#codeforca

As we talked with travellers and travel arrangers, we dug into their current processes and tools, and also gave the opportunity to offer feedback on some conceptual prototypes we’re working on. 

We have been working on a current-state service blueprint for the travel experience. While we know the overall steps to the processes of creating a travel request, booking and expensing travel, we are finding that we’re uncovering different tools and workflows as we talk with more people.

This is rewarding and drives home the value of ‘getting outside the building’ to look beyond what we think people are or should be doing, to observing what they’re really doing. Practically every travel arranger we spoke with could point us to their own departmental training or reference materials. In some cases, this was because they had specific departmental needs, but in many cases it was because they couldn’t find or weren’t aware of any official materials, so they made their own. 

Designing a service is much, much more than putting a product in place and telling people to use it. 

We gathered a lot of information from these interviews, and the product team gathered for a “What did we learn this week” synthesis session on Tuesday.

We identified topics that popped up across interviews, focusing primarily on areas that made the process time-consuming or error-prone. We used a unique sticky note colour for each interview so we could tell when issues applied to multiple participants, rather than just having one person who talked at length about an issue.

In case you’re wondering, yes we initially did this with hand-written sticky notes, though we brought them into MURAL so we could keep a digital copy to refer back to later. 

On Wednesday, we did another team exercise  - this time including more of the broader NextGEN Travel team. In this case, it was a design critique-style meeting where I had prepared three different samples of ways to communicate the current-state service blueprint, and the team asked questions and offered feedback. 

Mojgan, Maddy and George write questions and comments on sticky notes and post them next to three different displays of information. 

This session gave us the chance to talk through questions about the level of fidelity and detail of the blueprint. One was better at showing the magnitude of systems and touchpoints at a given stage, and the other was better at showing foreground/background and time aspects of the service. 

One of the participants said that he preferred the more content-rich design, and it took him seeing the other versions to understand why it appealed to him. Having multiple options to look at raised questions, and ultimately we decided to incorporate elements from several of the blueprints. 

I realized afterwards that I had unintentionally used three different tools to create them: one each using mural, figma and whimsical. They each had their own strengths in helping me create the visualizations. 

After a lot of synthesis, we were eager to get to work! Maddy and Mike met and created a prioritized backlog to continue to work on our estimator prototype, based on what we’d heard from our early testers. 

Maddy has also been flexing her “stakeholder management/relationship” skills as our product manager, meeting with representatives from other departments to formalize working more closely as we continue to iterate on product ideas.  As anyone who does UX Research knows, recruitment is a major painpoint, so having a group from a department commit to working with us will be a huge help as we roll into the last few months of our fellowship. 

Coming up with this blueprint is interesting, to see the current state, but we want to actually design solutions that can make a real difference in improving the experience. The best way for us to do that is to actually try something, to identify the strengths and weaknesses, and then try again. This is what will allow us to have confidence in what we present: that we’ve worked with users to understand their barriers, and received feedback in the solution we’re proposing. 

Tuesday

Tuesday officially kicked off the FWD50 conference here in Ottawa. 

According to the organizers, FWD50 is “more than an event. It’s a conversation between public and private sector about what we can be when we steer progress towards our better selves.” This three-day event featured a variety of speakers talking about digital transformation, particularly in the public sector. 

A sampling of Tuesday sessions topics included:

Governing From The Edges: Digital Change, Inclusion And Impact In British Columbia

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly Of Government Of Canada Innovation Work

Technology, Trust And Talent For The Digital Age

Exploring Next Generation Citizen Experience

But for all the innovators onstage at Aberdeen Pavilion, we were most excited about what was queued up that evening at the Orange Art Gallery. Three of the four current Code for Canada cohorts presented project updates at a loosely-affiliated offsite Open House. 

 Working on the relatively short presentation (10ish minutes) was a great exercise for the team. What did we want to leave the audience with? We reflected on some of the powerful presentations we’d seen in the past, and tried to bring the audience on a journey (and not just b/c our challenge is travel-related). Giving presentations can sometimes be daunting, but this was a great opportunity to talk about our work in a safe, supportive environment. As we talked of some of the existing challenges travellers face, there were so many nodding faces in the crowd! It was a great reminder that the work we’re doing can really impact people’s abilities to do their work. 

Also, Mike decided to step up our presentation style with coordinated t-shirts, which were a big hit! More than one person asked us where they were from, so if this whole tech thing doesn’t work out post-fellowship, we may have a new business idea to pursue 😎

Wednesday

With Tuesday night’s presentation behind us, we were able to settle in and focus a bit more on the conference itself. 

The day kicked off with CDS’ Aaron Snow talking about The Art of the Possible. I basically retweeted the entire presentation :-)  Later we got a chance to sit in on David Eaves’ session about Digital Transformation Strategies from across the world. As part of our Code for Canada onboarding, we’d had the chance to spend a day with David, so we were familiar with his rapid-fire presentation style. I still think I only really comprehend a portion of his material, but it keeps me thinking for a long time after. 

