29
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: − + + Line 56:
Line 57: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Results from Toronto
== Workshop Session ==
== Workshop Session ==
[[File:Workshop.png|thumb|441x441px|Summarized Outline of Workshop]]
[[File:Workshop.png|thumb|441x441px|Workshop Programme
]]
The afternoon was dedicated to allow participants gain hands on experience applying a ‘design model’ to problem framing and idea generation. It focused on a process that put the emphasis on understanding the problem through an exploration of the persona – or the person that owns the problem. This is an approach to ensure that the right problem is being solved, and not the symptom(s).
The afternoon was dedicated to allow participants gain hands on experience applying a ‘design model’ to problem framing and idea generation. It focused on a process that put the emphasis on understanding the problem through an exploration of the persona – or the person that owns the problem. This is an approach to ensure that the right problem is being solved, and not the symptom(s).
== Results from Toronto ==
== Results from Toronto ==
The Toronto co-design workshop was on February 26, 2020, at 2301 Midland Avenue. Sixteen registered participants attended the session, along with six facilitators and presenters (Martin Bernard, Peter Yoon, Amy McDonald, Sarah Kennedy, Scott McNaughton, Fariba Anderson). The session had 23 people who registered; due to weather and various operational pressures, some were not able to attend. As part of the registration process enabled by [https://www.eventbrite.com/ Eventbrite], participants were asked to submit a problem or opportunity they are passionate about. The following is the list provided by many that registered prior to the workshop.
# The time it takes to perform general drug screening for samples takes too long.
# Foreign paper based inspections could use innovation.
# Case management record keeping is disjointed; needs modernization.
# Buy in for a project that may not be a priority for the stakeholders due to other urgent priorities.
# Maintenance of the facilities that everyone uses in the laboratory.
# Streamlining the initial inspection process (based on risk). Initial inspections are added work on top of regular scheduled inspections. Is it always necessary to go onsite?
# Site inspection note taking is a time-intensive activity. Are there ways to improve the process?
# Working within the resources and parameters of being in the public sector, how do we adapt our training and processes so that we can work with the public while not completely overhauling all the systems and policies that currently exist?
# Reporting tools that we use are very primitive and do not support simultaneous use by multiple users.
# Are there better ways to connect to our stakeholders to execute outreach activities?
# Unable to increase CMP as a trusted or #1 source of public information for risk management.
# Shared Drives: there is a lot of duplicate folders and documents in multiple locations in the shared drives. Is there a better way?
During the afternoon portion of the workshop, three teams of 5 or 6 were formed to apply a hybrid ‘design thinking’ approach. This approach combined Human Centric Design and the Double Diamond Design models. The goal was to help participants feel comfortable with a different process/approach to problem solving. Each group was asked to choose one of the 12 submitted problems/opportunities; they were also given the choice to present a new problem if desired. The following are the summaries from the exercise.
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Team Name
!Problem
!Persona
!Impact
!Pitch
|-
|KZPMK (KZ)
|Inability to compile and share information in real-time. The Environmental Health Program compiles activities by each region. Each region has its own ‘system’ to track this data; consolidation for reporting is incredibly time consuming and has potentials for human error as the synthesis is done manually. How can we support a decentralized model to collect and track data with improved accuracy and speed?
|Environmental Health Officer
|Ability to generate accurate reports, in real-time and improve efficiency and productivity.
|Auto file consolidation “dropbox” (auto reconciliation). A data synthesis system that allows regions to drop/submit files in any data format; generates standardized reports required for various stakeholders without the need for any human intervention.
|-
|Storm
|How might reducing the time to take inspection notes for inspectors in order to increase productivity and efficiency for inspectors? (Site inspection note taking is a time-intensive activity. Are there ways to improve the process?)
|public, inspector, management, industry, HQ
|Shorter inspection times; more “inspections” complete; quality of reports; collaboration with industry
|A program that reads all company documents and generates a report.
|-
|Vanilla#
|(Start) Case management record keeping is disjointed; needs modernization.
|ROEB Employees Steve and Alison
|accuracy of information available in systems; efficient processes that drive business outcomes; accessibility of real-time information
|An incentivised system to promote individual competition within public service by using training, vacation, and other ‘currencies’ to enable higher outputs.
|}
[[File:Wikipic.jpg|thumb|244x244px|Ideas from Toronto session mapped against Value and Complexity.]]
Once the groups presented their problem and idea, it was mapped against two variables: value and complexity. This provided an opportunity to evaluate potential effort and the return on investment. By no means was this exercise scientific. As part of the continuous learning incorporated within design thinking, check points to question and criticize are critical to ensure probability of success. This exercise was used as one mechanism to quickly discuss and evaluate the solution.
== Results from Montreal ==
== Results from Montreal ==
The Montreal co-design workshop was on February 27, 2020, at 200 Boulevard René Lévesque Ouest, Complexe Guy Favreau. Twelve participants attended the session, along with five facilitators and presenters (Martin Bernard, Peter Yoon, Amy McDonald, Sarah Kennedy, Scott McNaughton). The session had 18 people who registered; due to weather and various operational pressures, some were not able to attend. As part of the registration process enabled by Eventbrite, participants were asked to submit a problem or opportunity they are passionate about. The following is the list provided by many that registered prior to the workshop.
# To list all information of products inspected by hand writing.
# Comment mieux gérer les nombreux et très complexes documents soumis dans le cadre du processus d'évaluation des impacts d'un projet? L'objectif étant d'assurer la transparence et une accessibilité de l'information pour le public.
# Complex laboratory analysis of new substances available on the market.
# As a team lead, a project that we are putting in place to ensure uniformity across country need anti-resistance strategy. Also, the direction seems to be transfer from RORB to OCS during the deployment.
# Environnement de travail sans papier et automatisation de rapport de base de donnée.
# How to better use and/or link databases across the branch in order to complement each other and have more complete and reliable data.
# How to have data available in a more timely manner using automation in order to take action to improve the health of Canadians.
# I’m a new employee at ROEB and I don’t know if I have all the relevant data available to make a reliable decision when regulating health products. It seems that many systems and sources each provide one piece of the puzzle; what I’m missing the big picture. How can I be more confident that I’m using all the right data – and that I can trust that data?
# I found some data that could be valuable for my work but leveraging it isn’t easy – it’s in a proprietary format and I need to do a manual extract and go through several cleansing steps to be able to use it.
# How can I make this more straightforward and easier?
# Équipe dispersée et plusieurs intervenants dans notre programme.
# Le manque de ressources dans un contexte où il y a de multiples priorités à gérer.
# There is no consistency on how tobacco industry keeps track of their internal documentation (No GMP required). Difficult to audit.
# Streamlining the initial inspection process (based on risk). Initial inspections are added work on top of regular scheduled inspections. Is it always necessary to go onsite?
# Is there a better way we can tackle learning about inspections for those that are new? How can we transfer experience from experts to novice employees in a more efficient way?
== Observation & Comments ==
== Observation & Comments ==
