Service-level targets
Answer time, first-contact resolution, callbacks returned, abandonment, wait under a threshold. These are the measures most likely to already exist somewhere with a number attached to them.
DCHS Insights CX Human-Centered Design @ DCHS PROTOTYPE no real data DCHS Insights CX How We Spotlight — Goals and targets
How we are tracking against our goals
Visible progress against the things we have said we will achieve — service levels, quality indicators, and the pace towards an annual commitment.
What this is
This is the group that shows movement towards something. A number on its own tells a reader what happened; the same number against a target tells them whether we are getting where we said we would, and that is what makes a weekly publication worth opening rather than skimming.
It comes with one dependency that is not technical. A pacing slide needs a target, and a target needs an owner who can defend it and revise it. Where those already exist — in the FY plan, a contract, an accreditation standard — this group is straightforward. Where they do not, agreeing them is the first piece of work.
What could go in it
Options to react to, not a recommendation. Strike, keep, and add — reacting to a concrete list is far more productive than starting from a blank page.
Quality and compliance indicators
Filed on time, complete signature, zero errors. Work that is currently invisible unless it goes wrong. Publishing it weekly is one of the few ways to make careful administrative work legible.
Pace against an annual commitment
A year-to-date line against a fiscal-year number, so a shortfall shows up in October rather than in June when it is too late to act on it.
One shared departmental goal
A single number every center contributes to, alongside program-specific ones. Harder to define, and the only version of this that makes 650+ people feel like one department.
A streak rather than a percentage
“Fourth day in a row under eleven minutes” lands harder than “94%”, and it is derived from the same data. Consider whether the framing does more work than the metric.
Questions to settle
These are the decisions that have to be made before anything here can run every Monday. Most of them are editorial rather than technical.
Whose targets are these?
- Do they already exist — in the FY plan, a contract, an accreditation standard — or would we be inventing them for PULSE?
- Publishing a target creates an obligation to it. Is everyone named on this slide willing to own that?
- If a target is invented for the publication, it will be read as a real commitment within a month.
What happens the week we miss?
- The fastest way to kill a publication is to publish a number that gets someone called into a meeting.
- Is a miss a prompt for help, or a mark against a center?
- Who is in the room when the answer to that question is tested for the first time?
Do we name the center?
- Departmental aggregates are safe and toothless. Named figures are motivating and dangerous.
- Is there a middle position — named when above target, aggregated when below?
- That asymmetry is itself a statement. Are we comfortable making it?
How many measures can one reader hold?
- Five arcs on one slide is already at the edge of legibility.
- If it had to be three, which three?
- Would rotating the set week to week help, or would it just prevent anyone tracking anything?
Who sets them, and how often can they change?
- A target nobody can revise is a target everyone learns to ignore.
- What is the review cadence, and who signs a change?
- What happens to the published history when a target moves mid-year?
What it would take
What each slide needs, and the question that has to be answered before we know whether we can produce it. The systems are named loosely on purpose — which system holds what is exactly what the working group should nail down.
| Metric | Where it would come from | What we would need | The open question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Call handling against target | The phone platform | Weekly answer time, first-contact resolution, handle time, callbacks and abandonment | Which of these does the platform report natively, and which would somebody have to derive by hand every Monday morning? Who can answer this: ______________ |
| Quality indicators | The case system, plus whatever quality assurance process exists | A weekly pass rate per indicator, on a definition QA agrees with | Is the indicator already measured for compliance, or would PULSE be the first place anyone counts it? Those are very different asks. Who can answer this: ______________ |
| The targets themselves | Not a data source — a decision | A written, owned number per indicator, with a stated review cadence | Do these exist already, or does the editorial board have to set them? This is the blocker for the entire group, and it is not an IT problem. Who can answer this: ______________ |
| Year-to-date pacing | Derived, plus the target | Actuals to date on exactly the same definition as the target | Fiscal or calendar year — and what happens to the pace line when a target is revised part-way through? Who can answer this: ______________ |