At its core, dumplink provides a work editor interface to manage the flexibility required to figure out how to make the main elements of a shaped solution form into some solved version of a shippable feature while in the context of construction. What we want to do next is to help teams shape the key interactions of what’s technically possible in the time willing to be spent and what’s needed to achieve a stated desired customer outcome through a nested flex-template design system to aid in conceptual direction-setting without boxing in the wrong amount of details too early or leaving out concreteness where it’s needed.

In addition to these integrated creator tools for software makers, we want to provide company-wide alignment systems without distracting the makers. It will auto-build from the project data structure files all your in-flight work in one place, so you can see who is working on what, what the current risk profile for each feature in progress looks like, and how the work is segmented by product line. The suite of tools will also be a place to post, review, chat, and bet on what to discover, shape, and build next with our intuitive Choice Board interface. This streamlines your ability to create dedicated capacity for commitments as scheduled work in a pipeline about what to deliberately allocate time, talent, and attention to next, not later.

This is not another task manager. Project primitives today are about assigning, estimations, scheduling, and using management-ware tools (a la Jira) to link up to all kinds of systems. Projects are less about charts and graphs, tracking tasks, tying every to-do to a commit, and having people assign tasks to others and more about figuring things out, unpacking, spiking, capturing, conceptualizing the parts, the links between them, the things that are "in" and the things that are "out" that make it all work and how tasks come together into a single whole to achieve a stated desired outcome, and communicating with people in ways that don’t lead to connectivity at the expense of productivity. Those primitives are where the real risks, unknowns, and skills are employed. And, since the management-ware world has no place for them, real work is delayed and the state of projects isn’t always clear and visible.

The goal of what we are doing is not simply to offer tooling as a way to instrument a process but tooling to enable talent and improve their interactions with others and subsequently improve the products they ship with simple, delightful, and effective lightweight software tools for making software. We want to power product feature work. To do this, we are unbundling specific functional aspects from the following toolchain categories while ignoring a whole bunch in exchange for a much more practical creation environment: Collaborative design software like Figma. Project management like Jira. Online whiteboards like Miro. Group chat like Slack. Long-form word processors like Google Docs (or, e.g., Notion’s pages). Reimagined functions from slices of these types of tools are carefully integrated into specific parts of Kraftkit, rendering the use of these popular products either null or reached for a lot less often. As much as it might sound like it, we are NOT building an all-in-one workplace product. Those solutions tend to be a jack of all trades and master of none. Although getting everyone across functions and disciplines into one tool to do a majority of their work sounds like a boon for the organization, it is, however, not possible or ideal. You’ll end up with either a bloated and complex interface, infrastructure, and company or a product that addresses only a few functions well, leaving most others in a less-than-ideal state, bumming people out who have to use it or pushing them to buy more tools than needed that are less than ideal.