By Richard Lane

Leapfrog Geo was introduced in response to a number of requests from users to have a tool that could be integrated more easily in a standard work environment and manage the level of complexity they were encountering in their models. This led to a new interface that helped organise the models in Leapfrog Geo in a more structured way.

We now have received a considerable amount of feedback on how Leapfrog Geo compares to Leapfrog Mining. It has been very informative from our perspective because it has clearly illustrated the very wide variety of uses and tasks that Leapfrog Mining has been used for.

The principal difference between the two products is that Leapfrog Mining is a toolbox, which contains a significant number of powerful tools. Leapfrog Geo is designed to do certain workflows and it does these very efficiently. For users whose principal tasks are these workflows it is the obvious choice, and a significant number of users have indicated their preference by switching to Leapfrog Geo.

Customer reaction to Leapfrog Geo

There was a large uptake of the Leapfrog Geo trial and the response from users can be divided into three broad categories:

  1. There are users for whom Leapfrog Geo is already a better program for their day to day tasks. These users have either decided to switch from Leapfrog Mining or are new users that have bought Leapfrog Geo when they would not have bought Leapfrog Mining. This represents a rapidly growing proportion of Leapfrog users.
  2. There are users who simply like a toolbox approach and have geologies that do not require a very large number of domains.  They are usually users that have used Leapfrog Mining before and have developed their own workflows to achieve the specific tasks they need. They view Leapfrog Mining as their tool of choice.
  3. There are a significant number of our users who see the need for the more standard modeling approach that Leapfrog Geo provides, but are finding that it lacks some of the functionality they want. We are working with these users to provide these workflows in upcoming releases, and once this is done they will change to Leapfrog Geo. This is facilitated by the architecture of Leapfrog Geo which simplifies the development process.

The rapid user uptake of Leapfrog Geo clearly shows that it is actually providing what many users want. We have received a number of common requests for the addition of functionality from Leapfrog Mining, either through forums such as LinkedIn, blogs and direct discussions with customers.

What the future holds for Leapfrog Geo & Leapfrog Mining

Leapfrog Geo has already been through a long beta process. Our experience was that as the available workflows were expanded in response to their feedback, eventually there came a day when geologists found they simply didn’t use Leapfrog Mining any more. Basically, the question we were being asked by these users was not “can you add something” but rather “when can I buy it?” We anticipate that this process will continue with more and more Leapfrog Mining users choosing to switch to Leapfrog Geo over the next few releases.

When this process nears completion and Leapfrog Geo is effectively functionally equivalent or superior to Leapfrog Mining, there will remain the question of whether users prefer a workflow or toolbox approach. We don’t want to tell our customers how they prefer to work, and we are committed to Leapfrog Mining while there is market demand.

One thought on “What is happening with Mining and Geo”

  1. Thanks for the frank, honest feedback (on feedback) and outline of development, software companies’ management often can’t stump the confidence to provide, in fear of losing a perceived competitive edge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *