The RFA Process:

1
The RFA Process Suggested Improvements Anne
Roberts 20th December 2006
2
Agenda

• DSG objectives
• DSG Representative Feedback
• Current issues
• The proposed process flow
• The DSG Lifecycle
• The revised RFA Form and Process
• The revised Enhancements Log
• Deliverables and timescales
• Issues remaining after new process is implemented
• Next Steps

3
DSG Objectives

• Empower users to influence application direction
• Encourage User Group ownership of RFAs
• Improve quality of RFAs received by the DSG
• Ensure appropriate prioritisation of changes that
  are agreed by the entire user base

4
DSG Representative Feedback

• Suggestions
• Restructure CABUG attendees and ToR
• Implement improved system for managing and
  tracking RFAs
• Additional Filters in Enhancements Log required
  to filter by Cluster and SHA
• Add comments and scoring to RFA

5
DSG Representative Feedback

• Issues Raised
• Quality of data in RFA needs to be improved
• Its hard to track progress on RFAs, or search
  the RFA (Enhancements) Log
• There is no way to identify the progress/ status
  of RFAs approved via CABUG that are awaiting DSG
  assessment
• An objective review is required for RFAs, that
  considers the impact of the RFA on each user base
  (e.g. Primary Care, Secondary Care)
• Real users need to have input into the RFA
  assessment process

6
Current Issues

• 1 - RFA arrives at DSG based on requirements of
  single cluster or SHA
• 2 - Other Clusters dont have time to review RFAs
  prior to DSG
• 3 - RFA can be received by DSG having had little
  or no input from user group and other application
  users
• 4 - RFAs received are often duplicates of or very
  similar to existing RFAs
• 5 - Requirement in RFA often not clear need to
  identify the issue and possible solutions
• 6 - End users arent aware of the channels for
  raising and tracking progress of RFAs

7
Current Issues

• 7 - Acceptance and initial prioritisation of RFA
  is based on input from DSG reps on the day (and
  often not a full set of reps)
• 8 - RFA scoring system is not consistently
  applied
• 9 - Feed from User Groups to DSG is still being
  established there is no standard behaviour
• 10 - Delivery capacity is limited, and appetite
  is large
• 11 - Static pipeline needs to be maintained with
  supplier
• 12 - RFAs need to be fairly prioritised based on
  business needs
• 13 - DSG meeting often not long enough to
  properly review RFAs
• 14 - Backlog of existing RFAs needs to be
  processed

8
TheProposedProcessFlow
9
The DSG Lifecycle

• Maintain existing dates for 24th Jan and 28th Feb
  DSGs (DSG every 5 weeks)
• Change DSG frequency after 28th Feb - meeting to
  occur every 6 weeks
• Have recognised deadlines for RFAs being added to
  DSG Agenda
• RFAs distributed 3 weeks prior to DSG for local
  review local review coordinated by DSG rep
• Originating DSG Rep collates feedback from each
  local review
• Feedback printed out for review alongside RFA at
  DSG assessment of RFA

10
The DSG Lifecycle
11
The Revised RFA Form and Process

• Greater level of detail collected from user
• Build on recent changes to form
• Ensure necessary fields are mandatory
• User input validated by Receiving User Group
• Receiving User group can ensure RFA is not a
  duplicate of existing RFA
• More categorisation via drop down menus, to
  facilitate measurement of size and impact of
  issue
• Section for Receiving User Group Assessment
  with final score output based on data entered
• Section for assessments from other user groups
  with final score output based on data entered
• Section for assessment from DSG review overall
  RFA score and make any comments and score
  adjustment
• Single RFA file contains full history

12
The Revised Enhancements Log

• Subset of RFA content added to Enhancements Log
• Enables searching for key words
• Key information in a single repository
• Priority and status of RFA are clear
• More filters in Enhancements Log to enable
• specific RFAs to be quickly located
• New RFAs to be checked against log to see if they
  are a duplicate
• Better information available to end users for
  RFAs received by DSG increased transparency

13
Deliverables and Timescales
14
Issues Remaining after new Process is Implemented

• 6 - End users arent aware of the channels for
  raising and tracking progress of RFAs
• For RFAs not received by DSG, need to ensure user
  has contact point within CABUG to track progress
• For RFAs accepted by DSG, need to raise awareness
  of Enhancements Log
• 14 - Backlog of existing RFAs to be progressed
• Prioritisation exercise to assess importance of
  existing RFAs
• DSG assessment of top RFAs to be added to
  pipeline for solution development will include
  new RFAs with high score, plus existing RFAs with
  high score
• Ultimately, all old RFAs will be progressed or
  closed

15
Issues Remaining after new Process is Implemented

• 10 - Delivery capacity is limited, and appetite
  is large
• Delivery mechanism will change new release
  strategy will
• Reduce number of releases per year (reduces user
  disruption)
• Revise development resource profile to maximise
  solution capacity
• Process will standardise duration for delivery of
  each pipeline item enables DSG to set delivery
  expectations
• Budget constraints limit number of solutions that
  can be delivered in any release

16
Next Steps

• Agree timescales for proposed changes
• DSG Representatives communicate and discuss
  proposed changes with CABUGs
• Review of draft documentation by DSG
  Representatives and CABUGs
• Discuss feedback from draft documentation at next
  DSG