×

Tag: user needs

Service Standards for the whole service

How the service standards have evolved over time….

Gov.uk has recently published the new Service Standards for government and public sector agencies to use when developing public facing transactional services.

I’ve previously blogged about why the Service Standards are important in helping us develop services that meet user needs, as such I’ve been following their iteration with interest.

The service standards are a labour of love that have been changed and iterated a couple of time over the last 6 years. The initial digital by default service standard, developed in 2013 by the Government Digital Service, came fully into force in April 2014 for use by all transactional Digital Products being developed within Government; it was a list of 26 standards all Product teams had to meet to be able to deliver digital products to the public. The focus was on creating digital services so good that people preferred to use them, driving up digital completion rates and decreasing costs by moving to digital services. It included making plans for the phasing out of alternative channels and encouraged that any non-digital sections of the service should only be kept where legally required.

A number of fantastic products and services were developed during this time, leading the digital revolution in government, and vastly improving users experience of interacting government. However, these Products and Services were predominantly dubbed ‘shiny front ends’. They had to integrate with clunky back end services, and often featured drop out points from the digital service (like the need for wet signatures) that it was difficult to change. This meant the ‘cost per transaction’ was actually very difficult to calculate; and yet standard 23 insisted all services must publish their cost per transaction as one of the 4 minimum key performance indicators required for the performance platform.

The second iteration of the digital service standard was developed in 2015, it reduced the number of standards services had to meet to 18, and was intended to be more Service focused rather than Product focused, with standard number 10 giving some clarity on how to ‘test the service end to end’. It grouped the standards together into themes to help the flow of the service standard assessments, it also clarified and emphasised a number of the points to help teams develop services that met user needs. While standard 16 still specified you needed a plan for reducing you cost per transaction, it also advised you to calculate how cost effective your non transactional user journeys were and to include the ‘total cost’ which included things like printing, staff costs and fixtures and fittings.

However, as Service design as a methodology began to evolve, the standards were criticised for still being too focused on the digital element of the service. Standard 14 still stated that ‘everyone much be encourage to use the digital service’. There were also a lot of questions about how the non digital elements of a service could be assessed, and the feeling that the standards didn’t cover how large or complicated some services could be.

Paper and Digital

The newest version of the Service standard has been in development since 2017, a lot of thought and work has gone into the new standard, and a number of good blogs have been written about the process the team have gone through to update them. As a member of some of the early conversations and workshops about the new standards I’ve been eagerly awaiting their arrival.

While the standards still specifically focus on public facing transactional services, they have specially be designed for full end to end services, covering all channels users might use to engage with a service. There are now 14 standards, but the focus is now much wider than ‘Digital’ as is highlighted by the fact the word Digital has been removed from the title!

Standard number 2 highlights this new holistic focus, acknowledging the problems users face with fragmented services. Which is now complimented by Standard number 3 that specifics that you must provide a joined up experience that meets all user needs across all channels. While the requirement to measure your cost per transaction and digital take up is still there for central government departments, it’s no longer the focus, instead the focus of standard 10 is now on identifying metrics that will indicate how well the services is solving the problem it’s meant to solve.

For all the changes, one thing has remained the same thorough out, the first standard upon which the principles of transformation in the public sector are built; understand the needs of your users.

Apparently the new standards are being rolled out for Products and Services entering Discovery after the 30th of June 2019, and I for one I’m looking forward to using them.

Launch!

What is the role of Business Analysts within agile?

Analysisng the role of the Business Analyst.

When we were looking at the Digital, Data and Technology (DDaT) roles and capabilities back in 2016, one of the roles we really struggled with was the role of the Business Analyst (BA).

Not because we didn’t agree that it was a role (because we absolutely did) but because we struggled to define the scope of the role in comparison to things like; Product Management, Design or User Research roles.

It’s one of the questions, that three years later still comes around regularly. Who is responsible for defining the requirements? What is the role of the BA?

Who holds the requirments?

The role of the BA in an agile team

One of the problems we had back when we were defining the BA role as part of the DDaT professions, was that the Government Digital Service didn’t have BA’s in their teams. Similarly, the original Scrum Manifesto only has 3 roles in an agile team, the product owner, development team members and scrum master.

