Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I work on developer tools for a particular product. There is a competing set of tools for the same product produced by a different company. The user-base is split roughly 50-50 between us.
Recently, the other company has introduced scripting to make their own tools extensible by end-users. This is a feature that we have had planned for our tools for a while, but it is only now that we are able to start implementing it.
My question is: should we try as much as possible to collaborate with the developers of competing product so that end-user scripts can be shared between users on the different products? We would obviously require different implementations, but share the same syntax. This would obviously be better for the community as a whole since there would be more interoperability.
The downside of collaborating like this is that the competing product's scripting language is slightly tailored towards their own implementation. We would have to jump through a few hoops to create an implementation for their scripts on our platform. Or, we would have to somehow convince our competitor to modify their scripts so that they are platform agnostic.
So, to rephrase my question: should we try to collaborate, thus making our community happier, or should we produce a competing scripting language that is more appropriate for our platform?
I realize that this is a very general question with no single right or wrong answer. What I am looking for is a good explanation of the pros and cons of each approach.
I would write something that is specifically tailored towards my own system (don't compromise your technical quality) and then release and fully support a compatibility layer that allows my competitors scripts to run on my system (make it easy for users to migrate).
I'd stay away from doing things that will try to lock people in and cripple them if they move. These tactics worked once upon a time but in this day and age don't really cut it any more. I'd even go so far as to actually (unofficially on fora etc.) help people who are having trouble porting scripts running on my system to my competitors.
Another way to ask the question (and to answer) is to wonder WHAT KIND of script language is DESIRABLE FOR USERS.
If your competitor went a lock-in route with a proprietary scripted language, then please your users (and get a competitive edge) by using a STANDARD scripted language.
Doing so will immensely increase the value of your tool as many persons ALREADY know the scripted language.
Nobody wants to learn a new language.
Would building a unified scripting language harm your customer-base or give the competitor the competitive edge?
Obviously if you want to lock in customers, go solo which will prevent your customers from easily switching over to the competitor's product (sounds a little like Microsoft tactics) or if you know your product is superior, a collaboration will allow you to get customers from the competitor in which case customers will have the choice to choose which business model suits their needs, make a choice based on the quality of the product as a whole as well as which features they really need instead of being locked into an invisible contract due to the choice they made initially.
Going the collaboration route will also put your company in a position where developers will respect your company (for not being a greedy monopoly monster) instead of boycotting it due to their "moral" beliefs in open standards.
I would say that if possible make it compatible, not so much to cooperate but to compete. Making an incompatible solution would lock you customers in to some degree (you don't have any yet with a lot of scripts - so not much gain), but making a compatible solution keeps the door open for customers of your competition to migrate (they might have some scripts by the time you ship yours).
Just my 2cents
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
We are planning on introducing Agile into our development process (a shift from the waterfall we've been using so far). We are leaning towards a hybrid model in whcih the requirements gathering session is comprised of a business analyst, subject matter experts, technical person and a user interface person. The plan is to create user stories that the development team can use in their agile process with 1 month sprints.
Has anyone had experience with a hybrid model? How has it worked for you so far?
The plan is to create user stories that the development team can use in their agile process with 1 month sprints.
Some remarks:
1 month Sprints is IMHO too long, especially for an adoption and I prefer to use 2 to 3 weeks Sprints. During an adoption, shorter feedback loops give you the opportunity to inspect and adapt more frequently and since you are experimenting, this is in general appreciated.
I don't really understand what is so hybrid in your requirements gathering session as long as the goal is not to create the "final" list of fine grained Product Backlog Items in one shot (a backlog has typically a pyramidal structure with fine grained items at the top - for the upcoming iterations - and coarse grained items at the bottom). Having story-writing workshops ahead each iterations is a common practice.
PS: While I respect Péter's opinion, I have a slightly different one. I consider Scrum (we're talking about Scrum, right?) as a minimal and finely balanced framework and recommend to stick as close as possible to doing Scrum by the book. Sure, the goal is not to be Scrum but to deliver working product increments. But unless you have someone experienced with Scrum in the team, you (as organization) are not really qualified1 to alter the framework (and to understand the impacts) and might not get all benefits. Scrum is flexible, there aren't two similar Scrum implementations. But dropping a part of the framework is not the same as being flexible.