I was really inspired by the presentations by Shu Yang Lin about the civic tech community in Taiwan, and blogged more extensively about it over on my medium blog: What can we learn from the civic tech community in Taiwan about public discourse and engagement?

Some of Wednesday’s great sessions included: 

The PIA Review

Prototyping Future Democracy

Open Data For Justice: Tracking Down NYC's Worst Slumlords

Policy Making For Nobody

Digital Transformation Strategies from Around the World

Thursday

Things were a bit slower on Thursday morning for some of us. After the Code for Canada-hosted breakfast meetup, we gaggle of fellows and Code for Canada staff gathered and chatted on some of the comfortable couches around the space. 

This was definitely the type of conference where you could see folks who didn’t attend any of the informational sessions, and just used the time to connect with other government innovators. Our track jackets made us noticeable in the crowd, and let us finally connect with some #GCDigital folks we only know off Twitter. (Hi Rob!)

A  few of the sessions I managed to jump into were Failing FWD: Lessons In Building Digital Teams And Products with the Ontario Digital service team, and Digital Disruption: Fundamentals, Business, & Execution with CIOs from three departments within the federal government. 

The MC for this session was Sagar from Code for Canada, and he pointed out that each of the three departments (PSC, PSPC and TC) have each hosted fellowship teams in the past. Coincidence? 

The CIO session was pretty interesting, to see the leaders of these different departments at different stages along the journey. It was a nice wrap-up and reminder of the week: there’s a lot of ‘best practices’ being circulated and shared, but the gap between theory and practice can be huge. 

Friday

Even though FWD50 officially wrapped up on Thursday, we managed to wrangle an invite to a “Rules as Code” working group session at the Canada School of Public Service. The speaker, Pia Andrews, participated in many sessions throughout the conference, and this was a relatively smaller audience as she went over some high-level topics and then answered open questions. Mike happened to pick the seat immediately next to Pia, and then the two Aussies chatted a bit after the session was over. Mike told her that he’d connected with the Code for Australia team that’d worked on Rules as Code, and it turns out it had been Pia who’d brought that team in.  I suppose it is a small world! (Mike wrote about Rules as Code a few months ago)

They’d embarked on a cross-country tour, and talked with some 750 public servants to understand their needs and expectations around a travel solution. (Man, can I admit I’d been around for some of that??!?!) 

With some of the early research out of the way, it’s up to us as new members of the team to dig into what they’ve learned to work on reimagining the experience. 

And ... Policy!

In addition to ramping up on user expectations and existing system conventions, we’re starting to immerse ourselves in the relevant policies related to travel. Thankfully, other members of the extended NextGEN Travel team have been able to point us to summaries and highlights of the relevant policies so we can have some awareness of the environment today. One of the other Code for Canada teams just wrote a blog post this week about relevant policies to consider related to building digital products in government. For our purposes, I’ll just list out a few of those that pertain specifically to our area of focus: 

National Joint Council Travel Directive

Directive on Travel, Hospitality, Conference and Event Expenditures

Directive on Payments

Common Services Policy

Special Travel Authorities

Guide to travel, hospitality, conference, event expenditures

Guideline on Common Financial Management Business Process 3.2 - Manage Travel

.. with more to come!

Although it can be tempting to jump ahead into solving problems, we know we have a lot of possible areas to explore and improve upon. 

So when we talked to travelers this week, we had three main areas of investigation: 

How might we minimize the time it takes for travelers to create cost estimates?

How might we minimize the likelihood of errors when travelers are creating cost estimates?

How might we minimize the likelihood of travelers making errors in booking and trip management in the absence of a centralized booking portal?

We have a few concepts we’ve been working on, so our engagement with users has been a combination of validating that these are legitimate problems to be addressing, and gauging the effectiveness of our proposed solutions. 

Not a one size fits all solution

As we suspected from the outset, we can’t meet everyone’s needs with a single solution. Where, why and how people are traveling changes the trip, and they may need different support to help them be successful. 

It’s helpful for us to speak with different types of users, because they recognize different problems. Frequent travel arrangers have figured out work-arounds and “know the rules”, and they also are great for identifying edge cases. 

Infrequent or first-time travelers are fascinating to interact with because we can see all the blind-spots. Sometimes when we share the frustrations of a novice user with internal stakeholders, we’re met with a bit of defensiveness: ‘they should know that!” or “the system already lets them do that!”. The fact is, it doesn’t matter if the tool allows for the user to do something if they can’t figure it out. That’s a failure of the product or the design. 

When we held a design sprint back in October, one of our goals was to “enable the user to book and expense travel without needing training to do so”. That still holds true. How can we support users, without forcing them to go through a lot of training? 