Because traditionally, the BA acted as the link between the business units and IT, helping to discover the requirements and the solution to address them; when multidisciplinary teams bought those members together the role of the BA became less clear.

This has meant when adopting agile, different government departments implemented the role in slightly different ways. The biggest trap I have seen teams fall into was the BA getting stuck with all the admin roles for the project.

Roman Pilcher argued for those BA’s moving into Scrum there were two options, becoming the Product Owner, or becoming a ‘team member’.

While I agree that Business Analysts are a key member of a multidisciplinary team, I disagree with this assumption that everyone on an agile team who isn’t the scrum master or the PO is simply ‘a team member’ I think the Business Analyst is a critical role (especially for Product Managers!) that brings unique skills to the team.

So, first things first let’s look at what requirements are in the agile space.

Certainly, within digital government at least, we use a user centric design approach. We are developing products and services that fix the problems that our users are facing. We are identifying user needs and testing and iterating those throughout the product development lifecycle. A lot of the time this conversation about ‘user needs’ has replaced the more traditional conversations about ‘requirements’. Which is good in some ways, but has also led to a bit of confusion about what Business Analysts do if it’s not gathering requirements. Who owns the requirements now?

Are user researchers responsible for gathering the requirements from external users (user needs), whereas Business Analysts are responsible for gathering requirements based on what the business needs (sometimes called business user needs)?

That line of conversation worries me, because it suggests that we don’t need to carry out user research on internal staff, it forgets that internal staff are users too.

So, what is the role of the BA?

In my experience the conversation about who is responsible for gathering requirements is symptamatic of the limitations of the English language, and our obsession with ‘ownership’.

User researchers primarily focus on gathering more qualitative data; why users behave the way they do, how things are making them feel; probing their views and opinions to understand what it is they actually need etc. They will help understand who they users are and verify what the users need. They will work with the team to test design assumptions and help ensure the options being developed meet user needs.

Business Analysis primarily focus on gathering the more quantitative data about the process; both the ‘as is’ process, and the future process we are designing. They work to understand how many users are being or will be affected? What are the cost/time impacts of the problem as identified? What value could be gained through the implementation of any of the options the team are considering?

They help identify the stakeholders that will need to be engaged, and how to best engage with them. They will turn the user needs into user stories that the team can develop and identify the metrics and success criteria for the team to help them measure value.

Where you have a Product or Service that is live and being used by real users, the BA will work with Performance Analysts to understand the feedback data coming from the users.

User Researchers and Business Analysts will often work closely together, while BA’s will use tools like process mapping to identify pain points, user researchers will work with them to map the emotions users are experiencing so that we can fully understand the impact of our current processes and the value we can release by fixing the problem. When User Researchers are planning in research sessions etc., they will often work with BA’s to get the data on where best to test in terms of locations or user groups.

Good Product Managers will use both the Quantitative and Qualitative data to help them pick which options to test. Designers will help both the user researchers and business analysts look at the data and design prototypes etc. to test with users.

For me, each role is clear in its scope, and their need to work together to identify the right problems users are facing and the best way to test those; and it’s not about what individual owns the requirements, because the answer is the team do.

The Day Data went Viral

This week the UK Government and Parliament petitions website has been getting a lot of attention, both good and not so good. This site has been a great example of how the Digital Service Standards work to ensure what we deliver in the public sector meets user needs.

On the 20th of February a petition was created on the petitions website to Revoke Article 50 and remain within the EU, on the 21st of March the petition went viral, and as of writing this blog has currently got 5,536,580 5,608,428 5,714,965 signatures. This is the biggest petition to have ever been started since the sites launch. Not only that, it is now the most supported petition in the world, ever.

Screenshot of the petitions website

The first version of the site was developed in 2010 after the election. Originally intended to replace the Number 10 petition site, which had a subtly different purpose. The new version of the Parliamentary petitions site was then launched in 2015, as an easy way for users to make sure their concerns were heard by the government and parliament. The original version of the service was developed by Pete Herlihy and Mark O’Neill back in the very early days of Digital Government, before the Digital Service Standard was born.

The site was built using open source code, meaning anyone can access the source code used to build the site, making it is easy to interrogate the data. With a number of sites, like unboxed, developing tools to help map signatories of petitions etc based off the data available.