1 I often introduce the Shu Ha Ri progression model (that roughly means learn - detach - transcend) for agile adoption. From the C2 wiki:
As the beginner starts to learn, Shu gives them structure. It forces them to adhere to the basic principles (...). Since the beginner knows very little, they can only progress by slavishly adhering to these principles (...).
As the beginner gains experience, they naturally will wonder why?, how?, is there something better? Ha... the separation (much softer word than break) is the experimentation done around the principles... first straying only a little and then more and more as these ideas are tried against the reality of the world.
As the experiments of the Ha stage continue, bit by bit, the successes are incorporated into daily practice... we look for opportunities and use the patterns we have learned and tried out that closely fit those opportunities. This Ha/Ri stage is what makes an art the 'property' of the practitioner rather than the teacher or the community. Eventually, you are able to function freely and wisely.
I'm certainly not saying that one must stay at the Shu phase (the goal is beyond the first level), what I'm saying is that learning new ways of working takes time, don't ignore practice. As Ron Jeffries once said "They're called practices for a reason... You have to have done them. Practice makes perfect."
Update: (answering a comment)
One of the decisions we would like to take is the role of each person in the 'Product Owner' team.
Just to be clear: there should be only ONE Product Owner. He can of course work with a team but, still, there should be a single authoritative voice for the team. If I rephrase, there is no Product Owner Team.
For ex: What would the role of a technical person be?
Well, for me the technical person has no role to play in this team (unless he is there to train or support people at writing stories but the ScrumMaster should typically do that). Writing stories means capturing the essence of business oriented features, there is no real need for a technical point of view at this stage. Technical complexity (or even feasibility) will be included later in the estimation.
It seems to me that the end result of the requirements phase would be user stories that the developers will use in the iterations. Will the technical person be estimating the tasks? Traditionally, we've had the programmers estimate their own tasks
People doing the work should estimate the work (you can't expect a team to commit on something if someone else estimate the work for the team). In other words, the team should estimate stories. On top of that, experience shows that 1. collective estimations works better than individual estimation 2. we are better at doing relative estimations. So my recommendation would be to estimate the size and complexity of stories relatively using story points/t-shirt size/unit-less points and to do collective estimation during planning poker sessions. This worked very well every where I used this.
One of my colleagues (I work for a company which consults in agile working) has written several blogs about this separation between the requirements gathering and the development process. He describes how this can work very well in practice.
So far I have had experience with hybrid models only :-) None of the agile projects I have worked on so far implemented any Agile methodology strictly by the book. You needn't either.
The point is, any methodology is just a starting point / a collection of ideas you can use to work out your own process, tailor made to the specific project, team and circumstances.
Start with a process which looks good to you, then see how it works in practice. Keep regular retrospectives at the end of each iteration to assess how things are going, what worked in the last iteration and what didn't, and how could you improve things further. Then implement the most important ideas in the next iteration. In other words, develop the development process itself in an agile way :-)
Update: anecdotes about the requirement process
As I write this, I realize you may not got much useful info out of it... but at least it shows you that projects and processes vary a lot.
In one project, we had a fairly strict Scrum process, with a product backlog, although we didn't have a real customer: the product was new, and the prospective users didn't yet know it existed. Also it was a fairly specific and standardized domain where our company had a lot of experience. At the time I was part of the team (this was before the first release) we didn't really have much formal requirements gathering, because much of the key requirements were imposed on us by a standard. On top of that, we had some of our own ideas how to make the product stand out of the crowd.
In another project, we loosely had a Scrum process, but our sponsors and users did not really know about it, so we were struggling quite a bit. The "requirements gathering" was rather informal in that the product was huge and different people / subteams were assigned to different areas, working fairly independent of each other. Each subteam had their own contact(s) to discuss the requirements with, and the contacts were geographically separated - we rarely saw any of them face to face, so most of the communication happened via email, using lengthy Word docs. To top it off, we had a team of domain experts, who were often in wild disagreement with the users regarding the concrete requirements, however they were not very communicative. So the requirement process often consisted of reading lengthy documents containing obscure mathematical stuff, then other lengthy documents containing GUI requirements, then trying to figure out how to bring the two together... then discussing the requirements with the domain expert who briefly announced that it was a piece of sh*t, and we tried to tease some more useful and concrete improvement ideas out of him... then rewriting the requirements doc according to our latest understanding and the expert's comments, and sending it back to our contact person... then repeat from square 1.
In our current project, we again have many users scattered around a large part of the globe. However, at least our IT management is more knowledgeable about SW development and agile processes. We work on a large legacy system, which was in a pretty bad shape a couple of years ago - so maintenance and stabilization is a large part of our day to day work, and new requirements take less than half of our time on average. When we have one, though, we usually have preliminary estimation meetings where we try to come up with a crude estimate on how many person-days this project going to take. Then later our business analyst works out more and more details with the stakeholders, and our team works on filling out the technical details.
It seems to me if you label business analyst, subject matter experts, technical person and a user interface person as "the product owner" team, you really haven't deviated from "pure" agile.
That said, "pure" agile is somewhat of a misnomer because most agile advocates will tell you that the #1 or #2 selling point is its ability to adapt to the business processes and corporate culture of your existing organization.
The critical success factor might be having that product owner team, and all stakeholders really, invest in participating in some of your dev team's agile processes (showing up for demos, being accessible for questions during the sprint, etc).
Edit:
This quote from Wikipedia documents the very simple role of the Product Owner:
The Product Owner represents the voice of the customer. He/she ensures that the Scrum Team works with the “right things” from a business perspective. The Product Owner writes customer-centric items (typically user stories), prioritizes them and then places them in the product backlog.
Scrum isn't meant to enforce processes on how the Product Owner gets their job done. It's only the interface between the Product Owner and the Team (sprint planning and sprint review) that Scrum tries to outline.
Could we call this, "Building the back log," as that is really what this is, to my mind? The idea is to get those top priority pieces and then work from there. I have seen a few different Agile processes and some worked better than others but the key is how well is the buy-in from those involved in the process.
I'd also agree that 1 month is too long for a sprint. 2 week sprints seem about right to my mind though I have seen slightly longer and shorter sprints that also work. Another question is how big is the team and projects that are being done as stuff that may take years may not be easily done. I say this as someone that survived a project that lasted over a year and many sprints and demos later finally finished the project successfully.
I'd likely consider the technical person being the one that has to keep an eye on the big picture and understand what may be reasonable to do and what is unreasonable to do,e.g. having the system read my mind to know what I want done before I wake up in the morning without my having to write out anything other than simply thinking it would be unreasonable. Don't forget that the stories will develop into more cards as the stories are just a high-level view of what the end result is, which usually doesn't cover how easy is it, how much time will it take and a few other aspects.
For the sprints themselves, developers should estimate how long it takes to do various tasks. Determining the priority of stories though isn't part of what the developers do though. The requirements gathering session could also be seen as building a project charter so that there is a timeframe for the project as a whole, objectives and other high-level details that should be stated at the beginning.
i know nothing about medical records but im sure there's great opportunity in it now.
im planning to either find software that manages records or build my own.
if i do build my own, can someone recommend a platform to use? i prefer vb.net. is there anything better for this?
if you do not recommend me to build my own medical records keeping software, please recommend something that is already existent. is that opensource openEMR any good?
i am planning to start some kind of system as a DEMO for a small doctor's office.
I work in the medical industry as an EDI developer. If you "know nothing about it" as you say, I would recommend strongly against trying to create your own. Even beginning to understand all the nuances surrounding the medical field, all the related laws at local, state and federal levels, the variations between how the exact same "standards" are applied across the various segments of the industry and so forth, can take years or longer.
For instance, there are defined standards, but every state government has their own set of "variations" and exceptions and custom rules, and even across segments in the same state things are not handled the same way (i.e. Medicaid, Medicare, HMOs, TPAs, MCOs and so forth can all have different, and often contradictory, regulations that they have to follow within the same state.
Add to that the fact that regulations change on an ongoing basis and, if the federal government gets its way, things are going to change drastically across the board in coming years.
For a developer, the medical field can be one of the most complex
If you want to pursue this, I would recommend taking on a couple of partners, specifically people with extensive skills and backgrounds as business systems analysts in the medical field to guide you and making extensive use of existing tools as a base and, at least at first, focusing on a very specific segment to start with to build up your experience and background.
