0

CDS Design Jam – June 21, 2018 | SNC Séance de design – le 21 juin 2018


Dave: Welcome to CDS’s first Design Jam. This is fantastic. Huge round of applause. (Applause) Also thank you for everybody waking
up, getting all designy, getting your caffeine and fruits and vegetables. J’apprécie beaucoup. So just some housekeeping notes, des notes
d’accommodation pour commencer. So first of all, especially on today, I would
like to begin today by acknowledging that the land in which we gather is the traditional
territory of the Algonquin Anishinabek people. So we are very grateful for the opportunity
to meet here today and we are thankful for the generations of people who have taken care
of this land. So nous sommes vraiment honorés d’avoir l’opportunité
de se rencontrer ici et sommes reconnaissants des générations qui ont pris soin de ces
terres. So also for some housekeeping notes, washrooms,
just follow signs. Les placards ici. Fire exits are beside the washrooms. On va enregistrer les parties de la session
aujourd’hui. So there’s some signs that says that we’re
going to record some of the sessions today. So if you don’t want to be recorded, just
kind of avoid this thing. (Laughter) But it’s about participation, it’s
about being in the open, which is wonderful. And we have some snacks, hors d’oeuvres à
côté ici – that will be provided throughout the day. And then at noon, for lunch, what we’ll do
is we’ll pick you up and we’re going to bring you upstairs to the 14th floor, pour que vous
peut voir notre espace. So you can see the space upstairs on the 14th
floor and you can just kind of eat with us, et partager des histoires, and we’ll just
go from there. so yeah, so again, thank you everybody for
coming. I’ll just pass over our stationary mic to
Chris Govias who is our design lead. He’s going to tell us, you about, some things
about CDS. So thanks very much. (Applause) Chris: Honestly, you don’t have to clap. We’re not going to be that formal today. (Laughter) So thanks Dave. Chris: Welcome everyone. It’s tremendously exciting to see this many
people hanging out on early, what is it, Thursday morning? Okay, we made it to Thursday. It’s going to be alright everyone. Yeah, Thursday morning and so much interest
in design. This is really exciting for me. I’m Chris Govias, I am the Chief of Design
here at Canadian Digital Service. I did this before in the United Kingdom where,
at the Ministry of Justice and part of the GDS group. So I’m tremendously excited that Canada’s
actually focusing on trying to bring user centred design into everything we do. Very quickly, cause I’m going to let you actually
get to work and enjoy yourselves today rather than listening to me, CDS is relatively new. We’re going to turn a year next month. So last year, we were announced in budget
and we’re a small department, small but mighty. There’s about 50 of us right now and we’re
planning to grow. But we have a really straightforward mandate
and that’s to deliver simple, easy to use services for all Canadians. And we’re going to do that by approaching
all of our problems with that user centred design lens that Dave referenced and that
you’re going to learn even more about today. What sets CDS aside from innovation hubs or
labs that are scattered throughout government right now is that we focus on delivery and
this means actually building and implementing what we spec out. So our user centred design process is actually
integrated into a full technology process. We take our research and our qualitative and
quantitative learnings and then we actually apply that with developers and other designers,
technologists and we build solutions with other departments. We’re partnered right now with a couple of
agencies like Veterans Affairs Canada, IRCC. We’re doing some interesting work around like
serving up Canadian websites in the most secure manner possible with HTTPS. You can bother someone else about the details. It gets very technical very quickly. But we try and work with our partner departments
to try something new and deliver something new and interesting. So the delivery aspect is what really sets
us apart. This is a model that’s been proven around
the world by people like GDS in the United Kingdom, 18F in USDS in the United States
and then countless other organizations, including Estonia, the Digital Transformation Agency
in Australia. So this idea of digital government and applying
user centred design isn’t new by any means. Yeah, we’re incredibly lucky because Canada
gets to stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before and learn from those other
agencies and hopefully only make new mistakes. So (laughter), look, I’m going to get out
of the way, I’m going to drop by a couple of times today and just a look at what’s happening,
but I’m tremendously excited to see what you all come up with and what you jam. So, good luck everyone. (Applause) Eman: Hi everyone. My name is Eman, I’m a designer at the Canadian
Digital Service, and so we’re going to start off by hearing about the challenges that you’ll
be working on. So we’re going to have challenge owners from
ESDC and CRA come up and introduce what the three challenge statements are for each of
the respective departments. And so as you’re listening to these challenges,
make note of which one you would potentially want to work on and sort of prioritize in
your mind what that looks like because as soon as we are done with the introductions
this morning, you’ll have the opportunity to sign up for the challenge that you would
like to work on for the rest of the day. So the challenge owners will come up and provide
a bit of context around each of the questions and then you’ll have the opportunity to sign
up for them. So without further ado, I would like to introduce
Alanna MacDougall, from ESDC. (Applause) Alanna: Do I also get to just storm off when
I’m done? (Laughter) Really cool. Hi, I’m Alanna MacDougall, I’m the Senior
Director of Service Policy at ESDC. I see some ESDC Service Canada colleagues
around. Hi, glad you’re all here. So we have three service design related challenge
statements for you. Three of them are kind of linked themes that
you’ll see again when Chris comes over from CRA to talk about his. The first one is around gender diversity. So this is an issue that you might have seen
in the media recently. It’s certainly an issue that a number of departments
are grappling with, how to make sure our service experience is inclusive and respectful of
people who have diverse gender identities. Back in the olden days, gender was typically
thought of as male/female. That was it. We now know there’s a lot more gender identities
out there that people, that our clients have. So here is how gender, here is our challenge
statement – that’s what I’m looking for – for you. As Service Canada and ESDC interacts with
people from all kinds of gender identities, people who even have fluid gender identities
on a day to day basis in person, over the phone, how can we make sure that those service
interactions are respectful of people’s identities and how can we make sure that our employees
have the tools they need in order to be respectful. So the specific challenge statement is on
the wall over there, (off microphone) point to it. What can Service Canada do to ensure that
staff have the tools to engage with clients respectfully in a way that doesn’t make assumptions
about their gender identity. That’s number one. Number two – I have to remember what order
these are in – another issue that’s very important to this government – in fact, a bill was just
tabled today, was making sure that our services are accessible. Does anybody know the bill – the bill was
tabled yesterday – does anybody know what the name of the act was? The Acc-, it’s not the Accessibility Act. Minister Kirsty Duncan just tabled it. No? It’s a big deal. The government’s been working on it for years,
so making sure that our services, services, service experience, our spaces are accessible
to people with all kinds of disabilities. Big priority for this government. One of the things that, when ESDC went out,
and we’re engaging with clients with accessibility issues came up with was that people with some
accessibility issues felt that it wasn’t easy for them to give the government feedback on
what their barriers were, that some of their unique challenges might limit their ability
to use the feedback mechanisms that we have already, but also sometimes the important
accessibility issues might get buried in information about service experience overall. So our second challenge statement, right there,
what types of client feedback tools could be put in place for clients to provide feedback
on the accessibility of services and allow Service Canada to respond more effectively
to their needs? So challenge statement number two, how can
we better, get better at getting feedback from people with accessibility barriers? Number three, our third one, is about UX,
about user experience, and particularly in the area of people knowing how long their
thing is going to take to get. So departments typically have a lot of information
internally about what processing times are. We know how long it takes to issue a cheque
or to issue a passport. Public facing however, the only real requirement
the departments have is for once a year to report on what their adherence to service
standards were the year before. So our service standard to get, you know,
two weeks 80% of the time and clients can go online and find out last year whether departments
met that or not. So given that oftentimes, clients need services
from government because there’s something really important going on in their lives,
we know, we at ESDC, Service Canada and, and many other departments recognize how important
it is to make sure that clients are getting information about how long stuff is going
to take, in probably more real time than how we adhere to a service standard over the course
of the year or the year before. So our third challenge statement that is over
there is how can we present up-to-date information to clients on the timeliness of delivery,
for i.e., real time application status in a way that is accessible, meaningful and the
real goal, on par with what clients can get from the private sector. So those are our three challenge statements. (Applause) Eman: Okay. And now we will have Chris from CRA introduce
the challenges. Chris: So we don’t clap for CRA? (Applause) That was really, thank you. Or is it cause I’m the only person with a
tie on? Like, what’s the, so clearly not from CDS. I don’t have a t-shirt or anything like that
on. Dave: We’ll give you a sticker later. Chris: Yeah. (Laughter) So we have three challenge functions as well. Follow very similar themes. Probably not as neatly binned in the three
as those from Alanna were, but — So the first one focuses on applying for benefits. So currently, when applying for benefits like
the Disability Tax Credit, Canada Child Benefit, Working Income Tax Benefit, Canadians are
required to complete a variety of applications with Canada Revenue Agency. That results in multiple applications for
multiple benefits. Depending on the benefit, you may need to
provide supporting documentation, doctor’s signature, things like that. This can get really complex, often for people
in need. So you can think about Disability Tax Credit. You need to go back, you need to prove a lot
of the challenges that you have, engage your doctor and things like. Proof of birth can be very challenging for
some new Canadians. And it’s fundamental in being able to, to
receive these benefits. And in order to receive benefits like the
Child, the Canadian Child Benefit, you have to submit your taxes every year, which we
know can be a big barrier for some, some exposed populations. So our challenge statement is in the middle
there, which is how can we improve, streamline and/or simplify the benefit application process
from the client perspective? I think an important thing to, to note here
is we run into some challenges across devices, interestingly enough, where you know, on a
desktop, usually you can access everything. You go on to a tablet, some things aren’t
accessible. You go on to a phone, and you’re in a whole
new world of hurt. So that was an important piece to have in
the back of your mind when you tackle that one. So that’s the first question. Or statement, I guess, and it’s in the middle. I too was instructed point toward where it
is on the wall. So the second one, not surprisingly, is around,
around gender. And so this one is in the corner. So when a child is born, Canadians are eligible
to apply for the Canada Child Benefit, as we talked about. The legislation’s currently structured so
that mothers are the default principal recipient of the benefit. The legislation can present roadblocks for
individuals who should be recipients, like single fathers, single parents, indigenous
parents who may not have access to the necessary resources. And this is dependent on doctors, lawyers
being able to prove who has custody. They may not have access to the necessary
resources. Recipients are required to prove they have
custody of the child and their marital status via the application deadline or have the benefits
reduced, revoked or denied. So there’s a couple of things there. There’s a presumption that the female is a
primary caregiver. We know more and more that’s not the case. If the female is a primary caregiver, there
is an automated benefit application system that they’re able to use, which does make
things easier. What happens if the female isn’t? Well now, you need a signed letter from the,
you know, from the female, you know, the mother essentially, saying yes, you know, the father
is the primary, yes the father has permission. Well, let’s thing about scenarios where the
father is going to be the primary. It’s probably maybe not the best relationship
between the two. Maybe there’s been a death at birth, things
like that. So there are a lot of barriers that, that
do come with that. And similarly again, you have to file taxes
every year to tackle it. So the question we have, again, in the corner,
is how can we improve the application process so that there aren’t gender-biased impositions? The third challenge we have is related to
accessibility. So for us, online services, just like everybody
in this room, are a very, very big deal. So ensuring online client services are accessible
is an ongoing challenge for us, as I presume it is for most of us. Improper implementation of icons, colours
and other design outlines can impede the effectiveness to screen readers and other assisted devices. So they struggle with people like me who have
creative ideas about why don’t we make this yellow to make this stand up so people will
sign up for online services – Tracy knows – and then they go back and they figure out
how are we going to tell Chris that that ruins the vast majority of what we’re supposed to
be doing, right? So that’s a big, that’s a big challenge for
them. It’s a particular concern when dealing with
mobile devices, which is, as we know, becoming more and more prevalent. So we’re talking smart phones and tablets. Currently, our online portals, My Account,
My Business Account, Represent a Client, struggle to be responsive to screen size constraints
and do not conform to accessibility standards. So for us, the way that we’ve tackled that
is we’ve built a second, basically a second portal. We built mobile web apps. So now we’re starting to divide our service
offering. It becomes inefficient. Peo-, we’re expecting clients to know when
they should be going to one versus the other and so that’s not ideal for us, and it becomes,
you know, we sort of have introduced confusion into the marketplace by trying to address
that, by trying to address that challenge. For us, very, very timely, so we’re in the
process of reengineering our online portals and so we will take any help we can get to
figure out how to tackle that challenge. We’re in it, we’re doing it over the next
couple of years. And so how can we, through technology, through
design, through creativity, make sure that when we are improving these portals for the
seven million people that access them every year, for important things like getting your
benefits, that everybody has access to those, not just those that aren’t visually impaired. So the actual challenge statement on that
wall there, is what are some of the technological or design solutions that could improve accessibility
online regardless of the device they use? That’s it. Thank you. (Applause) Eman: Alright. So in an effort to help you keep track of
all of the challenges that you just heard, I don’t want to inundate you with a lot of
information about what the Design Jam is going to be and the methods. We will do that later. But first, I’d like everyone to actually be
able to sign up. So we’re going to give you a few minutes to
review all the challenge statements around the room. Feel free to get up, walk around and kind
of consider where you’d like to be for the rest of the day. And so the way it’s going to work is first
come, first served. So there are five slots per challenge statement. There are six challenge statements in total,
which means each group will have five people. When you did sign in today, on your name tag,
you have a sticker, so that colour represents whether you are with ESDC and CRA. And so one of the great things about Design
Jams is it brings a diverse group of people together. And so we would like diversity in the group
so we don’t just want people from CRA tackling CRA challenges and ESDC tackling ESDC challenges. So we’d like diverse groups. So when you’re signing up, if you could put
your name and in brackets next to your name the colour on your sticker. And so we can’t have more than three of the
same colour in each group. So again, it’ll be first come, first served
and it’ll be up to you to kind of see on the list next to everyone’s name whether or not
there are already spots taken for each of the departments. So I’ll give you 10 minutes right now to walk
around the room and sign up, and then we’ll reconvene in your new groups for the remainder
of the day and we’ll get started with the methods and what the rest of the day will
entail. Klara: The markers are here on the table. Eman: Yes, markers here on the table up at
the front. So I’ll try to keep this brief. I wanted to go through and introduce all of
the methods that you will be using this morning. The first, the agenda for today. So the Jam will officially kick off at 10:00
a.m. today, so you’ll have between 10:00 a.m. and 2:45 as, like, your working time. In between then, you’ll have a lunch break,
so as Dave mentioned, that’s when we’ll be taking you upstairs to the 14th floor. At 1:30, we’ll be posting the schedule order
for presentations, so you’ll know which order you will be presenting in, and then at 3:00
p.m. is when the official pitches will be beginning. So from 3:00 to 4:30, each group will go up,
have 10 minutes to do a presentation with five minutes Q&A for each group. And then at 4:30, judges will be deliberating
for 20 minutes and then you will receive feedback from the judges collectively and we’ll be
handing out some prizes at that point as well. At 5:00 p.m., we’re going to have Pascal Elvas,
one of our Directors at CDS to give some closing remarks and we can answer any of your questions
that you might have throughout the day. Throughout the day, it’s also important to
note that myself, Charlotte and Klara, as well as Jennifer and Dave Toeg – if you could
raise your hands so everyone knows – we’re all here from CDS. And so we will be for the entire day facilitating. We also have some mentors that will be joining
us throughout the day as well. So at any given time, we will have three new
faces every hour that will be floating around to all the groups to see what you’re working
on, ask you some questions, help answer any questions that you might have with the methods
that you’re using or anything that you’re ideating around. So we wanted to have, sort of, a constant
stream of new faces in the room to help you as you work on your challenges. So what is a Design Jam? I want to get a show of hands how many of
you in the room are designers? Okay. How many of you work with designers on a day
to day basis? Some more hands? Wonderful. So it’s actually really great to have a group
of people who don’t typically deal with design on a daily basis because one of our mandates
at CDS is to share the way in which we do work across our teams to help show how accessible
it is for people not in this space to actually these methods in a way that doesn’t feel totally
overwhelming for people who are not designers. So as I mentioned earlier, Design Jams bring
together diverse groups of people. That’s what they’re really known for, is typically
they’re held in a private sector setting where you’re bringing together academia, students,
civic tech and potentially public sector, all in one space ideating around different
challenges that in the end of the day, a lot of users are dealing with. So we collaborate using service design methods,
and so those are some of the methods that you’ll be using this morning, and they’re
basically just tools that help you generate ideas When we think about ideating around things,
sometimes it can seem daunting to sit down in front of a blank paper to come up with
ideas. So these methods help you facilitate the types
of discussions that you would like to have in order to get to a place where you feel
more confident embarking on research. And you’re ideating around challenges first
and foremost that affect people. So you’re keeping people in mind as you are
ideating as opposed to some of the things that can often bog down ideation when you’re
thinking of procurement or you’re thinking of technology and how to best implement that
technology. Here, in this room, we are thinking about
the challenges that people at the end of the day are facing on a daily basis. It’s also important to note that you are not
going to be solving this challenge today. So this is just the start to generating some
ideas, this is the start of having the discussion. It puts you on the right path to figure out
what is necessary to actually engage with users to get meaningful feedback from them,
to get meaningful research opportunities with them, but it’s not meant to come out of it
with one idea or one solution or one way forward because in this room, we are all considered
experts in these domains. We are people representing the challenges
that we are facing, but we are not representative of the users who are on the other end of those
challenges. So it’s really important to note that this
should not ever be in place of engaging with real users. This just sets you on the path to know how
to more meaningfully engage with your users. So one of the sort of ways that you can think
of this is moving away from pixels to people, and what that means is moving away from just