Screenshot of the unboxed website

Within the Governments Digital Design standards using open source code has always been one of the standards some departments have really struggled with, it’s digital standard number 8, and is often a bit contentious. But looking at the accusations being lobbied at the Revoke Article 50 petition, that people outside of the UK are unfairly signing the petition, that people are creating fake emails to sign the petition etc, it shows why open source data is so important. While the petitions committee won’t comment in detail about the security measures they use; examining the code you can see the validation the designers built into the site to try and ensure it was being used seurely and fairly.

britorbot data analysis

Speaking of security measures, that’s digital service standard number 7, making sure the service has the right security levels, the petitions site apparently uses both automated and manual techniques to spot bots; disposable email addresses and other fraudulent activities. This works with digital standard number 15, using tools for analysis that collect performance data; to monitor signing patterns etc. Analysing the data, 96% of signatories have been within the UK (what the committee would expect from a petition like this).

tweet from the Petitions Committee from 22nd March

Another key service standard is building a service that can be iterated and improved on a frequent basis (digital standard number 5), which mean that when the petition went viral, the team were able to spot that the site wasn’t coping with the frankly huge amount of traffic headed it’s way and quickly doubled the capacity of the service within a handful of hours.

tweet from Pete Herlihy (product manager – petitions website)

This also calls out the importance of testing your service end to end (standard number 10) and ensuring its scalable; and if and when it goes down (as the petitions website did a number of times given the large amount of traffic that hit it, you need to have a plan for what to do when it goes down (standard number 11), which for the poor Petitions team meant some very polite apologetic messages being shared over social media while the team worked hard and fast to get the service back online.

tweet from the Petitions Committee from 21st March

The staggering volume of traffic to the site, and the meteoric speed in which the petition went vial, shows that at its heart, the team who developed the service had followed Digital Service Standard number 1. Understand your user’s needs.

In today’s culture of social media, people have high expectations of services and departments with there interactions online, we live in a time of near instant news, entertainment and information- and an expectation of having the world available at our fingertips with a click of a button. People want and need to feel that their voice is being heard, and the petitions website tapped into that need, delivering it effectively under conditions that are unprecedented.

Interestingly when the site was first developed, Mark himself admitted they didn’t know if anyone would use it. There was a lot of concern from people that 100,000 signatures was too high a figure to trigger a debate; but within the first 100 days six petitions had already reached the threshold and become eligible for a debate in the Commons. Pete wrote a great blog back in 2011 summing up what those first 100 days looked like.

It’s an example of great form design, and following digital service standard number 12, it is simple and intuitive to use. This has not been recognised or celebrated enough over the last few days, both the hard work of the team who developed the service and those maintaining and iterating it today. In my opinion this service has proven over the last few days that it is a success, and that the principles behind the Digital Service Standards that provided the design foundations for the site are still relevant and adding value today.

tweet from Mark O’Neill (part of the original team)

Speak Agile To Me:

I have blogged about some of these elsewhere, but a quick glossary of terms that you might hear when talking Agile or Digital Transformation.

Agile: A change methodology, focusing on delivering value as early as possible, iterating and testing regularly.

Waterfall: A Change methodology, focusing on a linear lifecycle delivering a project based on requirements gathered upfront.

Scrum: A type of Agile, based on daily communication and the flexible iteration of plans that are carried out in short timeboxes of work.

Kanban: A type of Agile, based on limiting throughput and the amount of work in progress.

The Agile Lifecycle: Similar to other change methodology lifecycles, the agile lifecycle is the stages a project has to go through. Unlike other lifecycles, agile is not a linear process, and products or services may go around the agile lifecycle several times before they are decommissioned.

Discovery: The first stage of the agile lifecycle, all about understanding who your users are; what they need and the problem you are trying to fix. Developing assumptions and hypothesis. Identifying a MVP that you think will fix the problem you have identified. Prioritising your user needs and
turning them into epic user stories.Akin to the requirements gathering stage in Waterfall.

Alpha: The design and development stage. Building prototypes of your service and testing it with your users. Breaking user needs and Epics into user stories and prioritising them. Identifying risks and issues understanding the architecture and infrastructure you will need prior to build. Akin to the design and implementation stage in Waterfall.

