Enable customers to pay (partially or fully) with their credits

listed
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f094f3935a0>

#11

Also, top ups are possible already in OFN. Just difficult. You can process a payment that is larger than the amount of the order - which is the same as a top up but must be tied to an order.

So I would say this epic has 2 key features:

  1. Enable payment from credit at checkout. This could be a checkbox that shows when someone has credit, or even a voucher code they generate to give a discount off the order equal to their credit (I dont think that solution is a good one, just a brainstorm). It might be enabling 2 payment methods at checkout (overkill).

  2. Enabling a payment to be made that is not attached to an order, such that top ups can be made.

For me 2) has a workaround so is a lower priority. I would agree to starting with part 1 then adding part two after.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves :slight_smile:


#12

I didn’t remember, you know :wink:
Why do you say @lin_d_hop “we are getting ahead of ourselves”?
The idea of wishlist is to curate and split things that can be prioritize also, we do all that work here to be able to move things forward. So I’m straight away going to split that wishlist into to, get out the top up thing out of here in another wishlist, so we only start priroitizing part one.
Let’s avoid the “epic” and just talk about two features, we want to prioritize only one first. Now that it’s becoming clearer we can start listing potential solutions as you just proposed. I’ll open it now, as a wiki so you can add other ideas you may have.


#13

Cool. Nice one @MyriamBoure

I see a complication here with the voting system. In this case I think it is ok as the votes hold for this feature (I think) but when these discussions change in scope it changes the voting process. I remember experiencing this before, on the OFN Map topic for example.

This isn’t a criticism, just an observation for future process development. And this is why I thought we were getting ahead of ourselves… because by breaking it down at that point we were messing with the voting system and that step might be better done after. But I do agree that this is better as two different topics.


#14

@lin_d_hop check if I captured the need ok and listed ok the potential solutions, and add others if needed. I wonder if hub manager should be able to enable/disable some behavior here? Don’t think so, just asking.

I agree with you about messing up voting, but somethimes people open wishlist with 10 ideas in it, we need to curate, clean and split a bit before it can be voted. So I wonder if we shouldn’t point any new wishlist to some “in curation” stage, and when we have done this job we are doing here, we move the cleaned items to wishlist and there they can be voted.
In our present case, this need should obviously be done first, so it’s logical the vote stays on this one. Or maybe if we split a wishlist we should close and ask people who voted for it to revote on one of the new wishlist?
People need to be clear what they vote for… what do you think of those two options @lin_d_hop ? Curation step vs closing and opening others (with linking to keep track of reasoning) so votes have to be reallocated ?


#15

I think I prefer the ‘In Curation’ option as a pre-step. 0-WishlistCuration 1-VotingCandidates
I prefer this because most people that work on OFN really will never keep up with all the changes. It is luxury for most people to be able to engage once or twice a week in the community forum as we’re all so busy. If you vote then it is deleted and then you need to vote again I, for one, would often lose track during busy times.

This will also make it easier for anyone to be able to post wishlist items, even if they have little experience with the ins and outs of OFN. WishlistCuration items can be posted to invite more discussion from seasoned OFNers to turn into something realistic, useful, applicable etc.

Whats the process to change process? Does it come up in a global hangout?


#16

I agree with you @lin_d_hop :slight_smile: We are still “scrabbling about” / “fumbling” / “tweaking” the process to make it usable, so for now we discuss every x week with other active train drivers to test and adapt quickly. I think I’ll create already the category and move some things here and there to see how it would look like and see if it’s better. And we will plan another iteration to discuss this new valuable input that you made :slight_smile: So we experiment in small loops outside of global hangouts and then share improvements and experiments in global hangouts so involve the community in those “fumbling” :wink:


#17

Love the feature suggestion. Highly needed for our CSA in Belgium. Would likely enable to use payment installments quite transparently.

Suggested option 1 to implement it as default payment method provided positive (or above threshold) balance seems intuitive enough.

… and voting system is intuive enough for a newbie like me. But then again I may experience similar problems when I need to make up my mind between more topics in a few weeks :slight_smile:

Thanks for the great work !
Bertrand.


#18

… and (pretty) please add the current balance to the customers report.


#19

@danielle @Rachel @MyriamBoure - so this is an interesting one. I’d be inclined to argue that @berteh’s little addition here “add current balance to the customers report” would fall into ‘make what we have great’ whereas paying with credits is new feature . .


#20

I am currently asking UK users how much time this would save them.

I think this comes under - Remove the pain points that make users want to walk away
Missing this feature means that hubs have to spend hours a month sending little bank transfers and updating external accounting systems.


#21

One Food Hub reported back that currently they manually either update a spreadsheet with credits, or make cash refunds or make tiny bank transfers. They report that this process takes ~2 hours a week.

These are exactly the kinds of tasks that make users want to walk away from OFN. I would make a strong case for this feature being part of:
Goal 3 - Enterprise admin UX pain points that suck our users’ will to continue.


#22

Totally agree - at some point these things aren’t just stopping new enterprises from joining - they are also damaging our reputation out there.


#23

More than reputation and onboarding - this goes against our mission - to help values-driven food enterprises to be viable and efficient.


#24

Lack of this feature is the main point stopping us from using OFN now.
How can I help to make it move forward?


#25

Find us funding and recruit more developers so we can increase the size of the pipe :wink:


#26

This wishlist item has gone through voting and is now ready for inception phase. This means it needs a product owner to run the inception with all interested stakeholders, and preferably a Tech lead that will be main responsble for the chosen feature implementation.

Who are the product people atm? @Rachel, @lin_d_hop, @Kirsten, @MyriamBoure, @tschumilas anyone else? @lauriewayne1 maybe?

So @berteh you can help by following, giving input and being a part of these inception sessions.

Read more about the inception phase here Scoping a Feature Candidate in an Inception process


#27

I’d love to be product owner of this feature!


#28

@sigmundpetersen while this is true in terms of process, those are our following priorities : Focusing in for the first half of 2019 - a proposal for the global community Until they are done, I think we shouldn’t spend too much time on inception, given that things might change from now until the time the result of the inception is ready to go into the dev pipe.

When we will be ready to do inception again, I believe we will need to coordinate our effort among the product team and split the work to be done accordingly + organize peer review.


#29

As soon as it’s at the top of the list (post-what @Rachel linked to above) then you are free to be the product owner @lin_d_hop!


#30

We’re exploring turning this into issues for the DevHack so I’ve been brainstorming feature candidates: