QPP Engagements

• Assist in development of vendor transition strategy
• Move to value oriented requirements

Attendees:

Chris Reinartz (Federal)

Corinne Smith (PM3II)

Lynn Blair (PM3II)

Randolph Anagho (LACE)

Marc Santini (LACE)

Pain Points

• Not enough insight/clinical backround into how users engage with the healthcare system, neither does policy team.
• HCD must be reactive to policy making understanding customer needs/pain points a moving target.
  • Can HCD be present for policy formation at some stage?
• No insight into the why of policy until its already solidified. (potential org agility solution) Can that be addressed?
• Policy contains implementation details, constricting solution development (or does it?) Can that be addressed?
• Inadequate time for discovery for implementation and impact
• SMT is shorthanded, Chris has no bandwidth for engagement in program operations
• Operational inefficiencies caused by team specialization
• Lack of/ambiguous documentation
• Enterprise tech decision and timelines are “provided” without regard for policy deadlines or other program delivery pressures
• Lack of “breathing room” for dev teams and innovation

Desired Outcomes

• Adequate time for discovery
• Users understand the changes and how it affects them
• What users can/should do differently to improve scores
• Better resources and data real-time to show users how scores are calculated
• What services are impacted? The cost impact for specific services and care types. (Need validation/clarification from Chris)
• A solution for counting/scoring of incomplete measures (Measure categories, required completion, incomplete submissions not accepted) is implemented so incomplete entries are not negatively impacting users
• ----------------------------------------------------------------------
• Better management of tech debt, reduction of security patches
• Clarity on work required to meet deadlines and policy implementation (FPdM?)
• Delivery Predictability
• Reduced dependencies between teams to accelerate delivery
• Inclusion in roadmap discussions for enterprise tech changes

In Scope for QPP Engagement

Recommendations for Chris

• Investigate testing practices to find opportunities to reduce patches/ tech debt
• Potential redistribution of devs to leads for other programs
• Impact analysis of work
• Value stream mapping/alignment (operational and development)
• Increase Practice discipline
  • New jira project to align to LACE standards
    • Work item hygiene
    • Workflows
    • Traceability
    • Documentation
  • Scrum across the board
  • Implement/revisit/revise social contracts
  • Value driven, non-implementation specific requirements
  • Role responsibilities training (lace courses and “encouraged” attendance)
  • Start doing the I&A workshop
  • Revive the I&P iteration
  • LACE Observation of refinement meetings (team & program)

Investigative actions for PM3 Team:

• Investigate the how/if the solution is constricted by policy (or Steven)
• Teams working on lower priority work where the time spent could be better used.
• Do other programs model measure changes before implementation?
• Is anyone doing an impact analysis of not meeting policy deadlines

Positives:

• Appetite for reflection/innovation
• Competent HCD team with access to users
• Chris will take Lynn and Corinne’s recommendations on program operations
• Vendor transition provides an opportunity for a “Clean Break” on some practices and behaviors

Attendees:

Chris Reinartz (Federal)

Corinne Smith (PM3II)

Lynn Blair (PM3II)

Randolph Anagho (LACE)

Marc Santini (LACE)

Discussion Focus: Improving Product Management Practice

• Chris will discuss with Nora about the LACE engagement with her on helping understand the roles and responsibilities of a Product Manager
• Policy teams not engaged in the delivery process (rarely have tech and policy folks in one room)
• Policy team has to understand how those policies are implemented 
• They might be an opportunity to structure development practices better especially on refactoring 

Outcomes: The LACE/PM3 Program Leadership team will draft a roadmap for improving and streamlining the product management process and present to Chris.

Attendees:

Nora Ramos-Michael ()

Corinne Smith (PM3II)

Lynn Blair (PM3II)

Randolph Anagho (LACE)

Marc Santini (LACE)

Discussion Focus: Meet and greet with Nora to introduce the LACE and services. 

• The meeting started with a warm welcome and introduction 
• The LACE Team presented its services and how they can be useful 
• Nora shared their background and role
• Both sides discussed potential collaboration and the intent of this coaching engagement
• Meeting ended on a positive not to meet for further discussion 

Outcomes: The LACE/PM3II will meet with Nora weekly for now to understand more about her current role and responsibilities 

Attendees:

Nora Ramos-Michael ()

Corinne Smith (PM3II)

Lynn Blair (PM3II)

Randolph Anagho (LACE)

Discussion Focus: Follow-up meeting with Nora to understand more about her role and responsibilities. 

• Nora explained the existing product management process on how features are refined and shared with teams
• She mentioned that features are initially refined in a smaller group with the product manager and policy folks before involving Product Owners in the larger meeting (Feature Definition)
• The LACE team emphasized the significance of including Acceptance Criteria in feature refinement for clarity and alignment 
• The LACE inquired about the process of transferring requirements from program refinement to Product Owner
• Highlighted the importance of understanding the chain of custody for effective handoff

Outcomes: The LACE/PM3II will meet with Nora to start coaching and training on Feature authoring 

Attendees:

Nora Ramos-Michael ()

Corinne Smith (PM3II)

Randolph Anagho (LACE)

Discussion Focus: This meeting was focused on introducing the concept of feature authoring including defining what a feature is, understanding the DoR and DoD for features.

• Discussed the fundamental definition of a feature as a piece of functionality that provides value to the end-users or customers
• Emphasized the importance and value of using acceptance criteria and how we can intergrade policies constraints in our features
• Explored the concept of DoR, which outlines the criteria a feature must meet before it is ready for development 
• Discussed how a well-defined DoR helps prevent misunderstandings and ensures that features are actionable
• Covered the DoD, which defines the acceptance criteria that must be met for a feature 
• Highlighted the role of DoD in maintaining quality and consistency in feature delivery

Outcomes: The LACE will meet with Nora next week to continue coaching session on Feature Authoring