Beta: The build and test stage. Building a working version of your service. Ensuring your service is accessible, secure and scalable. Improving the service based on user feedback, measuring the impact of your service or product on the problem you were trying to fix. Can feature Private and Public Beta. Akin to the Testing and development stage in Waterfall.

Private Beta: Testing with a restricted number of users. A limited test. Users can be invited to user the service or limited by geographical region etc.

Public Beta: A product still in test phase but open to a wider audience, users are no longer invited in, but should be aware they product is still in test phase.

Live: Once you know your service meets all the user needs identified within your MVP, you are sure it is accessible, secure and scalable, and you have a clear plan to keep iterating and supporting it then you can go live. Akin to the Maintenance stage in Waterfall.

MVP: The Minimum Viable Product, the smallest releasable product with just enough features to meet user needs, and to provide feedback for future product development.

User Needs: The things your users need, evidenced by user research and testing. Akin to business requirements in Waterfall and other methodologies.

GDS: Government Digital Services, part of the Cabinet Office, leading digital transformation for Government, setting the Digital Service Standard that all Government Departments must meet when developing digital products and services.

The Digital Service Standards: https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/service-standard 18 standards all government digital services should meet when developing products and services.

Service Design: Looking at your Product or Service holistically, keeping it user focused while ensuring it aligns with your organisation strategy.

User Centric Design (UCD): The principles of user centric design are very simple, that you keep the users (both internal and external) at the heart of everything you do. This means involving users in the design process, rather than using ‘proxy’ users (people acting like users), you involve actual users throughout the design and development process. Recognising different users (and user groups) have different needs and that the best way to design services that meet those needs is to keep engaging with the users.

Why it’s ok to recognise that not everyone is the same.

At our LGBT* AGM a few weeks ago there were some really good conversations about what we could do to keep growing our network and supporting both the LGBT* members of our organisation, and ensuring as an organisation we are recognising what good looks like in terms of care for LGBT* people, and how we can best collaborate with other networks to support each other.

One thing that came up, that I’ve heard a few times before, is that, when talking to people outside of the network, the answer “I treat everyone the same” is thought to be a good answer when we ask care providers about the services they offer people.

Is that good enough? Are everyone’s needs the same? How do we work with service providers to explain why treating everyone as if they are the same isn’t necessarily the right thing to do. Do we understand why it isn’t?

Kylie Havelock does a great session on Equality vs. Equity that really helped me understand the issues we face when we strive to ‘treat everyone the same’.

The fundamental issue is that when we talk about treating everyone the same, we are often taking about treating everyone like what looks good to us. So, by deciding what good looks like for everyone else, we’re often approaching the problem from the point of view of our own privilege and what we think everyone needs based on our own assumptions and life experiences.

The intent is good, but the delivery is flawed. If we don’t take the effort to understand where someone else is starting from, and what they need, then we can never ensure we are treating them in the way that will most benefit them.

If you search online there’s a few pictures out there that help sum up the difference between Equality and Equity. To put it simply, Equality is where we treat everyone the same. Which assumes the same thing will benefit everyone in the same way. Equity is treating people fairly, looking at what they need to ensure they have access the same opportunities.

The photo below is fairly famous now, or at least the one you have probably seen the most if you’ve been following the conversation about Equality and Equity.

By treating everyone the same we ignore that the individuals in the picture are all different heights, so giving each a box to look over the fence isn’t actually very useful. The tallest person can already see fine and doesn’t need help. The middle person can now see with the aid of the box, but the smallest person still can’t see.

By treating them fairly we give each the help they need. So, we don’t give a box to the tallest individual, as they don’t need it. We give the middle individual one box, so they can see, but we then give the smallest individual two boxes, as they had the most height to make up, and they can also now see over the fence. Which is great.

Interestingly the above picture has its own issues, simply because it suggests that some people just need more of the same help than others, rather than the fact that for some people you need to think of a different approach to your solution.

To put it simply, not everyone can stand on a box, and ignoring that fact means we can spend a fortune investing in boxes to ensure everyone can see over that fence, but in reality we are still not recognising what people might need to ensure equal access. So yes, some people might not need a box at all; some might need one box; some might need two, but others might need a ramp, or if they are visually impaired they might need someone to describe what’s happening on the other side of the fence.