As for tools, any of the .NET tools are excellent, though I would recommend C# over VB if you can. There's a broader support for C# in third party tools and apps. In addition to some of the tools others have mentioned, I would also add that you will need mapping software, such as Altova's MapForce. This will aid substantially in your ability to transfer records between entities and between formats and mapforce includes the ability to export the map you design as a C# based .dll you can add to your own home grown apps.
There are existing standards (for example, HL7), which vary somewhat from continent to continent (e.g. North America not necessarily using the same standards as Europe), and vendors' implementations of those standards.
If you want a sledgehammer, the the US Veterans Administrations software is open source, and I thought well regarded (or so I read years ago).
You might want to tell us what scale you are looking for, a one doc office, or a hospital chain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS
If you're pretty new to this, and don't know too much about it, building your own would not be a good idea. As BBlake said, it can take years to learn everything you'd need to know. There are a few different types of software you can use. One such medical software is AdvancedMD. You may want to try them or just look around elsewhere. Good luck!
Also see the Practice Fusion tool.
I read about them a bit ago here: http://healthcare.zdnet.com/?p=2522
There may be better opportunities in supporting an existing open source medical services app than in creating a new one.
In Canada, OSCAR is a well-regarded open source medical admin application. You can find a list of other such programs, mainly American, at Sourceforge.
There are about 2000 medical record vendors. I do not know a lot about costs, markups price points in the market but I will say that the software is usually phenomenally expensive. It seems to be based on "what the market can bear". Almost every package I have used looks completely amateur compared to software in almost any other category I have used. It maybe that the market is quite small when it is divided by 2000 vendors.
Most database software and general business software would do the job quite well but there are peculiarities to medicine such as HIPAA.
One of the most intelligent pieces of medical software that I have seen (at least for documenting evaluation and management encoutners) is Praxis. You have to be a doctor who is in practice to realize how genius it is. Disclaimer: I have not used it but wish I could.
Penultimately, for medical software to work the patient has to have a portal into it so that they can update, or bring attention to, mistakes.
Finally, all medical software is fantastic when demonstrated. One only knows its flaws when one uses it on every patient for about 6 weeks.
surely build your own software
i work with vb.net and i started developing my own healthcare applications since 2006
it was hard in the beginning, but now, man.. the sky is the limit
building your own apps will help you add or modify features with extreme ease
good luck
if you need any help just comment on my answer and ask your question, i will respond asap
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have begun work on a personal project that may end up having some real-world applicability. I am beginning to entertain the idea of selling licenses. I am sure some others here have done this before, and I was wondering what successfully processes you've used to do so.
There are many questions on SO regarding licensing, legal implications, etc. However, I have looked around and could not find a duplicate question for this one. To be clear, I am not looking for information on what licensing strategy to use, how to advertise your software, and so forth, but rather, for a checklist of things that should be done to increase the probability of success, and any possible gotchas I have not thought of. If anyone has any personal success stories, they would be very welcome.
For a little background, I am set on the idea of licensing a closed-source, compiled .NET DLL.
A few things off the top of my head:
Strong documentation, because formal technical support is unlikely
Specifying licensing terms and formalizing them with an attorney
Code obfuscation
Exploring license enforcement (either using a commercial package or custom code)
Building a website around the product, including real-world code examples since this is a library
Possibly offering some type of beta period, for feedback and getting the name out a bit
Offering instant/automated purchases
Marketing (oh boy)
Is it necessary (or wise) to start a one-man company to do this?
I will keep this list updated as answers come in. Thanks all!
Some tips:
Obfuscation: Be wary of obfuscating everything. An alternative is to obfuscate just the critical bits (licensing, premium features). The problem with obfuscating everything is that stack traces from error reports are ineffective. When an unexpected exception is caught, you'll want to give the user the option of automatically reporting its details - this really helps with QC.
License enforcement: If it's a utility that can be easily pirated, people WILL pirate it. An activations-based licensing system is ideal - and if it's not too draconian people will be less motivated to circumvent it. For instance, allow at least 3 activations per user (home computer, work computer, laptop). If it's a control library, then an activation-based may not be required - baking the serial number into the library may be enough because customers are unlikely to build their own product on a stolen assembly.
Instant/automated purchases: writing a custom licensing server and web page for this is fairly easy - you need only about 3 tables. LINQ to SQL is ideal for this sort of thing. For the payment gateway, I use PayPal - it's very easy to set up, has the features you need for selling activation codes, and allows multiple currencies. If you use PayPal, enable both PDT and IPN so you can give customers their activation codes both on the screen and via e-mail.
Marketing: try LOTS of things simultaneously - because it's hard to predict the success of any campaign. Especially without experience! Making yourself known amongst the influential people in the field into which you're selling can work very well.
Advertising: advertise on StackOverflow - that's what I'm doing! Google ad words is also worth trying because it's so cheap to set up - you'll know after spending $10 whether it will be effective for you or not.
And good luck with it!
You have most of the practical things listed out, in terms of actually getting a product from you to the customer -
However, there are a couple of things I'd also recommend.
Figure out how you want to handle all of your accounting/purchasing/billing/etc.
Rethink formal technical support (for money), but not at the exclusion of documentation
Talk to a lawyer regarding all of your licensing decisions, agreements, etc., as well as company structure
Talk to your accountant (and/or find one who is good at working with small tech companies)
Some of this will cost some money up front, but save headaches later.
The last two bullets are crutial - there are MANY options for how to setup yourself from a tax perspective, each of which has potential advantages and disadvantages depending on your specific situation.
For example, if you're in the US, there are many advantages to incorporation prior to doing anything on your checklist. If you decide to incorporate, you may want to do it in your state, but there are also advantages to incorporating in Nevada or New Jersey (very pro-corporate states legally). If you're successful, doing this early can save a huge amount of work over time and have significant benefits.
Also, if you incorportate, you might want to consider S vs C corps (S Corps are great if you're a one or two man operation). If you don't incorporate, you can run as a sole proprietorship or an LLC, both of which have advnatages and disadvantages. A lot of this depends on your product (what it does), your expected returns, etc. - having a good lawyer and a good accountant is a huge blessing.
If you're aiming at software development teams as customers then the sort of thing they are likely to expect to see (in addition to the ones you listed) are:
A download service for any additional items and/or patches that the user might need.
Tight version control/configuration management processes so that it's easy to find out what version of the product they have, what they need and what the differences are between versions.
Email/online bug reporting.
A demo/trial version of the product.
A good set of tutorials.
Community support e.g. developer forums. This is a good 'value added' service that can also help with the fact that you have concerns (as a one man company) over being able to provide 'formal technical support'. Hand out a few badges and reputation scores and get a free technical support team ;) ... but if sales take off, seriously consider providing 'formal technical support', it can make a huge difference to the perception of the product.
... and make sure that the website, download service, license server, forums etc are all properly secured and done to a professional standard. If any of the peripheral services are less than 100% then it all reflects badly on the product, especially when yours is a technical one.
You might not want to provide formal technical support, but you could look for creative alternatives like some sort of moderated forum for issue resolution. Also, provide at least an email address for someone to contact you.
Another thing is to hire some sort of designer to make your product, documentation, website, etc look good. It is generally easy to tell programmers who attempt design.
Our company has recently decided that a good section of our IT department is actually doing product development and not internal IT development and now has created a new department.
What are the types of changes that developers should be looking to make during this type of transition?
Is there really any difference between internal development and product development?
I don't know how quickly the differences will assert themselves in an existing group which is transitioning from one role to the other, but having worked as both an internal developer and a product developer, two huge differences leap to mind: requirements and and testing.
As a developer of internal tools, I was pretty much given free reign regarding interface, organization, and even scope. Specs were in the form of an email saying "can you write something that does X?" Similarly, testing was almost non-existent. After whatever testing I was able to do, the tools would be deployed directly to their target audience and bug reports, when they came at all, were directly from those end-users, again usually via email or even hall-tackle.
Now that I'm doing product development, the difference is dramatic. Specs are 30-100 page Word documents and we have a dedicated testing department which makes darn sure that what we produce matches those specs. I'm much better supported by the project managers and have clear channels for any feedback I have on requirements or design. It could be argued that product development offers less freedom to the individual developer, but in exchange for being part of a (hopefully) better-organized and better-supported team.
[I work with Jeff.]
As others have mentioned, a key difference stems from the nature of the user:
When developing internal applications, you're typically dealing users from a single department or group who use a limited number of apps, and they're mostly a captive userbase.
When developing external products, you're dealing with users who see the whole enchilada, and they're paying customers who can take their business elsewhere.
That difference matters because a coherent user experience across multiple applications becomes much more important for paying customers who see the entire set of apps.
In the IT case, neither the business nor the users themselves are typically concerned about the fact that their app doesn't look and work like some other app that some other department uses. And if for whatever reason they did care, their ability to do anything about it is more limited. While it's possible to make a business case for consistency across apps (branding to internal employees, usability for employees who use multiple apps, reduced development costs resulting from the reuse of common libraries, patterns, services, etc.), this kind of concern typically takes a backseat to the development of new business functionality.
In the product case, the users do care about coherence across the entire set of apps, and they can do something about it if the experience is weak.
So one major difference is the relative importance of a coherent, quality user experience. But that goal itself has significant organizational ramifications that we're already starting to see.
We'll see an increased emphasis on "horizontal" activities that seek to establish standards and improve communications across teams, since such activities directly support the goal of producing coherent products. Cross-cutting teams (like user experience) will become more influential than they formerly were, we may see new cross-cutting teams (e.g. teams that look at architecture across many systems rather than just a single system), we'll probably see more presentations about what different apps do, more cross-training, etc.
App development teams will have less autonomy than they formerly had in charting their own course. The user experience team (working with end users, business stakeholders and engineering teams) will specify standards around visual design, interaction design, etc. and the app teams will be expected to adopt those. We'll see test practices become more standardized. Builds and deployments across apps will be more uniform and coordinated. Monitoring, alerting, response time SLAs and other operational metrics will be more uniform across apps. The app teams won't be able to define these for themselves anymore (though they can certainly contribute to the larger discussion).
Management will increasingly allocate resources in a way that seeks to optimize globally across the entire product instead of optimizing locally for individual apps. So where in the past the composition of individual app teams has been relatively fixed (developers, SQA, etc.), going forward we should expect to see more fluidity.
A huge difference is in your customer. IT developers have the rest of the company (and sometimes partner / subsidiary companies) as their primary customers. The Product Development developers have customers (i.e. the people who buy the product that is the companies reason for existing) as the primary customer.
Yes, very much so. There's a huge difference between performing an activity that drives revenue and invoices and one that's perceived as overhead.
My experiance is that people working on product development side of the house have bigger budgets, better training, better travel and more skilled employees. Having worked in a product development company it always felt like the lower skilled employees were thrown over to IT department.
In-house development is very process-orientated. They just want to deliver xyz functionality and have it work based on a company-wide strategy. It's not the iterative make-the-product better cycle you get when your primary product is your code. As a result, in-house stuff is often just 'good enough' whereas software companies probably tend to try to improve their product long after it 'just works'.
Note, in-house dev teams can get away with being 'good enough' but software development companies can get away with it for a while but will ultimately lose out to the ones who strive to improve.
I think moving between both environments could be a shock to the system in either direction but that's not to say they both can't be run in the same way - just that in my experience they probably won't. For example, UI is usually given a lower priority when it is in-house software as the customers are generally getting paid to use it rather than paying to use it.
I have been equals amounts of time in both types of organizations. The particular organization where I worked where the software development was part of an IT department treated the development of software as a cost center, where as software development as part of an product was seen as a profit center.
The two are very different. The skill level of developers in my case was vastly different-- those working on a public product were overall better skilled and cared more about the quality of their work. As a developer of a real public product you are actually making the company money.
In my internal software job I typically had a set of known fixed requirements mostly worked out. I designed a solution, but was always given a deadline that was unreasonable if quality was a concern (including code quality), rushed the coding, and delivered the result. Any bugs found that passed any short QA process typically only got fixed if they made formal requests for fixes.
Product development in my experience is almost the reverse. All the requirements are not fixed (only what I was working on for that week was fixed), design is usually dictated by someone who has worked on the product the longest. I get decide how long something takes (but got to really explain why and justify the time), and coding is usually not rushed. Experimenting with ideas generally is more difficult in product development because a product that is meant for public use should use tried and tested approaches.
Therefore, I would say that if creativity is really important then product development may not be for you because a particular idea that you personally have is unlikely to ever make it into the product unless you can make a business case for it and somehow make it more important than what the business has already been planning.
Choosing a particular library is also more difficult depending on how the software is deployed. For example software used by the government typically has to pass Common Criteria certification, which can eliminate certain library choices.