HAC Remediation

HAC Remediation

Maak een Begin. Het is Gratis
of registreren met je e-mailadres
Rocket clouds
HAC Remediation Door Mind Map: HAC Remediation

1. Should we have 2 versions of the HAC?

1.1. 1. To create, edit, submit HACs and view a limited number of submitted HACs More for users, participants, etc

1.2. 2. Online only - ability to search/read all HACs (unsubmitted/submitted) More for managers, supervisors, etc

1.2.1. Extensive Search Functionality

1.3. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

1.3.1. Enter here

1.4. RESPONSES FROM Team

1.4.1. Enter here

1.4.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

2. Restructure data model in CDS (Technical Decisions - not requiring stakeholder input)

3. Improved Analytics & Reporting

3.1. PowerBI Requirements would be a separate conversation. But at a high level, please describe what reporting requirements you have?

3.2. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

3.2.1. Enter here

3.3. RESPONSES FROM Team

3.3.1. Enter here

3.3.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

4. Only 1 user can edit a HAC at a time. This assumes the record already exists.

4.1. Note: Check in/out requires the device to be online. Will not work offline. This requirement will be largely dictated by the technical constraints around delivering this functionality.

4.1.1. Check-Out Feature

4.1.1.1. EXISTING RECORDS Existing HAC record will default open in read-only. There will be a button to edit the HAC, this will warn the user they are checking out the record and allow them to accept/decline.

4.1.1.1.1. Check out is a manual function

4.1.1.1.2. Warning for the user to check back in or changes will be lost

4.1.1.1.3. On save/submission, HAC automatically checks itself back in.

4.1.2. Check out warning for users. e.g. You have 2 HACs checked out to you.

4.1.2.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

4.1.2.1.1. Enter here

4.1.3. Check in/out icon to indicate record status

4.2. RESPONSES FROM Team

4.2.1. Enter Here

4.2.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

5. Photo Capture - Online Only

5.1. What are the photos associated with?

5.1.1. Is it site photo capture?

5.2. What is the limit to the number of photos?

5.2.1. e.g. 10?

5.3. Is there a limit on photo size?

5.4. Should these limits be configurable?

5.5. Warning reg. attaching photos/viewing photos available online only

5.5.1. What is the wording of this warning?

5.6. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

5.6.1. Enter here

5.7. RESPONSES FROM Team

5.7.1. Enter here

5.7.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

6. Ability to capture whether there is LiveWork involved

6.1. How do you see this being captured?

6.1.1. e.g. toggle button, checkbox, etc

6.2. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

6.2.1. Enter here

6.3. RESPONSES FROM Team

6.3.1. Enter here

6.3.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

7. "Who is doing what" Question

7.1. Is this a free text field? Is it a drop down selection?

7.2. Is this field mandatory?

7.2.1. Is there conditional criteria?

7.3. Should this be assigned to each participant? Or should it be associated to the site?

7.3.1. Ease of Use vs Reporting Trade-Off

7.3.1.1. e.g it might be easier for users to enter "Who is Doing What" into one free-text field. However, having this assigned to each participant will allow for more granular reporting.

7.4. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

7.4.1. Enter here

7.5. RESPONSES FROM Team

7.5.1. Enter here

7.5.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

8. Geolocation with address lookup capability

8.1. Google vs Bing is a technical/commercial decision.

8.2. Do we capture geolocation from the device AND look up the address as well?

8.2.1. Do we allow user to select from suggested addresses?

8.3. Should the address be editable?

8.3.1. Free-text?

8.4. Is this information captured in Job Pack Application? Please refer to "Ability to launch HAC from Job Pack Application"

8.5. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

8.5.1. Enter here

8.6. RESPONSES FROM Team

8.6.1. Enter here

8.6.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

9. Unique HAC ID (e.g. HAC000127)

9.1. HAC ID will be: - Auto-generated - Not editable - Sequential

9.1.1. Thinking of how many submitted HACs Ausgrid will capture over time... What is the length of the HAC ID?

9.1.1.1. Example: - Does 6 digits cover the number of HACs? - Should it include date/year digits in the format?

9.2. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

9.2.1. Enter here

9.3. RESPONSES FROM Team

9.3.1. Enter here

9.3.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

10. Ability to launch HAC from Job Pack Application

10.1. Launches HAC through the use of a hyperlink

10.2. What data needs to be passed from the Job Pack Application to the HAC record?

10.2.1. Job ID

10.2.2. Address?

10.2.3. ???