(Credit to: http://muslimgirl.com/46703/heres-care-equity-equality/ )

In a business setting, talking about fairness vs. sameness can be beneficial, especially where people have recognised there is a problem. But sometimes you need to go a step further and help people understand why what works for them isn’t what works for everyone, and that can be a little bit tougher, as that can take a conversation about understanding their own privilege.

In my experience, privilege seems to have become a dirty work, as soon as you try to talk to some people about it, they immediately become defensive, because they assumption is made that you are accusing them of intolerance of some kind.

But the truth is we all have some level of bias based on our own upbringing and experiences. Within the civil service and the public sector we have training to help us deal with unconscious bias, but I think we could go one step further with that training and get everyone to understand their own privilege, and where they are starting from in communications or day to day life in comparison to others.

In some areas we will have more privilege, in others we may have less. Understanding that helps us to understand where others are coming from and can then help us to treat people more fairly, rather than simply treating everyone the same.

If you’ve never examined your privilege there are some interesting tests out there, whatever score you get, the questions alone might help you consider things you’ve never considered as privilege before (be that your race, your ability to afford prescriptions or whether you’ve ever had to hide any elements of your identity.) While there are probably better ones out there, this one on buzzfeed is quite simple and easy to understand for a start.

I got 53%, which if I’m honest surprised me a little, I’d assumed I would get a slightly higher score. But the important thing for me is recognised those areas where I did score a point, and reflecting on those when I’m dealing with others to ensure I am being fair to them and not just treating them how I would expect to be treated because of my own privileges.

For those of us in diversity equality groups, when talking to others we need to check our own privilege, find common ground to start a conversation from, and recognise that as children we’re are often told to “be fair and treat everyone equally” now we just have to be able to help people recognise that Fairness and Equality are not the same thing, and it is important that we can all recognise that.

And when designing or delivering public services, it’s always worth us understanding our privilege, and why we need to ensure the services we delivery are fair and give equal opportunities to all those that may need them.

Originally posted on Medium

My user manual:

A user manual is a document that tells users how to use a particular system. More recently personal user manuals that help others work with you better have begun to spring up.

I’ve seen a few great examples of personal user manuals recently, most recently from Dan Barrett, and I really like the idea; Unfortunately I’ve never had the time to sit down and draft one.

As I approach the end of my current role and prepare to start at somewhere completely new, I thought it was a good time to reflect on myself, and what it might help others around me to know.

Conditions I like to work in:

  • I like open plan offices, but every now and then I will need a day working from home or a quieter office where I can focus and recharge.
  • I have a high tolerance for background noise, but I don’t like harsh or unexpected noise; similarly with lighting, harsh lighting can give me migraines. •I’m not a fan of hot desking, I prefer having a desk I know is mine. Even when visiting other offices I will always default back to the desk/s I normally sit in. In my office you can always spot my desk as it will have my lego name plate and some bobble heads on it. This may seem odd, but it helps me feel ‘in control’ even when evening else keeps changing.
  • I do enjoy a good workshop, especially if it has post it notes and sharpies, but I’m less of a fan of traditional meetings.
  • My favourite environment is sat with my team, where we can discuss and share what we’re doing, solving problems and achieving things together.
  • I enjoy working in fast paced environments, I’m best when I’m busy and getting things done.

The times/ hours I like to work:

  • I don’t work Fridays, there will generally be an hour or two where I catch up and respond to emails, but Friday is my day for sorting out all the things I need to at home so that at the weekend I can give my son my full attention.
  • I’m usually in the office by 9:30, but I’ll log on at 8 am and start responding to emails and calls on my commute in. I generally leave the office by 4:30, but will answer emails up till 5pm, and then usually log back in for an hour or so once my son goes to bed.
  • For childcare reasons I have one day a week I can’t travel far and tend to work from home or finish a bit earlier, but I balance that by having one day a week I can stay over night or work late.
  • I have the most energy late morning or early afternoon.

