We are following a home-grown methodology to develop our various strategies. It is referred as the VDE model, short for “Vision Direction Execution”. Each main initiative has its own VDE, and we have an overarching VDE at the company level. Obviously, this is not a new concept, but this simple taxonomy expands the scope of our vision and should facilitate better decision-making. It is also a nice way to make sure that everybody is on the same page.

Here is a quick explanation of the VDE:

• “Vision” is the ultimate goal we want to reach. In most cases, this would be couple of sentences max.
• “Direction” could be seen as the path we think we should take to reach the goal.
• “Execution” represents the steps needed to follow the Direction.

From a Sportner Service (or Product) point of view, the Vision is simple and will probably not change for a while. In short, the Vision is “to build the most vibrant social network for people who DO Sports”. Although this space might seem a little bit crowded, we think that there are some untapped opportunities.

The Vision or idea was the easy part, but finding the right path is always a leap of faith. Here are the top three options we have evaluated:

1. Build a complete “Social Portal” (to use a 90s/2007 hybrid terminology) where sports athletes could find sports partners, organize sports events and games, find sports instructors, share information on sports locations, and swap sporting goods.
2. The second option was to focus on the sports partners and sports instructors market place.
3. The third option was to keep it simple: to focus just on sports profiles and the connection with friends, target a community, and let the users drive us where they will.

The first option was the original idea; however, after conducting deeper market research, we realized that the space was a little bit (not too much) crowded (e.g. Sportsvite.com, Active.com, and Teamsnap.com) and the uptake was not very clear. Sportsvite.com is the closest to what we were planning to do. Interestingly enough, our user interface mockup , which was made before we learned about with them, looked very similar from an information architecture point of view.

Option #2 seemed to be a little bit more open; however, the potential uptake was not really clear either (at least we could not figure it out).

We decided to keep the direction simple, open, and organic. In other words, focus on a few key capabilities, release early, and grow with the community. So, Option #3 it is. “D” is now closed. Now, need to work on the “E”.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 13th, 2007 at 11:23 am and is filed under Competition, Strategy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.