Closed OlgaPotiagalova closed 1 month ago
Initial estimates of each option from a technical perspective. To be reviewed and updated accordingly.
TOTAL: 13 +/-
TOTAL: 12 +/-
TOTAL: 23 +/-
@vysakh-menon-aot , anything to update or add to the above?
I agree with @severinbeauvais on Option 1 & 2.
Option 3 is not possible to implement in the current architecture. In addition to @severinbeauvais notes
Total effort would be 35+
Thank you @severinbeauvais and @vysakh-menon-aot. Do you see any other alternative options?
Here are my thoughts:
Given this, I think:
So how do we identify high priority reviews? I suggest:
These ideas can be added to the options above if they aren't already there.
Considering all of the above Option 1 is the most reasonable choice.
Subject to Megan's approval, here is the option approved by Linda. It's basically Option 1:
cc: @janisrogers @NaveenHebbale
User is given an option to file Continuation In by specifying Future Effective Date. Since some time is required for the authorization documents review by the staff before the filing is finalized, we need to define business process and add handling around FED.
The following options are being reviewed as possible approach for handling FED in the Continuation In workflow.
Please estimate each option from the technical perspective.
Option 1. Allow to enter FED with warning, handle conflicts with business process.
Pros: • Conforms to current operational policies. • User completes all necessary actions in one step (if FED allowed enough time for review). It makes it easier for the user to understand without needing to remember multiple steps (in comparison to the Option 3) • The overall process might be quicker. Users don’t need to wait for documents approval before proceeding to the next step (in comparison to the Option 3) • Users are less likely abandon the process if they can complete everything at once (in comparison to the Option 3)
Cons: • Users can abuse the option of contacting the BC Registry to expedite the process which will result in increased number of phone calls • Can potentially result in frustrated clients if the FED was not feasible
• Technical challenges : new FED selection should be processed without an additional charge.
Option 2. Set date constraints. Introduce a buffer allowing time for review (1 or 2 business days)
Pros: • User completes all necessary actions in one step (if FED allowed enough time for review). It makes it easier for the user to understand without needing to remember multiple steps (in comparison to the Option 3) • Allows enough time for most reviews (except for when additional communication is required between the staff the customers) • The overall process might be quicker. Users don’t need for a documents approval before proceeding to the next step (in comparison to the option 3) Users are less likely abandon the process if they can complete everything at once (in comparison to the Option 3)
Cons: • The buffer option is not aligned with current operational policies • In some cases the buffer still won’t allow to meet FED, which might be frustrating to the users. • Need to implement logic for the buffer and to add validation (handling business days vs days) • Restricting users appears as lack of flexibility
Option 3. Implement separate workflow for FED date selection upon document approval.
Pros: • Conforms to current operational policies • Users don’t need to worry about the approval status of the documents when selecting FED • Staff can focus on the reviewing documents without the pressure of meeting FED, allowing for more thorough review process • There is no need to change the FED later
Cons: • Two workflows to support • Multiple logins required for all FED filings (5% of filings) The FED workflow is similar to the current two-step workflow • Longer overall completion time (introduced by a delay between document approval and FED selection) • Prolonged waiting periods. Users may experience longer waiting periods if they need to wait for document approval before proceeding to the next step • Engagement fatigue and frustration by having to engage with the system multiple times. (The FED feature is used mostly by lawyers who do multiple filings.) • Technical challenges : To allow modifications when the filing is already in the approved state – is it feasible? New state might be required – FED entry pending