10.3. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

10.3.1. Enter here

10.4. RESPONSES FROM Team

10.4.1. Enter here

10.4.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

11. Investigate possibility of launching HAC from MyWork

11.1. Please explain this requirement further.

11.2. Is this just a hyperlink like in Job Pack Application?

11.3. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

11.3.1. Enter here

11.4. RESPONSES FROM Team

11.4.1. Enter here

11.4.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

12. Source Job ID reference field (e.g. SAP Work Order, NAR, etc)

12.1. Please explain this requirement?

12.2. What would we reference from these systems?

12.3. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

12.3.1. Enter here

12.4. RESPONSES FROM Team

12.4.1. Enter here

12.4.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

13. Limit unsubmitted HACs with/without warning prompt

13.1. AGREED: To avoid device overload, there should be a limit to the number of unsubmitted HACs a user can have at any one time. We should provide a warning before users reach the hard limit for number of unsubmitted HACs.

13.1.1. Limit Warning: You are approaching the limit of X unsubmitted HACs on your device. Please consider submitting your unsubmitted HACs.

13.1.1.1. What is number of unsubmitted HACs to prompt the Limit Warning?

13.1.1.2. What is the number of unsubmitted HACs to prevent the user from creating a new HAC?

13.1.1.3. Should these limits be configurable?

13.1.2. Limit Reached: You have reached the limit of X unsubmitted HACs on your device. Please submit your unsubmitted HACs to proceed.

13.2. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

13.2.1. Enter here

13.3. RESPONSES FROM Team

13.3.1. Enter here

13.3.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

14. Remove Feedback Button

14.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

14.1.1. Enter here

14.2. RESPONSES FROM Team

14.2.1. Enter here

14.2.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15. General Functionality

15.1. When you create a HAC, you can select that it is an emergency HAC OR that you are a lone worker. However, when you create it and enter the rest of the data, you can't change the toggles. What if a user has selected this incorrectly?

15.1.1. Should these toggles be editable after selection?

15.1.2. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.1.2.1. Enter here

15.1.3. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.1.3.1. Enter here

15.1.3.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.2. To reduce device load, it's important to limit how many submitted HACs a user can view at any one time. The option for limiting the viewing of submitted HACs include: - Created/participated by the user - Submitted within last 30 days (or even less: 15 days ?)

15.2.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.2.1.1. Enter here

15.2.2. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.2.2.1. Enter here

15.2.2.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.3. Offline capability Let's define the boundaries of Offline functionality by reviewing these options:

15.3.1. Should users be able to create new HAC whilst offline?

15.3.2. Should users be able to view unsubmitted HACs offline?

15.3.3. Should users be able to edit/submit unsubmitted HACs created by/participated in by the user? Note: The HAC is required to be synced and checked out online first to enable this offline functionality

15.3.4. CONFIRM: Attaching photos or viewing attached photos while editing a HAC offline is not available

15.3.5. CONFIRM: Capturing a new signature while being offline is available but viewing already captured signatures is available only online

15.3.6. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.3.6.1. Enter here

15.3.7. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.3.7.1. Enter here

15.3.7.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.4. Multi-Site HACs

15.4.1. Should a user be able to create multiple sites in the same HAC?

15.4.1.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.4.1.1.1. Enter here

15.4.2. On creation of a multi-site HAC.. Should the first site's details be replicated to subsequent sites? Suggest this replication remain editable.

15.4.3. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.4.3.1. Enter here

15.4.3.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.5. CONFIRM: Selecting Permits from a lookup list as opposed to typing in the details

15.5.1. Where should this list of Permits be sourced/stored?

15.5.1.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.5.1.1.1. Enter here

15.5.2. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.5.2.1. Enter here

15.5.2.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.6. Currently, participant details are read-only once the signature is captured. CONFIRM: Does this functionality stay the same?

15.6.1. To account for errors, should a user be able to edit their signature again?

15.6.1.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.6.1.1.1. Enter here

15.6.2. Currently you can add the same participant repeatedly to a single site. Should participant duplication be prevented? We can prevent this by applying rules on T-Number entry. However, we can't prevent duplication if free-text entry.

15.6.2.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.6.2.1.1. Enter here

15.6.3. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.6.3.1. Enter here

15.6.3.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.7. Should we include a link to the Quick Reference Guide (PDF on the Wire)?

15.7.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.7.1.1. Enter here

15.7.2. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.7.2.1. Enter here

15.7.2.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.8. Current search works on Title Only and is limited in capability. Should we enhance search to include more robust search functionality? - HAC Title - HAC ID - Site details? - Others items?

