DCHS Insights CX Human-Centered Design @ DCHS PROTOTYPE no real data How many people we saw, whether that is up or down, and what moved most — the queue report we already issue, made more comprehensive, deeper, and validated.
We already publish a version of this. Our queue management system issues a periodic report on visitor volume, and people read it. The proposal here is not a new idea so much as a better execution of an existing one: the same counts, but reconciled against other systems, given a year of context instead of a week, and written with enough of a point of view that someone remembers the number on Tuesday.
This is the spine of the publication. If PULSE runs at all, something from this group runs every week — which is exactly why it is worth being precise about what the number actually counts.
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.
The same metric in the largest type on the page, in the same place, every Monday. Everything else on the slide is context for it. Consistency is what makes a number memorable — a different lead metric each week is a dashboard, not a publication.
Week-over-week, month-over-month and year-over-year on the same slide, so a bad week reads differently from a bad quarter. This is cheap to produce once the series exists, and it is the fastest way to stop a single quiet week reading as a crisis.
Busiest day on record, first week above four thousand, longest run under the wait-time target. What makes an end-of-year recap work is not that it has statistics — it is that every statistic has a point of view. This is the cheapest way to give the numbers one.
The three services that rose most and the three that fell most. This is the slide where a reader learns something they did not already know, and the one most likely to prompt a phone call.
Four totals and a sign-off at the end. It costs nothing to produce, it gives the piece an ending, and it means a reader who skipped six slides still leaves with the week in their head.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visit counts by day | The queue system that runs the front desks today | Check-ins with a timestamp, a location and a service, exported on a weekly cycle | Does a check-in equal a visit? What happens to walk-outs, re-routes, and appointments that never check in? Who can answer this: ______________ |
| Week-over-week and year-over-year | The same export, retained over time | At least two years of history on a definition that has not changed | Has the definition, or the set of participating desks, changed in that window? A redefinition mid-series makes the trendline misleading rather than wrong, which is worse. Who can answer this: ______________ |
| Biggest movers | Whatever holds activity per program | The same weekly counts split by program, against a stable program list | Who owns the program list, and what happens the week a program is renamed, merged, or split? Who can answer this: ______________ |
| Records and streaks | Derived — no new source | A stored history of the published weekly numbers, so “best week yet” can actually be checked | Where does that history live, and who is allowed to restate a past week when a number is corrected? Who can answer this: ______________ |
This planning site is for internal use. Please enter the access password to continue.
Incorrect password. Please try again.