01 / Context
The problem and my role
Students need to connect grades, completed courses, remaining requirements, and prerequisites. A GPA number alone does not explain whether their study plan is on track.
I worked on the product vision, requirements, user stories, feature priorities, and delivery planning. The product documentation includes an SRS, system diagrams, and a roadmap. This case focuses on the reasoning behind the priorities.
Student reviewing progress
Understand where they stand and which requirement needs attention.
Student planning registration
Choose the next action with enough context to avoid a preventable conflict.
The experience at a glance
- 01Review degree progress
- 02Identify a missing requirement
- 03Understand the next action
- 04Return to check progress
02 / Product judgment
The choices that shaped the work
The central question
Should the highest scoring feature always be the next thing delivered?
01Use scoring as an input to judgment
Registration reminders scored 50 and the degree audit scored 25. Both were placed in Now, ahead of the GPA calculator at 30.
- Why it matters
- Reminders are a useful prompt; the audit tracker gives students a reason to open the product.
- The tradeoff
- The audit takes priority despite its lower score. That judgment should be tested through repeat use.
02Make missing requirements actionable
Explain what is missing and what the student can do next. Give empty states a clear explanation.
- Why it matters
- A warning is only useful if the student understands how to respond.
- The tradeoff
- Requirements need to be accurate and understandable. Trust in the audit remains an open question.
03Keep AI recommendations in Later
Prioritize the checklist, reminders, and planning basics before a study-plan recommender.
- Why it matters
- First learn whether students want guidance beyond a clear account of their requirements.
- The tradeoff
- The product offers fewer novel features initially, in exchange for a tighter focus on trust and return use.
03 / Evidence
The actual prioritization
The product notes use RICE: reach × impact × confidence ÷ effort. These scores support the roadmap; they are not usage results.
| Feature | RICE score | Roadmap |
|---|---|---|
| Registration deadline reminders | 50.0 | Now |
| Degree audit tracker | 25.0 | Now |
| GPA what-if calculator | 30.0 | Next |
| Prerequisite conflict checker | 16.0 | Next |
| AI study plan recommender | 4.0 | Later |
04 / Evaluation
What I would measure and why
Measures to review or validate next. These describe the evaluation approach, not achieved improvements.
| Measure | What to examine | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly return to the audit | Track whether students revisit their degree progress across weeks. | Distinguish a useful repeat habit from a one-time setup visit. |
| Checklist drop-off | Observe where students stop in the requirements checklist. | Investigate whether the issue is unclear wording, missing information, or a task they cannot complete. |
| Understanding the next action | Ask a student to explain the next step after seeing a missing requirement. | Use task observation before interpreting clicks as comprehension. |
05 / Outcome
Where the work stands
The work produced an academic tracking product and a documented product direction: five prioritized features, stories with acceptance criteria, and a Now, Next, Later roadmap. Delivery is organized around two-week sprint goals.
What comes next
My takeaway
The reason a student returns matters more than a feature’s score in isolation. Prioritization needs both an explicit method and an explanation of the judgment behind it.
Based on UniPilot product notes and documented backlog priorities.