The best way to communicate with me:

  • I generally respond quickly to text messages or WhatsApp. •Twitter DM’s are ok, but if I don’t follow you I probably won’t spot DM requests.
  • I don’t like ringing people, and prefer to only answer calls from people I know.
  • I’m not a big fan of emails, especially not long formal email chains. I respond best to quick and easy requests that I can deal with on the move. If it needs proper consideration it will probably have to wait until I have time set aside to be at my desk.
  • I much prefer informal conversations, and respond best to people coming and talking to me. If I’m in an open plan office I’m always interruptible unless I have my headphones in, at which point leave me a note and I’ll come find you when I’m ready.

The ways I like to receive feedback:

  • I prefer feedback one to one in person, rather than in a group.
  • I’m trying to be better at receiving positive feedback and not being embarrassed/self-deprecating,
  • I do like written feedback especially if it’s constructive or critical feedback so that I can properly reflect on it and refer to it, but positive feedback is good in writing too so I can save it and share it with my manager, or with myself when I need a boost.

Things I need:

  • I need to know I am empowered, I need to feel trusted and given autonomy.
  • But I also need to feel supported, I need to know where to go when I need help or just to talk something through.
  • I need to have open conversations, both in a group and one to one.
  • I need big messy problems to solve.
  • I need to be doing things that matter, that are helping people.
  • I need the opportunity to coach and support others, especially when I’m not hands on with a project as it helps me feel like I’m still helping others.
  • I need to have the time to go to events and network, these help me recharge.

Things I struggle with:

  • Putting my thoughts down coherently or capturing action points etc. I’ve worked hard to improve my written and organisational skills, but I know they are not my greatest strengths. When asked for written briefs etc I do better when I’ve got the chance to run it past someone else before submitting. When it comes to organising things, I tend to surround myself with those who are better at it than me.
  • I can find conflict draining, especially if it carries on for a long period. When dealing with conflict I need to be doing something else at the same time where I’m working with ‘my tribe’ and achieving results positively.
  • My memory isn’t great, and I’m usually balancing a lot of things, so if I forget something, do remind me.
  • Delegation, I’m trying to get much better at delegating, but my tendency will always be to protect those working for me, so I need to be reminded that people want me to delegate so that I don’t feel like I’m putting burdens on others.
  • I struggle with unnecessary hierarchy or process. I find it frustrating to explain the same thing over and over again.
  • I struggle to initiate conversations, and I’m not great at small talk with people I don’t know, but I do love talking to and getting to know people.
  • I’m not always great with connecting names to faces, even of people I know, so please don’t be offended if I need a reminder.
  • Talking at people, conferences/ events/ even large meetings are hard for me, but having one or two friendly faces makes all the difference.
  • Eye contact, it’s not you, it’s me. I am listening and I do care. The same with fiddling or doodling. It’s how my brain works, please don’t take it as a sign I’m not paying attention because I am.

Things I love:

  • I love coming up with ideas and solving problems •I love working with a team or one or two others.
  • I like making people laugh
  • I like feeling needed
  • I love building teams
  • I love making a difference, and improving things for people.
  • I love getting to know people, what their interests are, what makes them tick.
  • I love to smile.

Other things to know about me:

  • I am neurodiverse, Dyspraxic with ADHD and Dyslexic tendencies; things like eye contact, doodling, memory etc are all part of this. But I’m good at thinking outside of the box and approaching things from a fresh angle.
  • I am incredibly loyal, if we are friends/colleagues I will always have your back, if you need help I will always do my best for you.
  • I am adaptable and resilient, I will always try to keep going and be flexible in my approach in order to deliver the right thing. I’m good in challenging situations. I get things done.
  • People don’t always think I’m taking things seriously, but I’m very committed and passionate about what I do, I will take on the toughest situations, but I’ll do it with a smile.
  • I’m a people person.
  • I’m a ridiculous extravert and a massive geek, I recharge by spending time with my tribe.
  • I’m a single mum to a neurodiverse child, I work hard to balance my work and home life, and talk openly about the challenges of that in order to support and encourage others to do the same.

Me in a nutshell:

I like to think I fight for what is right, helping others and using my networks and skills to solve problems, just like a certain lady detective. But obviously with less murders and less fantastic outfits.

The Honourable Phryne Fisher