simply thinking about the technology or the means to implement or the means to create a
service or a portal or an app that will roll out to people and first and foremost think
about those challenges that people are facing and then think about the potential solution. So instead of coming at it saying I know that
I want to create an app, we are saying we are not coming at it from a solution first,
we are looking at the challenge and we are thinking about the people and how they sort
of go through those challenges and these methods are really good for that. And innovation in general starts with discovery,
but first and foremost discovery research, and so at CDS, we divide up our work across
products and phases so we typically start off with a discovery phase which, like, in
law for example is where you hear discovery a lot where it’s like that is your chance
to do some secondary research. It’s your opportunity to then move into primary
research, to actually engage with users to do content testing, validation testing, usability
testing of potential ideas. So discovery research allows you to kind of
set down the solid foundation before you actually start building something. That’s when you actually are able to see if
the thing that you’re building actually meets the real requirements that users have. And we also know that people are on the hunt
for experiences that resonate with their personality. So if you think on a daily basis, the things
that resonate the most with you, the services that you use, the apps that you may have downloaded
on your phone, the places that you turn to for information, all of those things in some
way resonate with the things that you value the most on a daily basis. And the same is true for how we should be
putting out services to Canadians. They are looking for things that resonate
with them, and oftentimes there’s always this comparison between tools and services that
the private sector puts out versus tools and services that the public sector puts out. And so using these methods helps to bridge those gaps in a way that puts us on the right
track for putting out services that are, will likely be more adopted by people because they
meet more of those needs. So the goal today is to brainstorm dynamic
ideas that address actual issues impacting Government of Canada service users. So we were very excited to partner with the
CRA and ESDC today with challenges that they’re actually facing. And so the idea is that you come up with today,
set them on a path forward around what they could potentially do and bring back to their
teams. So they’re very eager and excited to hear
your ideas as well, and it’s great to get diversity across departments because oftentimes,
we are very bogged down, we’re sort of in a bubble with the things that we experience
on a daily basis. So to get some fresh perspective is really
wonderful. So the methods that we’re going to be using
today, some of these methods might be familiar to a few of you. We’re going to be starting off with a SWOT
analysis. We’ll then be conducting a value proposition
canvas exercise. You’ll be creating an empathy map. The insights that come from that empathy map
will go into an affinity diagram and an optional method that we’re putting forward is also
a service blueprint. So technically speaking, you have time to
use all of these methods. So we’ve sort of budgeted out how much time
would be necessary in order to be able to accomplish all of these things, but the service
blueprint is optional because it does require a bit more time and you do need to conduct
these things in order in order for the outputs to be more meaningful and sort of work well
and set you on that good path forward using each of the methods in this specific order. So around the room, there are laptops for
each group. So regardless of if you were able to bring
in your own device, there are laptops on the tables and on these laptops on your desktop
is a folder called Design Jam. Inside that folder is everything that you’ll
need to conduct the work that you have ahead of you today. So this entire presentation is also loaded
up on that deck. In the notes section of the presentation are
additional instructions and anecdotes that could help you throughout the day with all
these methods as well, as well as instructions on how to actually use these methods. So as an example, I’m going to cycle through
what that looks like. In these folders, you also have a short and
condensed version of just a presentation template. So because we know that you’re working with
all these methods and you are, we want to make best use of your time, we’ve provided
a presentation template that you can also fill in that sets you on the right path for
creating a narrative out of all the methods that you’ve used here today so that it’s easier
to give your presentation at the end of the day. So your presentation will start with first
highlighting who your team members are. So there is a team member slide where you’ll
put down all the names of the people participating in your group and the departments that you
represent. You’ll have a following slide where you’ll
get a chance to put what the actual challenge is that you were working on so you can put
the challenge and any other contextual information that you’d like the audience to know. You’ll start off by thinking of the assumptions
that you have going into it. So the first exercise before you actually
get into the SWOT analysis as a group after you’ve all introduced yourselves and know
a bit more about each other is to think about first and foremost what are your assumptions
going into this? So you chose this challenge for a reason because
it resonated with you in some way and you were interested in tackling it in some way. So it’s really important when you get new
teams of people together working on challenges to think we all have our assumptions, we all
have our biases. What are some of the assumptions and biases
that we have and let’s actually talk about that and bring that to the forefront so that
we can keep it in mind as we continue to ideate for the rest of the session. So it’ll be good to actually highlight that
in your presentations as well when you’re talking to the group later on. The first method, like I mentioned, is the SWOT analysis. SWOT is an acronym to stand for Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. And so you’re going to be conducting a SWOT
analysis of the department that you’ve chosen your challenge statement on. So for example, if we take this one over here,
the challenge statement says how do we better address accessibility of services when it
comes to ESDC? So you will be conducting a SWOT analysis
about ESDC as it relates to their accessibilities of services. And on the presentation deck, there is a contextual
side that has a whole paragraph so when Alanna was up here and she was addressing everybody
with that contextual piece, we also have a paragraph for you to read that mentions some
of those services by name so that you have the opportunity to actually Google what these
services look like, give yourselves a bit more context, and then conduct a SWOT analysis
addressing each of these quadrants. The outputs that come out of that, there are
some additional questions that you consider, so who’s your client? What are their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats? What do they value the most? What’s their mission statement and what’s
their position on social responsibility, culture and technology? So that gives you, sort of, like a good outline
of who you’re dealing with in terms of your stakeholder, the main client that you’re addressing,
but it doesn’t really get into who your users are. So who are the people who actually use those
services? So after conducting a SWOT analysis and there’s
a few filler slides in here for you to include a photograph of the actual thing that you’ve
created, so we will be giving you large sheets of paper, post-it notes, sharpies, and so
it’ll be your job as a group to actually draw this out on the piece of paper and fill it
in. And then somebody in the group should take
a photo of it and include it in your presentation deck as well to show everyone sort of what
it was that kind of came out as a whole picture. And then you’ll have an outcome slide. So what actually came out of, what are some
of the key insights that came out of using this method and how do you sort of move forward
from there. It’ll then be important to identify who are
the core users of the service or product that you ideating around. So coming up with a whole list of who those
users look like and then identifying who are the core users amongst that entire list of
users, which will then lead you into the Value Proposition Canvas. The Value Proposition Canvas is divided into
a lot of sections. All of these sections you will be filling
in with post-it notes, and so again, you will be drawing this out on your large piece of
paper. We also have large paper rolls that we can
give you instead if, if you’d like a larger space to work with. And so those users that you identified will
go in the first bucket, and then you’ll move through in order and think about what are
some of their jobs and tasks on a daily basis? What are some of the things that provide them
joy on a daily basis? What are some of the pain points that they
experience? And then moving into that solution based design
space where you’re thinking of what are some gain creators? What are some pain relievers? And these two are very joint. And then thinking of some ideas of what those
pain relievers look like. So if we know, if we’re looking at accessibility
and we’re thinking about accessibility standards, what does that mean for some of the things
that you can actually implement to improve accessibility? And again, we have all of the things that
you should consider as you’re moving through each of these sections on a secondary page,
and in the notes section, there’s a bit more context for you as well. Just to say that, like, as you are actually
working on these methods, you have all of CDS representatives in the room as well as
the mentors who have all used these methods before. So if you have any questions as you’re working
on anything, our job is to be here to actually help you work through these methods and answer
anything that you might have. So again, a photograph of your method and
what the potential outcomes of this method looks like. And then you get into your empathy map where
you’re choosing a core user group and you’re thinking of what they think and feel on a
daily basis, what they see so their environment, what they say and do, and what they hear around
them in this context as it relates to your challenge statement. And again, you’re taking the ideas that came
out of that value proposition canvas and building on it further in this map here. These ideas then you take into coming up with quantity. So there’s no right or wrong answers here. The idea is to think very blue sky and very
out there and not limit yourself or get bogged down by thinking what is actually feasible. So we’re not looking at feasibility right
now. We get into that in further methods where
we start to narrow our scope and get more realistic. So at this point, you’re still being creative
but through the lens of your users of these services as opposed to service owners. Again, a photograph of this method, the outcomes,
and then getting into affinity diagramming. So all of these ideas that you’ve come up
