DCHS Insights CX Human-Centered Design @ DCHS PROTOTYPE no real data Visible progress against the things we have said we will achieve — service levels, quality indicators, and the pace towards an annual commitment.
Showing a measure against an agreed target indicates whether progress is on schedule.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 such as “fourth day in a row under eleven minutes” may be easier to interpret than the equivalent percentage.
These are the decisions that have to be made before anything here can run every Monday. Most of them are editorial rather than technical.
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 | The relevant owners must establish or confirm these targets before this group can be produced. 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: ______________ |
This planning site is for internal use. Please enter the access password to continue.
Incorrect password. Please try again.