then reviewing-assessing the problem".

Demand generation: When I read on my PC, I always find some "or astounding, or sobering, or thought-provoking" fragments in an article. At this time, you always want to easily store these fragments so that you can collect and review them without interfering with the reading process. One of the so-called "knowledge management" behaviors is to promote a little bit of grade.

Requirements decomposition: 1, read on the PC, so the scene may be browser, reader, Word, etc. 2, reading the memory fragments, 3, fast storage, later can read what has been stored content.

Requirements Analysis:

Layer One: useful

The implementation of text storage behavior, and facilitate the subsequent review of reading; storage behavior is completed in the reading process, requiring fast and convenient.

Layer Two: easy to use

Networked storage: It's best to play with the concept of cloud storage, where I can move fragments into clouds or from clouds.

Classification index: Categories, labels can not be less, even comments, sources can also have. One is to facilitate my management of the content;

How to be quick: "When browsing Sina blog, select Clips to publish a microblog"-this way is worth learning. The process of classifying, labeling, commenting, and diluting storage behavior is included. The perfect feeling of "a piece of good knowledge, unconsciously on the cloud"

Easy to read: In a way that makes me comfortable reading these clips, like web pages.

Layer Three: Love with

Background: After satisfying the basic requirement of "Fast storage, effective indexing and convenient reading without disturbing the reading behavior", the knowledge I accumulate will keep on the cloud. If this product is used by my 100 other peers, 101 of us will unconsciously build a fat cloud, a cloud of knowledge about a certain subject.

Based on the background of both lines, the following scenario appears:

First: All knowledge is user screening, basically all belong to high-quality content.

Second: Classification index, so that the content of the same topic can be effectively aggregated, and contains annotations, sources.

Third: With high-quality content, theme aggregation, share desire arises spontaneously. I would certainly like to browse the pieces of knowledge that our peers have recognized and collected.

Requirements implementation:

Existing tools:

OneNote, EverNote, Wiz. Try the Wiz, the index and classification are not clear, the storage is a bit slow. The other two are useless, Evernoet itself 50m+, the software itself is heavy enough, some trouble. Client, the biggest trouble is to install and manage, a pc a situation, take not go.

Readers, like Google. Can be in the limited content source collection, share content, but it and demand itself there are essential differences: readers, not knowledge management tools, fragments of the essence of the knowledge to effectively store, manage, index.

Implementation mode:

Clients--to become a part of existing tools and to compete. In addition, the client + Web page way, also increased the user's understanding and management costs. Content Source: Can take care of a variety of content sources, including Web pages, Word, and so on.

Browser Plug-ins--lighter than the client, heavier than "the way below". Content Source: Reduce the client by one lap, can take care of all page content.

Reader Digest function-Lightest, the smallest content source, limited to reader subscription content. It is possible to deviate from the initial demand and become the second "existing tool".

The final way: Browser Plug-ins + cloud storage + Web display.

Is that a reliable review?

That is, to review whether the initial requirements are well met, should be judged from the virtual scene, whether the function captures the user's pain point (analysis of user needs: in the scene to find pain points):

Scene One: I installed the browser plugin, in the future, no matter in the network to read any value for their own content, can be "selected content-optional tag, classification, annotation, and automatic record source-complete cloud storage."

Scenario Two: If I need to review the Web abstracts I've accumulated, I can "click on the plugin button on my browser--Open the page--read through the preset categories and tags."

Scene three: To take scene two, I can also "click on the public tag, the public topic classification" in the Web page--to view the quality abstracts produced by others-focus on a user and its digest knowledge or click on the digest source, directly to the source page browsing or ... ", community formation."

Question: How strong are the needs of 1 users for the "recording of the essence of the reading process, the content of the notes, and as knowledge management, review reading"? 2 user-generated "fragmented abstracts, Notes class content", its readability, the ability to share how strong?

The first question determines the "generating meaning" of the product itself.

The second question determines whether the product is "a pure knowledge management tool, or a knowledge-sharing community with the east wind of creating quality content from users." ”

Autopsy completed. My assessment of this idea boils down to the above two questions. Of course, because of my personal ability and experience, my own kind of anatomy will produce a variety of deviations or paranoia in the process. Therefore, the best way is to invite other colleagues, peers together on the autopsy table, to their own ideas, to ensure that the knife accurate, direction correct, so that their needs analysis of the exercise process, more with the wisdom of the masses and reference value.

In short, I think, product people is to constantly produce ideas, and then destroy ideas, and then produce, and then destroy ... Until this repeated self-destruction of the process, to survive some of the survival of the Internet users of good products, they can be readily repaired to fruition, Deeds ~