with, you’re going to move them onto a new sheet of paper and you’re going to start clustering
them. So as you are working on these things, you
will realize that there are themes, there are patterns that come up, there are things
that you will prioritize as a group, the things that you will prioritize individually, and
you are coming at it from the perspective that you are experts in your own domains. So all of you will prioritize things a little
differently. But this is a democratic process, so the idea
here is to cluster all the similarities, actually circle what these clusters look like and give
them overarching titles and then you’ll get, as an individual group member, you’ll get
five votes to distribute however you want in terms of which ideas you’re prioritizing
the most. So as a group, you’ll get sort of like a landscape
of what all of the ideas look like, and you’ll also get a sense of what everyone is prioritizing
in order to move forward with this particular idea cluster or domain of thoughts. So again, a photograph of the method, what
the outcomes look like, and then there’s the service blueprint exercise. So the service blueprint exercise is optional,
but it’s really great for mapping out what that end to end looks like for both the service
owner and the user, all in one space. So it allows you to look at sort of the different
touch points that a user might have in that journey with the potential product or service
offering that you are putting forward. So you’re thinking of the user journey, you’re
thinking of the employees, so the frontline staff or the people who are managing this
service on the service owner side. You’re thinking of some of those back end
actions and their support processes. So this entire deck also goes into explaining
what each of these sections means, what the different points of interactions look like
and how to tackle this entire thing and other questions to consider. So if you do have time, it is a useful exercise
to conduct, but again, it is not mandatory to do that as part of the methods. We wanted to sort of make sure that you had
quality time to address each method instead of rushing through it in an effort to kind
of give you more methods to work with. So again, a photograph, the outcomes, and
then what your key takeaways are from this entire experience. So you’ll have a slide for key takeaways,
what your idea proposal is. So out of all of the ideas that you kind of
prioritized, what is the sort of thing that you are proposing or what is the thing that
you would like to tell either CRA or ESDC to consider the most? What a roadmap could potentially look like
to implementing this idea, and a conclusion. So why is this important? Why should people care? Why, why is this worth moving forward with? Why is this worth devoting more resources
to? So that is it. I’m going to go back to the agenda. Are there any questions? I know I just like bombarded you with so much
information. There’s a lot there. So again, on your laptops, you have access
to this full deck that I just showed you with all of the notes in the note section and further
instructions. We are going to get started with first giving
you your materials. You also have access to the presentation pitch
so that you can start building that throughout the day instead of leaving it to the last
minute. So I’m recommending that as you finish each
of the methods, you photograph what you’ve done and you start putting it into the presentation
deck after as you’re working on it so that it doesn’t become like a race at the very
end to just, like, document and include everything. So if you can work along with having the presentation
deck open on your computers, on your laptops, that would be useful for you from, like, a
time management perspective. And then we’ll also help you with keeping
track of time. So if we’re noticing that groups are spending
too much time working on one method or the other or you’re hung up in your discussion
around something in particular, again, it’s our job as facilitators walking around the
space to make sure to help you move along with things and to keep you on track with
time so that you’re able to engage in all of the methods accordingly as well. So you don’t have to worry too much about
keeping track of time or rushing through anything cause through observation and through hopping
around, we’ll also be able to get a sense of that as well. Yeah. Wonderful. So I know there will be questions that come
up as you’re working, so again, we are here to answer any questions. There are no right or wrong answers here. So if you’re not already sitting with the
group of people that you’ve signed up with, this is your opportunity to move to that space. So we’ve tried to keep the tables bundled
up with their respective poster, so everyone that signed up on this poster is sitting at
this table here, that poster is sitting at the back, that poster is seated all together
over there, and so forth. We have power bars for you if your laptops
run out of any energy as well. And if you need access to the internet, your
main laptops are already connected to the internet so you’ll have access to Google and
all those sites through there. But if you do have your personal devices,
let us know and we can hook you up to the internet. Wonderful. Question: Will we have access to what you’re
filming so we can review it later or share it around? Eman: Absolutely. So we are filming this entire beginning portion
and your final presentations at the very end. We’ll be getting everything transcribed and
everything will also be translated, so it is bilingual. It’s also important to note that if you want
the French version of these decks as well, they’re also in the folder and we will be
sharing that with all of you at the end of the session today as well so that you will
have a copy of these methods. Wonderful. Okay, so we’ll get started. This officially, like, (laughter) this is
officially the start of the Jam, which is awesome. So we’ll be floating around to answer any
of your questions. Yeah. Eman: OK, if I could get everyone’s attention,
we are going to start with presentations. We’re running a little bit behind schedule,
but that’s completely fine. The first group up to present are the Apple
group, also known as – the main question is – what are some of the technological or design
solutions that could improve accessibility on line, regardless of the device in use. So they were tackling this challenge for CRA. So without further ado, the Apple group. (Applause). Andrea: So I’m Andrea. Brent: Hi. I’m Brent. Andrea: And you already heard our challenge,
so maybe we’ll skip that slide, but we should start with some basic assumptions because
we’ve all got biases. We wanted to show you the angle that we were
tackling this approach from. We’ll just hit the next slide. Brent: Alright. So our assumptions were that accessibility
is not just an issue with people, for people with disabilities or other impediments, and
that by improving accessibility, we would improve service for all people. Most people want to have easy-to-use online
services in a place that is accessible and comfortable for them. So access to online services is dependent
on an effective Internet connection, so not everybody has that. People with disabilities or facing barriers
will require access to higher touch channels to complete processes on line. Online services should be simple, easy, and
integrated. Online may not be a standalone solution for
all accessibility needs. Again, not everybody can get online, not everybody
wants to be online, and that there’s no universal solution for those with accessibility needs. Some people are always going to want to use
a paper form, going to use, want to use the phone, that sort of thing. So those are the assumptions that we had come
up with. So maybe go to the next one. So now we’ll go on to our SWOT analysis. Andrea: That’s right. So this beautiful, colour picture is more
accurately summed up in our next slide. Actually, the next next one. There we go. So our key strength, we know we have a literal
army of knowledgeable people specifically on the front line, especially in our call
centres, that help millions of Canadians every year. They have the data and the tools to know what
our user accessibility needs are. Some of our weaknesses and this is, you know,
we sort of looked at this, even though it’s a CRA challenge specifically, we had someone
who, from Service Canada on our team, and we noted a lot of the same, we have a lot
of the same common issues from a SWOT perspective. So we’re looking at both siloed processes;
accountabilities and resourcing is obviously always a bit of a weakness; and as well, we
noted a risk aversion to using live, confidential information in testing, so specifically user
testing. We haven’t been able to breach that barrier,
where we can actually use, you know, because essentially that’s what users are going in
for, is to access their information. So we can’t test that if there’s a huge risk
from a usability perspective in terms of the outcome or getting the best possible product. Some of the opportunities that we have is
to improve the existing account services and leverage the interactive platforms that we
have, like Skype and Google, Facebook, social media, to deliver high-needs, high-touch services
in the immediate term. And of course some of the threats was the
complexity of building online services, so the authorities involved, especially when
we’re talking about linking across government accounts; and the financial management side,
who’s going to pay for what; and the need for shared processes, specifically single-point
login, to join up services on a simple platform, even if the information behind the scenes
is divided. So that’s some of the threats. And continue on. So our value proposition canvas. Do you want to talk about our users? Brent: Yup. So we’ve iden-oh. We got a little far, farther ahead. So we identified a few user groups at sort
of the taxpayer level in our case. We have the smartphone users and tablet or
iPad users, so mobile device users. We also have desktop or laptop users, who
can, you know, they can access the regular Internet site. That’s a little bit easier. Your tablet or your smartphone users do have
some issues in terms of, you know, scaling on web pages and that sort of thing. We also had people with barriers to online
access, so people who just don’t have a reliable Internet connection, for example, if you’re
in an area that doesn’t have a reliable wireless service potentially, that sort of thing. Third-party reps were another issue, and that
falls to both sort of the business accounts as well as individuals, so for, you know,
representatives of certain individuals, as well as accountants representing businesses,
for example. And our last group was the contact centre
or call centre front-line agents. So that’s sort of on the agency end of things,
but they are, you know, they’re on the other side of receiving that information. So that’s who we identified. Andrea: Yeah. So if we can’t, if they can’t do it online,
guess what they do. They pick up the phone and they call. So we thought it was a good perspective to
have some of the key, what was this part here again? the tasks we noted was essentially based on
our call drivers data, our business intelligence data in terms of why people call. Effectively, one of the gains really that
we identified as a result of that is, is actually we’re offering a lot of services on line,
