-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathsdingov19.html
67 lines (65 loc) · 5.67 KB
/
sdingov19.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body>
<h1>Hi! I’m Trilly. I do product stuff at NHS Digital.</h1>
<p></p>
<p>I've documented some (unfinished) thoughts on my first SDinGov experience below.</p>
<p></p>
<h2>Day 1</h2>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h3>Service design for the NHS: the open door (Matt’s keynote)</h3>
<ul>
<li>Matt’s journey: the meeting of ‘top down’ (GDS) and ‘bottom up’ (Service Jam) approaches to service design in organisations</li>
<li>‘Design is the rendering of intent’ (Jared Spool) - need to up my design craft to be a better renderer!</li>
<li>'More of healthcare needs more service design more of the time’. It’s more complex and nuanced, less transactional, more human. Human-centred design has more to offer in both establishing and rendering intent.</li>
<li>Service pacing and ‘time as a material’ - critical to getting the balance of clinical, practical and emotional needs right.</li>
<li>Service design in healthcare has impacts beyond services’ ‘users’. The inclusion and participation of these groups is crucial to successful service design in the NHS.</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h3>Creating safe spaces for challenge - being a lead assessor for Government Service Standard assessments</h3>
<p>A lot of creating a safe space for teams at assessment is recognising the numerous pressures for them in being assessed:</p>
<ul>
<li>doing right by the standard vs. 'assessment prep'</li>
<li>travelling to London before an assessment (more regional assessments please)</li>
<li>feeling their hard work is under scrutiny/on the line</li>
<li>not always being given internal support to work in a standard-aligned way</li>
<li>not always having influence they need to change what they’d like to</li>
<li>fear of repercussions of perceived ‘failure’ internally</li>
</ul>
<p>Lead assessors have key a role to play in setting the tone for the panel and the team</p>
<p>Idea: crowdsource experienced lead assessors for advice for new lead assessors, include (as standard) in assessor training<p>
<p>A particularly <a href="https://twitter.com/TrillyC/status/1100039747005763584">unvarnished tweet</a> of mine was referenced (twice!) - v. honoured!</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h3>Design and policy: what do policy makers think?</h3>
<ul>
<li>Eye opener to the sheer number of (often unpredictable) demands on policy people in the current system & culture - I hadn’t ever doubted this, just reminded its a v. challenging job!</li>
<li>Also worryingly unrealistic pressure and demands on policy people to be 'the one with all the (immediate) answers’ - often massive single points of failure with v. little breathing space.</li>
<li>Systemic tension: The “realities” of the policy world can often be at odds with the “realities” of a more explorative service design approach to the problem space.</li>
<li>Policy people often tasked (by Ministers or external demands/pressures) with “making X happen” or “stopping X happening” in policy or practical terms - often under extreme/unhelpful pressures (e.g. time, changing policy direction or Minister).</li>
<li>Demands within the policy world generally immediate, urgent and/or high stakes - not often given sufficient time to think, expected to roll with it (because Ministerial need/authority trumps everything else).</li>
<li>Service design starts by asking “what’s the actual problem here?” and demanding time/space to properly answer that question - therefore seems ‘luxurious’ and ‘unrealistic’ in comparison to demands of the job.</li>
<li>Telling inconsistencies in the perspectives of policy people (UR findings) highlight unique challenges of policy work:</li>
<ul>
<li>Policy people are ‘collaborative by nature’ yet ‘don’t think design fits in with day-to-day demands of real policy work’ - suggests expectations of policy people (however unrealistic) are the accepted norm. Little room for them to even consider alternatives that would require them to push back on unhelpful constraints or demands: it's all just 'the way it is’.</li>
<li>Policy people ‘place high value on research and evidence’ yet are ‘wary of talking to users directly' - suggests a bias towards the 'classically' analytical evidence (the written, statistical, and intellectual) as a stronger bases for evidence; an aversion toward intuition- or empathy-led judgements that seek to understand lived/felt experience. In terms of real problem solving, this leaves a whole half of the equation out.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h3>Business case chat with Sam Villis</h3>
<ul>
<li>First of all, Sam is a bit of a legend. More like this one please.</li>
<li>Lots of common ground on problems/weaknesses of with existing business case process/industry.</li>
<li>Whatever the total business case contains, it needs a *much* snappier summary that allows those who need to (i.e. everyone) to access *only the most relevant info*</li>
<li>Two-pronged approach (pt. 1) - top-down (develop sensible, viable solutions depts can adopt at scale - look for opportunities to trial); bottom-up ('bureaucracy hacked' solutions that are easy to implement in most places). Sensing a theme at this conference (and in my life).</li>
<li>Two-pronged approach (pt. 2) - principles for improving culture/conversation around business cases; a (brief) structured format (e.g. something canvas-like) for the actual content</li>
<li>Vision: ‘a business case process so good departments would prefer to use it’. Bang on, Sam!</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h2>Day 2</h2>
<h3>Coming Soon</h3>
</body>