29
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: − + Line 97:
Line 97: − + Line 117:
Line 117: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Observation & Comments
== Workshop Session ==
== Workshop Session ==
[[File:Workshop.png|thumb|441x441px|Workshop Programme
[[File:Workshop.png|thumb|441x441px|Image 1: 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).
|An incentivised system to promote individual competition within public service by using training, vacation, and other ‘currencies’ to enable higher outputs.
|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.]]
[[File:Wikipic.jpg|thumb|244x244px|Image 2: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.
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.
# 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?
# 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?
# 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?
During the afternoon portion of the workshop, two teams of 5 and 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 15 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/'''Nom de l'équipe'''
!Problem/'''Problématique'''
!Persona/'''Personnage'''
!Impact
!Pitch/pas
|-
|HC.13.5-001 (HC.13)
|How can we allow the supervisor to adequately plan on-site inspections based on the risk in order to ensure that we are fulfilling our mandate as efficiently as possible within our allocated budget?
|Supervisor/manager
|Performance measurement indicators, Improved compliance level of the industry, Improved impact of the inspections, Ability to use inspection data, User friendly for the supervisor/manager, Completing the inspections within the allocated budget, Reduced stress level for inspectors and management, Meeting inspections number goal.
|Risk assessment tool using inspection and regulated parties data in real time
|-
|Multitaskers (M)
|Les inspecteurs estiment que l'industrie est de plus en plus frustrée par tous les organismes d'inspection (SC, AAM, OMS) en raison du manque de la coordination dans les dates d'inspection. Les inspecteurs des différentes agences se présentent souvent à quelques jours d'intervalle pour examiner les mêmes produits/services dans les laboratoires. Les inspecteurs sont tout aussi frustrés, car ils traitent ces plaintes depuis des années et pensent qu'il y a une duplication du travail, ce qui résulte en un gaspillage de temps et de ressources.
|Hugo
|Promouvoir une culture. Réduire les coûts. Promouvoir une bonne santé mentale. Solution proposée: Les inspecteurs proposent de développé un calendrier ou un système de planification qui établit un lien entre les visites et les rapports des d'inspection. Ce système permettrait d'éviter la duplication des inspections, de fournir un moyen de communication et un calendrier à la fois aux inspecteurs et à l'industrie, ce qui permet d'économiser du temps et des ressources.
|
|}
[[File:Wikipic3.jpg|thumb|218x218px|Image 3: Ideas from Montreal 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.
== Observation & Comments ==
== Observation & Comments ==
Planning for the innovation workshop began in June 2019. The original plan was to visit six cities to share, learn, and co-create in Burnaby, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. Due to various factors, the workshops were limited to Toronto and Montreal. Many observations and lessons have been collected; POD-TBI is looking to use these lessons to continuously improve efforts to engage and collaborate with internal and external partners. The following are a list of observations and comments from prior, during, and after the Toronto and Montreal workshops.
'''Why many people did not register''':
* Not able to obtain approval from manager
* Not enough awareness
* No travel policies close to year-end
* Operational requirements prevented participating in an all-day workshop
* Collision with priorities with year-end activities
* Communication and outreach lacked reach
* Description, purpose, and intent was not clear
* Employees felt the material/topic is not applicable to their work
* Lack of flexibility and empowerment from manager
'''What Worked Well'''
* Both venues in Toronto and Montreal were excellent for workshop formats
* Collection of speakers were diverse with a good range in perspectives
* The programming for the day was well sequenced
* The co-design workshop had positive participation energy from all attendees
* Collecting the problem statements in advance expedited the workshop
* Open and safe atmosphere for sharing and collaborating
* Attendees were open to learning and exploring
'''What Didn’t Work Well:'''
* Greater advanced notice of workshop may have allowed more people to register
* Email from ADMO was not noticed by many
* Content from industry did not connect well with audience (was cut for Montreal)
* Speakers that participated via WebEx were not able to connect as well as those in person
* The experimentation and innovation ‘primer’ video was not well viewed by attendees
* Communication and promotion could be improved increase reach
* Slido was not well used (this could be a sign that all participants felt comfortable to engage directly during workshop, instead of resorting to Slido)
* Greater consistency between co-design sessions to improve comparative analysis between cities
* Purpose of workshop could have been clearer; linked to communication and promotion
'''General Comments:'''
* Attempting to run six sessions in one month across the country would have been difficult
* The culture for change is not consistent across Canada
* Participants were engaged and motivation increase as day progressed
* Participants were putting into practice what they learned in the morning. We saw a change/growth in their mindset
* Respectful and appreciative of each other and the presenters
* Many great questions were raised – a sign of high interest from attendees
* There seems to be a desire to have more sessions like these
* Feedback in general have been extremely positive
* Participants requested more information to support their continuous learning on innovation/experimentation/design-thinking/solution funds
* There is an appetite for more information on new and existing innovation project
== Next Steps ==
== Next Steps ==
As part of the open approach taken to deliver the workshop, it was made clear that POD-TBI are not experts in innovation, experimentation, or even applying design approaches to problems. The goal was to connect with as many ROEB employees as possible throughout Canada and share our story, and use the forum as a launch pad to collaborate, co-develop, co-design a transformative future of our Branch.
A single day workshop is not sufficient to train and equip anyone of all tools needed to experiment toward innovation. The intent was to allow participants to have an introduction to already existing experiments underway within ROEB and harness a path forward to continuously learn together, by working on projects together. To ensure this is possible, POD-TBI made the following three commitments:
# Share all information presented and collected during the workshop with not only those that participated, but with all of ROEB;
# Follow up with all those registered to explore the submitted problems further through whatever means necessary that is appropriate, including the five ideas generated in Montreal and Toronto;
# Maintain openness and the willingness to learn and share together to ensure our Branch employees has a safe place to explore problems/opportunities using controlled testing methodologies.
The initial feedback has been incredibly positive. The innovation team at POD-TBI is planning to run future workshops, next being scheduled within the National Capital Region in the coming Fiscal Year.
Finally, a note to those that participated. Without their commitment to learn and opening themselves to a workshop that put an emphasis on learning together, this experience would not have been a success. The ability to leverage vulnerability to explore and learn is a critical component of experimentation.
== Appendix ==
== Appendix ==