15.8.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.8.1.1. Enter here

15.8.2. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.8.2.1. Enter here

15.8.2.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.9. Currently we don't have a cancel button to allow users to discard their changes. Should users be able to discard their changes? E.g. invalid changes/mistakes

15.9.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.9.1.1. Enter here

15.9.2. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.9.2.1. Enter here

15.9.2.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.10. Should we highlight unsubmitted HACs for users, with a visual indicator on records created after X number of days. E.g. No background color: Recently created Orange highlight: More than 3 days Red highlight: More than 5 days

15.10.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.10.1.1. Enter here

15.10.2. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.10.2.1. Enter here

15.10.2.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

15.11. Use multiple pages within the app, to reduce number of controls and required data load

15.11.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

15.11.1.1. Enter here

15.11.2. RESPONSES FROM Team

15.11.2.1. Enter here

15.11.2.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional

16. HAC OBJECTIVES (Walked through with Stakeholders 28/8/19)

16.1. What is the purpose of the HAC?

16.1.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

16.1.1.1. To guide and record a safety discussion to identify hazards/controls on the day

16.1.1.2. Last minute risk assessment tool

16.1.1.3. In future - it will identify who is doing Live Work

16.1.1.4. Be used to record the roles being played on site by individuals

16.1.1.5. To provide a reliable source of truth for reference and potential evidence

16.2. What triggers the HAC to start?

16.2.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

16.2.1.1. Any and all work (field, depots, etc)

16.3. Who is responsible to complete the HAC?

16.3.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

16.3.1.1. Any and all individuals involved in the task at hand

16.3.1.2. There is a slight difference between being the leader vs a passenger

16.4. What is the end result or output of the HAC?

16.4.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

16.4.1.1. Conversation - Our staff have risk assessed a site and know the hazards/controls they're going to implement.

16.4.1.2. HAC Record - Records the conversation

16.5. Which areas of this process can be improved?

16.5.1. Why this is a problem area?

16.5.1.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

16.5.1.1.1. PLUS ES angle is currently ignored/not being addressed.

16.5.1.1.2. The level of detail captured. Transcription time to record the conversation.

16.5.1.1.3. Behaviours that the user experience generates. Incentive/attitude.

16.5.1.1.4. Conversation - Keeping it fresh and new to ensure people stay alert and situationally aware.

16.5.1.1.5. App - Shouldn't get in the way of completing/recording the conversation

16.5.1.1.6. Reliability of the form

16.5.1.1.7. Access in remote areas

16.5.1.1.8. Intuitiveness of the form

16.5.1.1.9. Ease of use

16.5.1.1.10. The need to reference multiple documents (SWMs, Job Pack information, permits)

16.5.1.1.11. Save vs Submit

16.5.1.1.12. Structure of the data makes analytics difficult

16.5.1.1.13. When people are not Ausgrid employees, the form locks up, doesn't recognise the individual and the HAC freezes.

16.5.1.1.14. Learning to improve the conversation from HAC to HAC

16.5.1.1.15. HAC Behaviour

16.5.1.1.16. Process itself could be improved by moving away from HAC by HAC reviews. To do more overarching reviews of HAC performance/conversations

16.5.1.1.17. Can't link HACs to actual work/jobs

16.5.1.1.18. Can't have photos

16.5.1.1.19. Geo-location

16.5.2. What do you believe will help address this problem?

16.5.2.1. What else do think can help address this problem?

16.6. If you were able to provide me with your top 3 business requirements for this project, what would they be?

16.6.1. Why is this requirement important to your business function / group / team?

16.6.1.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

16.6.1.1.1. It needs to work. Be reliable.

16.6.1.1.2. It needs to be more user friendly.

16.6.1.1.3. Accessible after the event.

16.6.1.2. Higher quality HAC

16.6.1.2.1. Conversations as well as records

16.6.1.2.2. Better informed staff and managers

16.6.1.2.3. A lot of other systems we could improve the way we engage with that content

16.6.1.3. 1. Reliability 2. User friendly logic/smart app 3. Access to data/analytics

16.6.1.3.1. System integrations

16.6.1.3.2. Roadmap - longterm

16.6.2. What will this requirement enable your team to do differently or better?

16.6.3. Why is this requirement important to your business function / group / team?

16.7. Do you currently have any existing operational reports which help you manage the HACs?

16.7.1. Yes

16.7.1.1. RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

16.7.1.1.1. High potential incidents

16.7.1.1.2. Enter here

16.7.1.1.3. Future looking: Source of urgent work - for assurance?

16.7.1.1.4. Which systems produce your reports for you?

16.7.1.1.5. Looking at PowerBI to see what people are putting in the forms

16.7.2. No

16.7.2.1. Tell us about some of your reporting requirements. What would you really like to see produced as a report? Why?

16.7.2.2. Discuss the content, frequency, audience and layout of the report at a high level.

17. RESPONSES FROM Team

17.1. Enter here

17.2. S00X Story Name: Description: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Functional: Non-Functional