Expose data for caseload management

[Jagusti]

Transforming the revised application data model to provide FVLs with the information needed for caseload management.

Currently, FVL receives manually generated report via email from Approvals Officer.

• [ ] Review existing report content
• [ ] Is this needed if there is a caseload view exposed to vets?
• [ ] How to handle qualitative / narrative data that is needed?
• [ ] What are upstream information structure requirements?

[jamiebuckley]

The only technical question I can see here is:

1. If an FVL does need information directly from the application/approvals process, could they a) Get this in an automated manner? b) Automatically structured into the format they need?

2. If an FVL does want to interact with this data directly, e.g. add their own to it a) What sort of data would they want to add to the caseload data and could any proposed solution cater to this?

[jamiebuckley]

@stephen-dowding I think the main non-technical question here is what the requirements are from the FVL perspective. How useful do they find their current 'copy pasted' information. What information of their own do they typically add.

[stephen-dowding]

@stephen-dowding I think the main non-technical question here is what the requirements are from the FVL perspective. How useful do they find their current 'copy pasted' information. What information of their own do they typically add.

@jamiebuckley From the initial user research we did, there wasn't a lot said about the fortnightly report other than it acts as a reminder of the work to be done.

The key challenges for FVLs are:

• Approvals is only one part of their role. They have to balance this work with their other responsibilities.
• They are part of Field Operations, not RDOT like the Approvals Team itself. They are answering to a different set of managers and business requirements.
• They each manage their own workload. There is no central place to see what jobs are being done, other than the Approvals Log and access to this is limited. Scheduling and workload management is all being done at the individual level.
• From what we know, scheduling and workload managements is dominated by email and core MS Office tools. It is all manual.
• They each cover a large area of the country with varying numbers of establishments and types of FBO. Although some FVLs cover for annual leave, sickness, etc. it is not necessarily easy to pick up casework for another FVL.
• Application forms, supporting documentation, reports, etc. relating to an establishment are all stored as files in the Wisdom fileshare. Other information that may be useful is managed in the Approvals Log. Other teams (e.g. Finance) may also have information about the FBO but there is no connection between tools and repositories. There is no single system of record where the case history of an FBO can be traced and managed.
• FVLs may need to travel considerable distances between establishments. This needs to be factored into their workload.
• Work is being prioritised by each FVL determined by their individual workload, other demands on their time, and the travel time required.
• There is variation between FVLs on recommending approval or applying discretionary decisions.
• They may need to manage seasonal demands on their workload, for example in an area with game handling establishments which operate at specific times of the year. Again, there are trends in the work being done but spotting and managing them is all manual work and/or dependent on local knowledge.

From what I can see, the current copy/paste approach is primarily happening because of restricted access to the Approvals Log spreadsheet and the complexity of extracting the information relevant to an individual.