which is really great. And they can, they can do a lot of the main
things that they want to do. And there’s the new link from Service Canada,
MyCRA. We’ve had a lot of positive on that. And on the pain side, though, frequent oh,
and sorry, I just want to highlight as a key part is that agents, phone agents can issue
security codes over the phone to speed up that registration process, so they don’t have
to wait two weeks essentially to be able to access their information online. But the pain points were related mostly to
usability, the fact that we have these separate portals, we have all these different apps,
and in particular the usability, possibly some of the labelling. The set-up is more program based rather than
the task that the taxpayer’s trying to achieve. And then essentially the the continued barriers
for the password or – if they forgot their user ID or password, the barriers to getting
those done in a quick and easy way. And that, those were essentially across the
board. On the, on the agent side, I just want to
highlight specifically that they don’t see what the taxpayers see. So they’re trying to help them with a problem
that they can’t actually see. So they’re relying on the taxpayer to describe
the problem. And so we identified that as a definite pain
for our call centre agents. And so we used all of this great information
to come up, come up with some possible solutions. Brent: Yeah. So we identified as pain relievers allowing
for an easy log in or password recovery option, so to avoid, if you lose your user ID, to
avoid having that, you know, to start over from scratch, basically. And an account that provides status on applications
and returns and allows you, for easy update of information, and also gives you alerts
to status changes as well. So having that, you know, having that information
come to the user, and having them be able to follow up with products that they, or with
sort of items that they’ve submitted, and that sort of thing. And we also have empowering the call centre
agents to guide users through the registration or to complete processes. So again, that’s having, having the call centre
agent be able to see exactly what the taxpayer’s seeing in order to identify the problems that
they’re running into, and to be able to assist them in the sort of specific tasks that they’re,
that they’re trying to accomplish. Andrea: That’s right. So we’ll save the best solution for last,
and we’ll wrap up our value proposition here. Essentially what we wanted to achieve with
whatever solution is accessibility, regardless of device. Now a lot of the screen sizing we know is
done by the back end, and we’re not tech geeks so we can’t tell you what the solution to
that is. But I’m sure that whatever work they’re doing,
they’ll be able to come up with something good on that end. We definitely want to highlight, the usability
of the portal, and as well as that seamless experience across the service channels. So again, just relating it back to that call
centre agent being able to be part of that process, rather than having them be two separate
things. And we wanted something that was accessible. Well, we’ve coined this term, pub hub. But essentially we want to make it easy for
people to register, easy for them to recover their password, and to be able to, for us
on the usability side to identify the areas where the public needs or wants some wants
their service channels, wants their needs to be met. So are we ready for for the big finale? Brent: Yup. Andrea: Alright, good. Oh, actually, no. Empathy map. No, we have to feel. We have to do some touchy-feely stuff first. So we didn’t get this one online. I’ll get Brent to break it down for you. Andrea: The idea here was to use our most
extreme group, with the, again, the assumption that whatever solution we provide, we come
up with on the extreme side will apply to all of our users. Thank you, Brent. Brent: Alright. So what we have identified, we used the group
people with barriers to online access. And what we identified was, you know, a lot
of sort of frustration. They were lost, confused, that sort of thing. They were having, you know, with with issues
that prevented them from actually accessing these convenient, online services. What they were seeing is, you know, potentially
easy passwords with private sector portals, for example, and, you know, comparing that
to what we offer, and that’s certainly not making us look good; difficulty finding information;
complex registration processes; as far as what they were hearing, you know, we had basically
recordings, and they are important, but continue to wait; nothing at all; dropped calls; busy
signals, etcetera, etcetera. And what were they saying or doing? So how were they reacting? Taking frustration out, complaining to MPs
or the Minister, for example; calling multiple times; not accessing the benefits that they
need; just giving up, just essentially giving up on actually applying for the processes. And some people in remote areas actually making,
you know, the trip into town to try and get the situation resolved. And of course expressing frustrations to the
media, which never makes the agency look good, so (laughs). Andrea: Mm-hmm. The funniest one we came up with is, you know,
for especially for people who attempt the online version first, like one of the first
things they hear on the phone in the recording is did you know that we have online services?,
you know where it’s just add added frustration. They’re like I tried! Brent: Yeah. Salt on the wound, right? Andrea: Yeah. (Laughter). Alright. So we had a few different solutions, but by
far the most popular one and I’ll just invite Melanie to come up here and so if you
want to just skip through it, there’s like five slides to skip through. I think we’re going to go straight to the
roll-up. Alright, so we came up with a solution. We we called it Access Canada. So the, it’s a multi- it sort of kills about
three birds with one stone and has different components to it, but it’s still all-encompassing. But the idea and what we want to have is and
we leveraged some of sort of the Service Canada models, where we essentially have computers
with Internet access set up for people to be able to come and use. In conjunction with that, having a dedicated
phone line service. So regardless of where whether you’re using
the computers we’re providing, whether you’re using your tablet, or you’re on your computer
at home, there’s a dedicated phone line service to get that security code, to help you with
the MyAccount issues. The idea of the PubHub, though, the other
aspect to it that we’re hoping will be a potential testing ground because we we recognize right
at the onset we’re not going to get the best product possible if we can’t test it in a
live situation. So the idea here is to essentially provide
our our clients with with the computer and the technology available, and have them test
our designs live, and either have usability experts there with them, helping them out,
or, if we can’t do that, if that’s a breach of confidentiality, there’s too much risk
with that, we provide them with the phone and the dedicated line service and we leverage
the business intelligence from our agents to understand where people are getting stuck,
either in the registration process, either in whatever service that they’re trying to
provide. Did you want to just walk us through the the
diagram and because it’s beautiful. So yeah, we kind of had a lot of different
issues that people had to have resolved just to be able to access a service. And what we learned was half the people who
have barriers could only complete it, so half. The other half are having to go to other channels. And I think, at the end of the day, to meet
the most needs when it comes to accessibility, an online-only solution is never going to
be the easiest route to making sure you can service all clients. So that complementary, high-touch channel
is needed to ensure. And the other part is you don’t have to build
people. They’re already built. You just have to train them. So these people can be very flexible in being
responsive to everything we might learn coming through. So if we have built in an online account service
that has your account status, meets those needs of, like, OK, I know where I’m at in
the process, an easy, simple interface that’s more graphic than it is right now, which is
all type and text-based, which you’re like what is going on. Your text reader’s going nuts if you can’t
really view it. But then connected by a consent to share evidence. So like, if I have documents for my doctor
or health care provider or whatever, I can consent to connect that with my doctor. Many people are kind of working with their
doctors in a kind of environment now as well. Easy, simple, online log-in processes, like
you described. And connect this service with other disability
services, like with VAC, with Service Canada. What if you had all your information? We could bring it together to process you
from multiple things. So this service, of course available online,
is in that public hub, like you were describing. This public hub just allows them to have the
internet connection they need, with high-speed computers that have the accessible toys available. So if you need to come in, this is how we’re
able to meet all your needs. How we know we’re doing it is that we have
that real time. You’re in a lab, basically. It’s like we provide you with everything you
need; the only thing we ask in exchange is you allow us to help you. We can get them to consent to how we can make
this better for you while we’re watching you use it. So then we get this real-time feedback. This dedicated line of people, like you were
saying, they can deal with login access for people; they can do the services for disabilities;
answer services on not just for the agency, not just for ESDC, but anything that the federal
government might offer for disabilities; and perhaps even bring them to the benefits finder
to go and the province might have something for you also if you want to look up at that. So we kind of said, like, by creating a little
bit more of this seamless, connected, multi-channel type thing, we, by eliminating any barriers
for these people, for the most vulnerable, we actually make a service that’s better for
all people. Andrea: Yeah. Melanie: Simple. Andrea: And that’s Access Canada. Eman: So we’ll go to questions from the judges
for, oh, questions. Good. Are there any questions for this group? Alanna: We have a quick question. Your user feedback, like the description of
the emotion of the user, where did you get – where did you pull that from? Andrea: The emotions? Alanna: That you have the four quadrants of
how users are feeling and hearing, what they’re saying. Where did you get that? Andrea: The design of it? Andrea: Was it was a picture up on the TV
screen. Alanna: No, no, but where did you get it? Unidentified Female: So Andrea works
on a phone line. Andrea: Yeah, so I have five years as- Brent: Same here. Andrea: Yup. Brent: I had I was I was dealing with the
– I was doing doing MP inquiries and ministerial mail and issues management, so I was running
into very similar things after the fact. So yeah, a lot of a lot of that similar sort
of feedback that I was receiving as well. Melanie: And we were reinforcing the similarities
on things that they were hearing with our client experience work that just came out. Andrea: Oh, yeah, that’s right. Melanie: So we had some validation there to