We can 

Make things intuitive: users can trust their intuition and don’t need to be trained

Provide guardrails/prevent errors from occurring

Offer support and an ability to undo if things do go wrong

Although “build a great product” may indeed come to mind when thinking about how to address the options above, it doesn’t have to. If we force people to rely on scaffolding, say in a system that suppresses options, they become dependent on the tool. 

We’re not solely designing a product - we’re designing an experience that real people have to go through. It’s one thing to measure that yes, users can perform a certain task (booking a business trip). It’s quite another to recognize the impact we’re having on people as they perform that task. Do they feel trusted? Are they stressed and scared about making mistakes? Do they believe their time is valued and being well-spent? 

On Monday, we had a few team meetings and sync-ups, and then in the afternoon Maddy and I headed over to the Old City Hall to volunteer to help set-up for the OneTeamGov Unconference. 

If you haven’t gleaned from some of our photos, Maddy has wonderful penmanship, so she was put to work on signage:

If you haven’t attended an UnConference before, there are no speakers or topics selected in advance. It’s generated by attendees on the day. After an initial collaborative activity, the agenda was populated with topics attendees wanted to discuss. This isn’t an event to sit back and doze off - I mean listen. Everyone is expected to participate. 

Tuesday started bright and early for me as I was also volunteering for registration. After that, I was free to attend sessions through the day. Maddy volunteered to facilitate and note-take at sessions, as did others in our NextGen family: Robyn, Ali and Giselle. 

It was pretty cool to see all the engaged, forward-thinking public servants at the event, and I was a bit surprised that I recognized so many of them! 

There were some common themes across several of the sessions, and sometimes it was difficult to choose what to attend. There were quite a few on remote and flexible work arrangements. I chose to attend the following:

All teams across gov communicate in the open about their successes and failures on a centralized platform

Keep humans at the centre of design + delivery (in and out of government)

Lego Serious Play

Increase opportunities for generating, testing, implementing solutions, coming from the ground up/grassroots

It was an inspiring, albeit tiring, day!

Then on Wednesday, we fellows met in the GCCoworking space to retro (our first in close to 6  weeks - sorry Maddy!) and talk about our work. 

I’ve been working on creating a service blueprint for a service that doesn’t have a centralized booking tool, so we talked through my design. This is in addition to the ux research and design we’re doing for our prototyping efforts, so I’ve been feeling some pressure of having a lot on my plate. As I was worried about it being refined enough for a group review later in the week, Mike gave me a helpful reminder. The purpose of the meeting was to gather feedback - I didn’t have to go crazy trying to make everything perfect and in a final state. Get things in a state to elicit feedback, and then spend more time refining it afterwards. Thanks, Mike! 

The time away from the office was a nice chance for the three of us to re-connect and just make sure we’re still feeling positive about our direction and what we hope to achieve through our fellowship. Time is ticking, and we need to be sure we’re working on what’s most critical. #constraintsBreedCreativity

I also got a giant copy of the existing Service blueprint of the travel journey, to post up in our work area. If anything, just the sheer length of this is a clear sign we have plenty of opportunities to improve this experience!

On Thursday Maddy and I spent the morning over at Courts Administration Service, shadowing some of their financial folks to get a better sense of their current financial processes related to travel.  It can be easy to think only of the traveller as we’re working on a solution, but we have to be sure that we are considering the other parties and processes involved. Getting a glimpse at what goes on behind the scenes can really change how we approach a problem. 

Then we headed right to a Service Blueprint review with some members of the NextGen Travel team, as well as some other partners that are working on blueprints. It was a chance for us each to show our work, and some of the ideas we’re exploring. I wish we’d had more time to really dig in and poke at each others’ concepts, but there was just too much to go through! The meeting did help me feel like we have a solid concept and are on the right track. I’m glad I took Mike’s advice and didn’t worry about spending time making a perfectly polished deliverable. 

Also! I published a mammoth blog post on the Code for Canada blog about prototyping. I appreciate Luke’s patience in reviewing and editing it! 

Then came Friday..

We attended the Digital Services Branch Executive Committee to present our work. We talked about the design sprint that was held back in October, as well as some of the prototypes we’ve been working on. Despite the fact it was THREE O’CLOCK the FRIDAY before the HOLIDAYS, attendees were very engaged in our presentation. It helped that Chief Information Officer Tammy LaBelle framed our work and its importance, but I was pleasantly surprised at the thoughtful questions we received. It was a great wrap-up to lead us into the Christmas break.

But, we weren’t quite done - the bulk of the NextGen Travel team (who weren’t already off for the holidays) met for drinks at Queen St Fare to kick off the weekend and Christmas break. 

After a drink or two, Mike leaned over and said to Maddy and I “you know, I think if this were the end of our fellowship, and that was our final presentation of what we’d done, our fellowship would have been a success”. 

I still get goosebumps thinking of that a couple weeks later, and hope we can continue to feel that sense of accomplishment and impact through the remainder of our time.