In June 2018, the Board approved the preparation of a staged implementation plan that was time-bounded and would require minimal budgetary and staff implications in order to be successfully implemented. This initial plan therefore consists of eight of the original sixteen issues identified by the independent reviewer. It was presented to the OEC in December 2018 and was put onto the consent agenda of the Board for final approval in January 2019. The following is the plan for the development of each issue, but also recognizing that a program of continuous improvement is a constant focus across At-Large.
Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair, January 2019
Blue indicates links, red indicates instructions; black indicates text on this page which will be replaced under the current Plan Development page.
Initial Preparation
This will link to a page that sets out the preparatory activities for the
- Job description of the Issue Leaders
- How the implementation steps for the different issues should be approached
- Budgetary and staff implications, as well as volunteer support required
Expectation of metrics
Issue #1: Quality vs Quantity of ALAC Advice
Working Group Leader[MH2] :
Issue 1 Dashboard and progress chart[MH3]
Issue 2: At-Large has struggled to reflect/process end-user opinion; barriers to individual participation; perception of unchanging leadership group
Working Group Leader:
Issue 2 Dashboard and progress chart
Etc for the 8 issues
______________________________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE DASHBOARD PAGE FOR EACH ITEM
At Large Implementation Plan – Issue #1 – Quality vs Quantity of ALAC Advice[MH4]
Final proposal: Staff, under the direction of At-Large leadership, has already begun to rework the website and Wiki to ensure that our “Policy Advice” pages are accurate and understandable. This will continue as volunteer and staff resources allow. We will also ensure that as documents are published, the classification of the document is clear.
Issue 1 Working group: to be completed once identified
Anticipated resource requirements
- Initially up to 40-50 hours of staff time between Jan 2019 through to June 2019 to improve clarity of wiki and web pages.
- When additional staffing resources are made available under Issue 3 Implementation, policy advice development work and communication will be a primary focus of existing staff resource time freed up from other activities.
- Differentiate between advice and comments, potentially other categories (i.e. correspondence).
- Develop communication of revisions to the pages to end users
Expected budget implications
Initially no additional, beyond already allocated, resources to At-Large. However, as noted in Issue 3, additional staff resources are needed for any ongoing work deemed necessary.
Proposed Implementation Steps
- Finalize categorization of previous statements (comments, advice, correspondence, etc.)
- Rename Sub Type to Document Type
- Populate list options for document type based on document categorization exercise
- Populate the “End User Interest” (EUI) field for previous comments
- Begin logging EUI going forward
Metrics
- Clear and Accurate Distinction between statement types.
- Statements filterable by type
- Populated EUI fields
Progress Chart[MH5]
Working Group Meeting 1 – date
Revised Implementation steps and metrics (for example)
Working group Meeting 2 - date
Etc
[MH1]This will link to a page that sets out the preparatory activities for the
- Job description of the Issue Leaders
- How the implementation steps for the different issues should be approached
- Budgetary and staff implications, as well as volunteer support required
Expectation of metrics
[MH2]To be completed when identified
[MH3]This will link to a page (see example below for Issue #1) that will set out the activities that have been agreed to by the Board from our proposed plan for Issue #1 – and can become a workspace for the work that is done on this issue by the working group
[MH4]So that each item’s dashboard starts off with the important sections from the Board document and this is what each working group has to base their work on … however if any changes are made to the original proposal then these need to be identified and accessible (I am imagining that MISSI and NCSG will be watching like hawks to see what we are up to and how we are progressing)
[MH5]This details all activities that take place in order to implement the plan. It also needs to detail any key changes that take place to show that improvement is being made.