go hey, yeah, I know we have figures that validate what you’re saying. Chris: Yeah. So I just I had a question, Melanie, about
the – Andrea: Sure. Chris: — map as well. So when I look at that, I could see how that
would convince me that we need to fix the problem. I’m curious to know if the analysis you did
there actually flavoured the solution or foundation. Was there a connection? Andrea: A little bit, right? So we recognized the accessibility issue,
so the challenges that the people either wanting to have access to our service without the
ability to, and providing that ability, at the same time, matching it up with potential
for a testing environment to ensure that our products are usable. So yeah, it absolutely did sort of set us,
it sort of sparked that idea that what if we had it available for them and then whoa,
what’s the potential for that from a usability perspective? Melanie: Yeah. And in our testing at ESDC for our CPPD group,
I think it was 53 percent of people could not or could complete but had to then call
to do to complete the actual process. So they could start it, but they couldn’t
complete it. That’s a huge number. And that kind of to me, I interpreted that
as, like, they need support. Like, first of all, it’s a complex program,
so it’s not just looking at the service itself. The complexities of the program and the complexities
of all the disability services as they are now kind of warrant a little bit of sherpa-ing. So I think that that kind of I interpreted
that stat to kind of say don’t know if just an online alone will do it to meet the most
needs. Because, like we had done on our initial SWOT,
people with barriers, there it’s hard to they’re not just generic, and you can’t just have
one small group with this need, this with this need. And so that complementary channel allows you
to be very flexible and very responsive. And the system of an online service has build
time. And by the time we build it, if it gets to
completion, then you might be wanting to change it, and then that’s a barrier for us to serve. So we thought using and leveraging people
was actually a cost-effective way to complement 0the online service. Andrea: And just as a side note, I was on
the phones when CRA closed the counter service down, and that’s another perspective that
we got a lot of those those feelings from. You know, we’re like well, you could do it
online. I can’t. You know, I used to go in, in person, to a
location to get help. And this is a way to essentially, you know,
merge our digital service with our phone service to provide that similar counter service but
in a more essentially modernized way. Melanie: And truly complementary because if
you can see what they’re talking about at the stage that the application they’re at,
it saves a lot of time even on the phone. Because I’m like OK, I see you’re on page
three. Andrea: Exactly. There’s no need to describe it. Melanie: What you’re trying to complete is
actually this. Brent: And it helps to identify where the
complexity lies too. So it means it enables us to improve that
service. If something, if the same issue is coming
up constantly then, you know, we can certainly we have an idea exactly where we can pinpoint
where improvements need to be made. Andrea: And we can fix it and test it again. Melanie: That’s right, and we don’t even have
to pay for POR. We can like have a mirrored wall with people
dialling in, and say, look at, computer four is doing this. Someone needs to really help four. (laughter) Andrea: Any other question? Dave: I’ll sync up with you afterwards in
the interests of time. Andrea: OK. Of course. Thank you. Eman: So the next up, we have the strawberry
group. Their question that they’re tackling is how
could Service Canada receive better feedback on the accessibility of services while also
being more effective in its responses. So they’re tackling this for ESDC as well. Heather: I clearly did not get the memo we
weren’t doing goofy. (laughter). We like to have a little fun in our team. What we, oh. Christiane: So how could Service Canada receive
better feedback on the accessibility of services while also being more effective in its responses? Heather: So we had a bunch of assumptions
that we were we made at the beginning here. So people with disabilities provide less feedback. People with accessibility are also less proactive
about providing this feedback. And ESDC has a desire to have the problem
solved, which is awesome. Most feedback challenges are quantitative
methods. Our current feedback methodology is reactive
and not proactive, unfortunately. We don’t have a feedback challenge that targets
service accessibility. It’s relevant to a shift to a UX culture. And it’s not exclusive to online services. All the service channels can be made to be
more accessible for users. Tracy: So we started, we started our SWOT
analysis. So we wanted to look at kind of things that
we’re doing well and, and all of that jazz. Since none of us knew how we do service channels,
we did some googling, and we did a phone call even. We called the Service- there’s an office,
a dedicated office for service complaints. We called to sort of see what happens. Dave: And then we said like hi, we’re doing
this SWOT analysis? Tracy: We said wrong number (laughter). Denis: We were not expecting a live person
to pick up the phone (laughter). Sorry, wrong number. (Laughter). Tracy: We were like oh, we should have asked
questions. Then like we’ll call back. No, you can’t call back. They’ll recognize your number. So we identified that Service Canada’s doing
a good job of having, like, service, like, various service channels, right? So they’re still face-to-face service, there’s
paper service, online service, and of course this dedicated service office, which is something
I don’t think we have in CRA, but I could be wrong. As part of that, we identified our weaknesses,
so there’s no, sorry, I can’t read them. No category for accessibility. So nones – no category for accessibility on
forms. Availability in rural areas, so there’s an
access, like similar to CRA, an access to service in areas depending on demographics. And with inaccess of service comes an inaccess
to provide feedback, right? So if you can’t do something online, it’s
difficult to provide feedback on line. So not easy to find where to provide feedback. So when we did a quick search on the web pages,
which was the – and the phone call, you know, it’s – it’s not intuitive to find where to
go to find feedback. And even as you navigate through the pages,
like, there was one section that says if you want to provide feedback on CPP, was it? Denis: Yeah. Tracy: It takes you to the generic on CPP
information. So it doesn’t give you actual feedback mechanism;
it takes you completely out of your flow. So that would be very difficult for anybody,
much less anybody with any kind of accessibility hindrance. Does not address mentally challenged population. So it – it’s very much designed for people
that are not accessibility challenged. I mean, yes, we’ve all switch to WCAG, which
is an excellent first step, but there’s a lot more to the problem than just making it
accessible in that definition. Then we moved on to opportunities, which we
actually really found a lot of very intuitively. Half of us are in, like, service design policy
stuff, so that probably helped a lot. So we said there was an opportunity to embrace
new technologies, so the idea of voice recognition technology, AI technology to sort of parse
through the feedback, rather than having dedicated teams. There’s opportunity to improve face-to-face
channels, so – and quiet spaces, like, design the spaces to recognize that there are, like,
service challenges just in waiting to provide service and provide feedback intuitively,
right? So for people with anxiety or anyone in an
autistic spectrum, where a lot of noise can be very stressful and distracting, we’re like
well, we can revisit our service spaces to – to reduce stress and thus increase an ability
to provide feedback. And then there’s a recognition that there’s
a need to improve service culture, and, with it, an awareness of accessibility issues. Even within our own group, we kind of defaulted
to thinking of accessibility as voice and/or hearing – or vision and hearing, sorry. So we were like we need to remember that this
is a much bigger recognition of the population than just that. Reduce intrusiveness of self-identification. So nobody really likes to stand out in a crowd,
except for maybe me. But in doing so, we want to make this opportunity
to provide feedback to be less, like, of a red flag, right, which will -everybody wants
to be unobtrusive. It needs to be subtle, it needs to be embracing,
so that it doesn’t create anymore anxiety or uncomfort in the situation. I think that’s it for SWOT. So our key takeaways were that there’s lots
of opportunities for service improvement, and, in that, the opportunity to provide feedback. We don’t want to limit our solution to just
technology. There are a lot of preconceptions about what
accessibility means, and that we need to expand our accessibility definition. Our direction initially was a twofold approach. One was internal. To expand the definition of accessibility
through education and awareness, and transition our service approach and our feedback approach
to be more reactive rather than proac- being proactive rather than reactive. Thank you. We didn’t practice this presentation, by the
way. The external approach was more on building
on existing channels. Because we recognize that we have service
in all our channels, we have the opportunity to- to gather feedback through these channels
very easily, but using technologies and approaches to improve on that. And again, we want it to be kind of seamless
and subtle. We didn’t want -because it’s a sensitive topic,
to some degree, we didn’t want to have, like, this huge, like, ministerial broadcast saying
hey, look what we’ve done. We want it to just kind of happen and nobody
notice that we’ve made improvements to service, and thus the ability to gather feedback. Denis: OK. So we looked at our core users, and we had
a lot of them because we established that not all users with accessibility issues are
all created equal. So we initially looked at our staff, so there’s
frontline staff and then the program delivery staff, in terms of people who actually produce
the policies and produce the how it happens. And then there’s users without accessibility
needs, and this still has to work for them as well. They are the bulk demographic, and yes, it
was going to be easier for them, notwithstanding, but we still have to focus on them. And then there’s also – apart from, like,
we said, low vision users and hearing disabled users, there’s autistic users, there’s people
with physical and motor disabilities, which precludes them from going to service areas
necessarily. It’s very difficult for them to get around
or necessarily interface with different software, different technological means. There’s people that are deaf and hard of hearing. There’s people who are dyslexic that are going
to have to have simpler forms and simpler content produced for them in order to account
for that. People with cognitive – cognitive limitations,
so people who don’t necessarily understand what you’re trying to get across to them and
that can’t necessarily provide you or articulate what they have as an issue because they don’t
necessarily have that ability. People with language limitations. It’s not a – it’s an accessibility thing,
