ISG Playbook
APIs
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
- 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)
- New jira project to align to LACE standards
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
Engagement Information
Goal Summary:
Measurement
How do we know we're making progress/successful (per goal)?
How often would you like to evaluate progress (per goal)?
Goal Summary:
Measurement
How do we know we're making progress/successful (per goal)?
How often would you like to evaluate progress (per goal)?
Goal Summary:
Measurement
How do we know we're making progress/successful (per goal)?
How often would you like to evaluate progress (per goal)?
Other:
Would you like this page to be private?