Co-planning tool
ADR documenting our decision to use Fider to engage the public in co-planning our product roadmap by voting on features they'd like to see delivered.
Status: Accepted
Last Modified: 2025-08-25
Deciders: Lucas, Brandon, Michael, Wendy, Sarah, Billy
Tags: participatory budgeting, civic engagement, tool selection, pb pilot
Context and problem statement
SimplerGrants has decided that co-planning is an approach we’d like to use to democratize future development work on the application as well as keep track of backlog ideas and participant feedback related to them. Co-planning refers to the ability for users to view information about prospective features prioritized for near-term development and indicate which ones interest them the most. It allows them to participate in prioritizing our work stack. Ideally, we will build features that users want and need the most, and we can receive that feedback clearly through a system where users can vote on and possibly propose what they’d like to see most.
To achieve this goal, we need to select a tool that enables members of the public to vote and provide feedback on the features we are prioritizing in our roadmap.
Decision outcome
We have selected Fider as our co-planning tool on SimplerGrants.gov and CommonGrants.org. Fider is an open-source feature voting tool that we chose because it can two-way sync with Github, it is low-cost, uses authentication for voting, and has a simple user interface.
To choose a tool, we conducted usability tests with prototypes of the top three tool contenders: Fider, Featurebase, and a custom coded solution. Before testing, we had anticipated using Fider to allow members of the public to vote on features in our roadmap because it met the acceptance criteria best out of the tools assessed. We still wanted to learn from users about their preferences in the way potential work items are presented to them, though, in addition to how each application’s features resonate with them.
While we discovered some UX challenges with Fider, we still believe that it is the best choice and that we can overcome some of the pain points discovered by making adjustments, creating training, and opening discussion with the Fider team to share our research findings and discuss collaboration.
Positive consequences
Allows us to quickly set up a feedback board with proposals loaded from GitHub
Gives us the option to self-host if we need more security or Fider discontinues its own cloud-hosted option
Allows us to fork and modify the codebase if needed, with the option of contributing back to the main Fider repository
Inexpensive at $51.94/mo
Negative consequences
Several UX pain points surfaced by users that we’ll need to work through or provide training for
We’ll have to set up and pay for multiple Fider boards if we want to segment feedback or support different sets of proposals if we are not using labels on the Github tickets
We can’t easily embed feature voting in Simpler.Grants.gov
Adding or customizing Fider’s baseline functionality might be harder to do than a completely custom-built solution
Decision criteria
Clean UI/UX: The tool has a simple and intuitive UI/UX with minimal distractions.
GitHub integration: GitHub issues can be loaded into the tool automatically or via API.
Low costs: The direct and indirect costs to maintain the tool are minimal.
Open source: The tool is open source and can be self-hosted, if needed.
Authentication: Users are required to log in to vote.
Customizability: The tool’s functionality can be easily extended or integrated with existing Simpler.Grants.gov services.
Advanced features: The tool supports advanced features, like:
User segmentation: Grouping votes by user type (e.g. grantors, applicants, etc.)
Proposal sizing: Assigning proposals story points based on level of effort
Custom fields: Storing custom attributes or structured data about a proposal
Multi-board management: Managing multiple feedback boards under a single organization.
Voting strategies: The tool supports multiple voting strategies, like:
Single upvote or downvote per proposal
Multiple upvotes or downvotes
Budget-based voting
Rank choice voting
Options considered
Primary options
After a significant amount of research, we narrowed our focus to the following tools in three main categories:
Others researched
These were the other tools researched and the reason we didn’t explore them further:
GitHub issues
Commercial
Complex UI, requires GitHub login
GitHub discussions
Commercial
Complex UI, requires GitHub login
Trello
Commercial
Voting requires plugins and per-user licenses
ProductBoard
Commercial
More complex UI and API than FeatureBase
Cobudget
Open source
No basic upvoting, poorly documented API
Stanford PB
Open source
No basic upvoting, no public API
Decidim
Open source
More complex UI than Fider, read-only API
Evaluation
Side-by-Side
Clean and simple UI/UX
🟡
🟡
✅
GitHub integration / public API
✅
✅
✅
Low cost maintenance
✅
✅
❌
Open source
✅
❌
✅
Easy to integrate / customize
🟡
❌
🟡
Advanced features
❌
✅
🟡
Multiple voting strategies
❌
❌
🟡
Fider
Fider.io is an open source feature voting tool. It can be self-hosted or cloud-hosted by Fider for $50/board/mo.
Pros
Clean user interface that supports key features
Public API that supports both loading and exporting data
Open source, making it possible to modify or self-host
Available as a managed solution for $50/board/mo
Cons
Usability test participants found the UI less intuitive than both the custom solution and FeatureBase
Usability test participants ran into issues with the login process, which required clicking a link sent to their email
Supports only a single upvote or downvote per proposal, with no total vote limit
Doesn’t support the following advanced features available in FeatureBase:
User segmentation: Grouping votes by user type (e.g. grantors, applicants, etc.)
Proposal sizing: Assigning proposals story points based on level of effort
Custom fields: Storing custom attributes or structured data about a proposal
Doesn’t easily support using Login.gov for authentication.
Customizing the functionality of Fider would require switching to self-hosting or having discussions with the Fider team about options.
Doesn’t support managing multiple feedback boards under the same “organization” and requires paying separately for each board.
FeatureBase
FeatureBase is a Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) feature voting and roadmapping tool. It is a managed solution with various pricing tiers. We would need the Business Pro plan for $250/mo.
Pros
Usability test participants liked the additional prompts around importance, frequency of use, and urgency
Robust feature set, including support for:
User segmentation
Proposal sizing
Custom fields
Multi-board management
Public API that supports both loading and exporting data
Available as a managed solution for $250/mo with unlimited boards and end users
Cons
Supports only a single upvote or downvote per proposal, with no total vote limit
Slightly more complex and cluttered UI/UX than Fider
Doesn’t easily support using Login.gov for authentication
Closed source, which doesn’t allow us to modify functionality or self-host
Custom solution
Involves building a custom solution that could either be embedded in Simpler.Grants.gov or hosted as a standalone application.
Pros
Usability test participants found this tool the most user friendly
Maximum control over the look and feel of the tool
Would allow us to integrate feature voting directly into Simpler.Grants.gov
Would allow us to support complex voting strategies not available in Fider or FeatureBase (ranked choice, budget-based voting, etc.)
Cons
Requires a lot of upfront development to replicate features that are available out-of-the-box with Fider or FeatureBase
Requires more overhead to maintain and host the tool
May reduce capacity available to build and maintain core Simpler.Grants.gov features
Usability test participants might find this tool less user friendly if we required authenticating with Login.gov
Last updated
Was this helpful?