not a disability thing, but people whose first language is not necessarily English or French
will still need our services. A lot of new Canadians require the services
of ESDC a lot of the time. And users with anxiety, people that have a
difficult time in social situations, may have a difficult time meeting face-to-face or interacting
with somebody on the telephone because the pressure to interact socially is so oppressive
to them. And so that was – all those colours that you
see on the value proposition canvas were our different groups. We used up every single colour and then had
to move on to shapes because we – (laughter) – we just ran out of colours. There just weren’t that many to go around. But from that, we basically — Yes. From that, we established that the – when
we got to the circle, the teal was our – our actual workers. Yeah, the worker line people, and the yellow
was our users. So we didn’t distinguish at that point because
the solution that we’re going to provide is going to be for everybody. And so we decided to bring it back in and
be inclusive in that way. And so from that, we had our game creators,
which were a culture shift in ESDC to get people thinking more about accessibility in
terms of not just being a duality thing of vision impairment and hearing impairment because
that’s such a prevalent thing that we all feel in our experiences within providing service
to Canadians. Asking for suggestions for improvements or
actively going out and soliciting from people, as opposed to waiting for someone to have
a complaint and then come to us. Leveraging technologies to open channels. So there is a lot out there that we can use
to open it up for people, as opposed to just waiting and using the traditional fax, e-mail,
you know, meeting in face-to-face. And then also having multiple touch points. So meeting people throughout the process. As you’re going through your processes, can
you have interactions with people at that point in time to say yes, we need to deal
with you right now and we want to hear what you have to say at this point in time, as
opposed to front end or back end, waiting to see no, soliciting opinions before they’ve
actually done the process is not super valuable, and soliciting opinions at the back end, oftentimes
it’s so onerous to complete the process that by the time you’re there you’re frustrated
anyway and your feedback has changed from what it was in the moment. For our pain relievers, we were looking at
a better process for users to identify their needs. So again, a lot of times with the questions
that are asked in the user feedback forms, they’re quantitative measures. And so we’re telling them answer in these
boxes what your problems are. And so people can’t necessarily use that. They’ll get close but not necessarily say
what their actual issues are, and that’s a big concern. Making the design more user centric sort of
goes hand-in-hand with that. So if we’re actually focusing on what users
need, that would give them the ability to vocalize or to articulate what their problems
are. Transparency around — Tracy: Wait times. Denis: — wait times. So when people communicate with us, be open
with how long it’s going to take them, and possibly have a solution in place where we
can interact and say, similar to what Rogers does, you know, you can get a call back from
us in so much – in such-and-such amount of time because it’s going to take you 15, 20,
30, 40 minutes, and you don’t want to wait and listen to muzak on our phone for that
amount of time. Tracy: We found this exercise really interesting
because we kind of got squirreled away from focusing on feedback mechanisms into, like,
service improvement. So you’ll see some of these speak to service
improvement, and others are kind of when we’re like oh, wait when we reposition ourselves
and go back into feedback mechanisms. So you’ll see that in our stickies. Denis: And so we wanted to incorporate the
feedback mechanism into the processes all the way. We talked about that. We want to make sure that our processes speak
to the feedback mechanism and that it’s a key concern all the way throughout, and that,
in turn, that will personalize the service. And so in personalizing the service, it will
address the needs of each client on an individual level by giving them that opportunity. And for the user to select feedback channel. So some people, like we said, if someone has
social anxiety, they’re not likely to meet somebody face-to-face and tell them what’s
wrong with their services. And if somebody has a vision impairment, they’re
not likely to write you a letter and tell you how they feel about things. And so letting people interact in the way
that they want to interact is the approach that we’re looking to do. So the products and services that we’re looking
at. In order to do this, we’re going to be looking
at a lot more qualitative data than quantitative data. And so we said possibly looking at incorporating
AI to parse the data that we have, as opposed to having humans have to look through it and
try to figure it out on their own, might be a way to about doing it in a more efficient
and quick manner. Feedback stations for onsite services. So having a safe place on site for someone
to go and give their feedback, sort of a kiosk at the end when you can go, and not have the
person at the desk ask you necessarily how do you feel about this, and not just hand
somebody a card and say yeah, put it in the box and we’ll talk to you later. You know, have something more personal. A buddy system. Having somebody on site who may – you know,
we even talked about the possibility of having somebody with a particular disability on site
in order to make you feel safer, make you feel that you’re not alone in this. Because the fact of the matter is, as someone
who is not – who doesn’t have an accessibility concern, it’s really, really difficult to
put yourself in that headspace and really think about what the concerns are for those
people. And you can presume on their behalf, but it’s
not necessarily right and it’s not always going to make them feel any better about it. And so also having exit surveys for when people
interact on telephones, and then our – the training regiment as well, with all these
considerations in place. They’re not necessarily in place as we stand
right now, and so it’s going to take a fair shift in how we identify things and how we
go about approaching this in order to see this come to fruition. So the takeaways from this was that it reinforced
our direction that we had established in the SWOT. It emphasized the importance of having a clear
problem statement because we sort of got caught in the weeds looking at service improvements
as opposed to accessibility improvements. It created empathy within the process to better
identify with the users. The more we thought about it, the more we’re
like yeah, this is really difficult for people, and we can’t just assume on their behalf. We have to give them their own voice. And then all products and services will maximize
the user experience for all users, not just the accessible users. So we have to think about everybody inclusively
and not focus on just the – the bulk of people. Christiane: So then we did the empathy map,
and we found that we actually touched upon all those points a lot when we did the value
proposition canvas. So we put ourselves in the shoes of our users
a lot, so we kind of summed up that in the empathy map. So first, we look at what do people see. In some cases, people don’t see anything,
of course. But they face a lot of obstacles when they
try to provide feedback, definitely. And the first thing might be that they just
are overwhelmed with a lot of confusing informations and don’t – don’t know where to go. There might be jargon, there might be things
that are not very clear. We also talked about in person bad signage,
simply. So they don’t know what to do about that. And unclear and absent mechanisms to provide
feedback. And then we also looked at what they heard
and what they thought and feel. And so they might hear nervousness in – if
they go to in-person service, so nervousness from the person who serves them, so they don’t
know how to interact. So they might – might even make them feel
more awkward than anything else. They might feel rushed. They might be misinformed. And they might be told oh, yes, thank you
for your feedback, but we’re going to address the problem, but it never happens, so it creates
even more frustration for them. So they might feel even more marginalized,
they might be resentful, and face judgment and frustration, definitely. So what do they say and do about it? Well, so they can say that their needs are
not being met. And of course they can tell that to their
friends, to their family, but also on social media. They can share their experience, either by
text but, you know, take pictures or video. So that mean it’s not looking – that doesn’t
make us look very good. Or they might just not provide feedback at
all and not participate because there might be no way to provide feedback at all. So that’s it for the empathy map. So we found that – so we – as I said, while
we completed the value proposition canvas, we empathized a lot with our users. And yeah, that’s it. Tracy: So we struggled a bit with the affinity
diagram in the beginning because we – we have, like, a scrum background, so we tried to scrum
it initially, and that didn’t work. So then we kind of grouped everything and
identified sort of which service or which aspects of our service delivery we needed
to put into which part – category, so we did service channels. And we went online, phone, in person and a
need for this, like, cultural shift, which we incorporated under the whole attitude towards
accessibility and the definition of what it was. So then we voted. And my votes are, like, ten little, yellow
things, so you can’t really see them. But as a result of that, we decided to focus
initially on, like, the online service stream, mostly because we figured it offered a more
cost-effective way to approach the problem, and there’s a lot of technology available
in there that we could leverage, and it’s a good sort of first place to sort of try
a few things and then learn and adapt and expand. So our actual problem statement, like, when
we get there, is kind of a now and a future. So the online solution likely has the most
traction. The government as a whole is shifting towards
digital culture, so if we can improve feedback through digital, then it positions us well
to kind of learn to improve feedback through other areas. We also felt very strongly about the need
for culture shift because I used to work in a program background and it’s very easy for,
like, if you don’t have the mindset going into the program design, it’s very easy for
that to create problems on the front end, right? So you build these processes, and you build
these rules, and then the people who have to execute them have these, like, fundamental
challenges trying to execute it. And we wanted to really shift towards point-in-time
feedback because we felt it gave us the most relevant and time sensitive information. OK. So how are we going to do this? So our – because we’re focusing on online,
we said we would improve the interface to be more user centric and adaptable for a variety
of users. And the end state will incorporate AI to speed
up the analysis and summarization – that’s a big word – of results to improve effectiveness
of response to users and to expedite the improvements to service policy. So is there more to it? Yes. OK. So there is a – there is an online tool to
provide feedback through the Office of Specialized Services or whatever it’s called, but it’s
very simple. Right? There’s two drop-down boxes and an open text
box. So if you- and in our instance, accessibility
actually isn’t identified as one of the pre-existing feedback channels, like things that they want
to complain about. So we said we wanted to user test the survey,
and include accessible people in our testing, to kind of identify how would best – how it
will best be redesigned to provide accurate feedback and timely feedback. We’re going to incorporate that survey into
existing processes. So instead of having it as a generalized link
at the end somewhere on our website, we want it to – like if you’re applying for CPP and
you want to provide feedback in the moment, because something just catastrophically exploded
on you, we want to enable that ability. So we were going to incorporate our survey
and access to the survey, which is why we have Clippy. Because if you remember back in the day, there
was that little guy that came up and said hey, do you want help? So we’re envisioning like a Clippy kind of
service where it’s just like hey, is this troubling you? Maybe not Clippy. I’m seeing, like, cringing. But that kind of – not a pop-up, but just
kind of have it present and there and not – and have it be something you can choose
to access if you want to. And then, like he said earlier, using AI analytics. Like, if people start putting freeform text
into a box, a person has to sit and read all that and summarize that. And back at my office, there’s a student that
we’ve hired that has probably spent the last four months just doing that on 16,000 comments. So technology could do that for us in a much
faster way, which lets us be more effective and responsive to our service complaints,
right? Because if we can get a report on a weekly
basis that says hey, this is what we’ve heard, it gives the organization an opportunity to
respond much more quickly. And then we want to incorporate analytics
into the program development and execution. So that’s part of that cultural shift to-
to have an agency or a group that’s more organi-more centred on, like, feedback, because that’s
kind of fundamental to client service. You need feedback to move forward. So we- we want to sort of train and- and embrace
this idea and have them en-enable analytics as part of our thing. Anyone else want to talk? Heather: You want me to talk? Tracy: Go for it. Heather: Alright. Awesome. So as part of this roadmap, we actually thought
future vision too was something that’s not there yet but we would like to aim to get
there. So we want to add voice technology and incorporate
this point-in-time feedback to the other service channels, so the in-person and phone channels
as well. But we figured online is a really good place
to start and easy to execute, but this technology and this thinking can be applied to all the
other different service channels going forward as well. Tracy: And – and we spoke- sorry. We spoke a lot about voice technology. I got adamant about voice technology. But because, like, if you think of people
with motor disabilities, they go to the office because they want to be able to talk to a
person, and then they get a card to provide feedback. But it’s a hindrance for them to be able to
execute writing, so if – and we have a lot of AI technology that can understand the voice,
so giving them an opportunity to go into this feedback kiosk or speak on the computer and
just say look, this is my experience, it – it’s not just about providing the opportunity to
provide feedback; it’s about providing the user the opportunity to choose the feedback
channel they want, regardless of where they are. Right? So it doesn’t matter if they’re in digital
now. If they want to be voice now, then they should
be able to do so. Right? Denis: Right. Heather: So in conclusion, so our vision includes
techno-technological solutions that are in alignment with an improvement to client service,
and it incorporates the ability for all users to provide feedback in the service channel
of their choice, regardless of their touch point. So as a team, I think this was eye-opening,
to see, like, all the different definitions of accessibility. We – for sure there needs to be a culture
shift because the amount we learned in one day, I mean, we just touched the tip of the
iceberg there. So you know, and really trying to combine
that – the culture shift with the user centric design and – and letting people interact with
you the way that they want, that’s key. It’s key to meet our users where they are
right now. That’s it. (Applause). Tracy: Any questions? Chris: So I can go. First, I thought your early part of your presentation
made me feel really bad about my own preconceived notions of what accessibility meant. When you started getting into the anxiety
and stuff and… So I think, like, in your conclusion and recommendations,
there was good stuff around AI and all that, about the culture shift. Like, just the notion of redefining accessibility
is huge, and the impact of that would be, like, huge in a positive way. And I don’t think it’s earth shattering for
us to do. So that was kind of like to have uncovered
that was great. I was curious to get a little bit more – you
kind of pa-like, quickly passed over it, but about the decision that online would be easiest
to play with I thought was interesting. Because what I thought, like in a -you could
go, you could choose one Service Canada centre and just mess around with that one to see
what happens. So I’m curious to see what it was that drew
you guys to the online as the playground, as opposed to another – another channel. Tracy: It was mostly cost metrics. Because we assumed that if we tried to, like,
re-engineer a building, like, we’d have to kind of reposition chairs and reposition spaces
and build tech-like, build things, whereas digital, I mean, depending on your costing
methodology, digital is often cheaper, right? So you can, we can redesign the web-the survey
very quickly, but to redesign a floor is a little more costly, and if it doesn’t work,
then we’ve kind of invested all this money. And it creates a lot of awareness to the approach
too, right? So like we said earlier, we want it to be
kind of seamless. So if this doesn’t work, we don’t want to
end up in the newspaper because we failed in our ability to try and solicit input, whereas
a web page, if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t typically create as much of an explosion. Denis: What would also happen is if we did
update the website and did update the online solution, we could use the information that
we culled from that in order to start informing our decisions as we move on to more cost measure
– like, cos heavy, more costly implementation. So we’d like to do that with that background,
with that sort of forethought in mind. And so doing it, like you said, in the digital
playground is a little bit easier and a little bit quicker and more cost efficient. Alanna: Yeah, great work, great ideas. I mean, how easy would it be, as a small thing,
just to go out and add another drop-down option on the opposite (crosstalk). Tracy: Not a drop-down. Alanna: But – but just like add one more thing
to the list that’s already there, as well as all these great ideas. I just – I have a comment more than a question. And maybe it aligns with what Chris was saying,
I’m struck by you guys and the group before, so you – and oh, yeah. And you need to work with the UX user space
testers because there’s a lot of overlap there. But often, as public servants, it’s easy for
us to – to get that empathy for experiences that we go through ourselves, so the UX guys,
you know, we can all -we’ve all had frustration trying to do stuff on websites. But listening to the group before you talk
about the extra work, the extra effort you need to put into building empathy for the
clients with different -with diverse gender identities or clients with accessibility issues
that we don’t have ourselves, it’s so important to put that extra time and effort into thinking
about that. So it just – it – it struck me how important
that piece was. Eman: Just want to say a quick thank-yous
for everyone for staying overtime, for the amazing work that you have all done throughout
the morning and the afternoon. This has been absolutely incredible. I’m going to hand off to Dave, and we also
have closing remarks from Pascale, and then we are letting you go. Thank you. Dave: If you want to go ahead, Pascale. Pascale: Yeah, I-ll go. I’ll keep it snappy, just for you. Wow, empathy. You guys have it. I can’t believe you guys are still here. It’s amazing. You guys have done great work, and this has
been a long day, and I commend all of you for still being here. My name’s Pascale. I’m the Senior Director of CDS. It’s crazy. I mean, when I started here, we were three
people; we’re now over 60. It’s just amazing to watch the movement grow
and the organization continue to scale. I had the opportunity to go to the Global
Service Design Conference in Madrid last fall, and I always go back to what I took away from
that conference. And it was so neat to see how people were
thinking about service design on an international scale. And what I learned there was that, one, design
is a vocation. It’s like an engineer or an architect. You don’t get a design certificate in a cereal
box. But two, we all need, as public servants,
a certain degree of digital literacy, and literacy on design methodologies, to help
us ask the right questions and hire the right people. So this is really what this was all about
today. It wasn’t – there’s no right or wrong answer
to any of these problems. It was about you guys working through the
methods as people who deliver services, who write policies, who serve Canadians, to get
you thinking about you do your day-to-day jobs differently. So recognizing we’re way over time, I have
a daughter I have to pick up at daycare, I just want to say thank you. This was Eman’s brainchild. I remember – I always do coffee chats with
all members of the team, and she had floated this idea with me months ago, and I’m just
so happy that you and Charlotte were able to pull it off. Thank you so much for all your work. (Applause). Dave and Jen from Partnerships, Nick and Mario
on tech, the comms team, Klara, it’s really been a multidisciplinary team effort. Thank you so much to Alanna and to Chris for
supporting this. As I said, you guys were the guinea pigs. We wanted to test out this model and see if
it was worthwhile, and we thought you guys were the friendliest partners, and we were
just so excited to work with you on pulling together the challenges, on getting people
in the room. So thank you, thank you so much for your support. I want to thank our facilitators- Blaise,
Dion, and Nourhan. Really neat that they were able to be here
for – for the morning. And thank you all for coming, and for still
being here. So we’ll be circulating a survey. We want your input. We want to know what worked well and what
didn’t. We want to be doing these again, and we want
to make sure that it’s worth people’s time if we do. So thank you so much. Have a great evening. And I’m going to run to day care before they
call the police on me. (Laughter).

Stephen Childs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *