The Application of Business Analysis Principles to the Field of Knowledge Translation
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•99 views
Abstract: KBHN is a Federally funded Network Centre of Excellence (NCE) focused on early diagnosis and treatment for children and families affected by neurodisabilities such as Autism Spectrum Disorders, Cerebral Palsy and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Knowledge Translation is important for helping to move research based interventions and discoveries into practice and policy, for improving the lives of Canadians. KBHN's KT Core provides a suite of services to assist its researchers and trainees to maximize the impact of their innovations. However, what often remains 'unseen' are the systems and processes that have been developed and deployed to facilitate the smooth provision of these services to the Network and subsequent reporting. Principles from the field of business analysis have proven indispensable to the KT Core, such as: a) identifying stakeholders who are directly or indirectly affected/involved, b) requirements gathering from all stakeholders, c) design/improvement of processes and products based on this understanding of relevant stakeholders and their needs, as well as obtaining their feedback on proposed solutions. This presentation will describe how KBHN's KT Core has successfully applied general principles of business analysis (solutions such as process and product design/improvement) using three examples: 1) an improved process for drafting clear language summaries, 2) a new process created and operationalized for developing detailed KT plans (along with development of a custom KT planning product) with four selected research project teams within the Network, and 3) an innovative application of survey software for (cost and time) efficient annual progress reporting. In sum, this presentation will advocate for broader application of business analysis principles for process and product development within the field of knowledge translation.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to The Application of Business Analysis Principles to the Field of Knowledge Translation
Similar to The Application of Business Analysis Principles to the Field of Knowledge Translation (20)
More from KBHN KT
More from KBHN KT (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Application of Business Analysis Principles to the Field of Knowledge Translation
- 1. www.kidsbrainhealth.ca Anneliese Poetz, PhD – Manager, KT Core Kids Brain Health Network Waypoint Research Institute – KT in Mental Health and Addictions Conference Wednesday May 18, 2016 – 3:00pm – 4:30pm (Innisfil Room, Holiday Inn) Barrie, Ontario
- 2. Outline 1) How does business analysis relate to KT? 2) Example of the application of BA concepts to KT work, in practice 3) Why is this important? 4) What’s next?
- 4. Business Analysis Definition: Business Analysis is the practice of enabling change in an organizational context, by defining needs and recommending solutions that deliver value to stakeholders.
- 5. Business Analysis Definition: Business Analysis is the practice of enabling change in an organizational context, by defining needs and recommending solutions that deliver value to stakeholders.
- 6. Business Analysis Core Concepts: 1. Need 2. Change 3. Stakeholder 4. Solution 5. Value 6. Context
- 7. Principles of BA for KT • Identifying stakeholders (those directly/indirectly affected) • Requirements gathering (needs) • Incorporating requirements into design/improvement of processes/products – based on understanding of needs, and – feedback on solutions
- 8. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product Problem/Challenge(s): • PIs dissatisfied with process – more work • Inability to get sign off on final copy
- 9. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product
- 10. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product Researchers/PIs KT Core including writers KBHN Headquarters KT Steering Cmte
- 11. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product Problem/Challenge(s): • PIs dissatisfied with process – more work • Inability to get sign off on final copy Stakeholders: • KBHN HQ, PIs, student writers, KT staff, KT Steering Committee
- 12. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product Problem/Challenge(s): • PIs dissatisfied with process • Inability to get sign off on final copy Stakeholders: • KBHN HQ, PIs, student writers, KT staff, KT Steering Committee Requirements: • The process must allow for the PI to review a draft that only requires minor edits • The process must create maximum value for the Network
- 13. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product Method(s): • Root Cause Analysis Stakeholders: • KBHN HQ, PIs, student writers, KT staff
- 14. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product
- 15. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product
- 16. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product
- 17. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product
- 18. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product
- 19. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product The root causes of the problem (the ResearchSnapshot processes) that prevented us from achieving our goal of providing excellent service included: 1) Researchers were expecting a draft that was close to final, that would require minimal editing. 2) Team of student writers trained in clear language writing, but lacked sufficient scientific background for adequate understanding of the material in the original scientific papers. 3) Previous process was new and developed without input from researchers/Principal Investigators (PIs)
- 20. Improving the Process for creating a KT Product Root Cause Identified: • Lack of content knowledge by student writers Recommendation: • New process begins with PI choosing paper, choose trainee writer (content expert) • Provide CLW training to trainee writer Result: We were able to deliver value: “The research snapshot was a smooth process… with an efficient resident taking the lead on it and great support from KBHN KT. ” KBHN Researcher
- 21. Business Analysis Core Concepts: 1. Need = problem: PI dissatisfaction w process 2. Change = improved process 3. Stakeholder = helped inform the need/sol’n 4. Solution = 3 root causes addressed 5. Value = skill building, more efficient process 6. Context = KBHN NCE
- 22. BA mapped onto KT - For any (KBHN) Research Project - Stakeholder Engagement Defining Needs Deliver Value Impact of Research Enabling Change New or Improved Diagnostic, Intervention, Service BA Concept Application to KT
- 23. Why is this important? Helps make KT Planning & Activities more effective
- 24. Why is this important? Helps move the field of KT forward
- 25. Next steps • Currently revising Hybrid KT Planning Tool according to requirements from pilot testing • Conducted a Business Solution Assessment for possibly creating a Hybrid KT Planning App • Decision to revise .pdf (most cost effective)
- 26. Next steps Environmental scan to learn stakeholder needs
- 27. www.kidsbrainhealth.ca David Phipps, PhD, MBA Lead, Knowledge Translation Core KBHN dphipps@yorku.ca Anneliese Poetz, PhD Manager, Knowledge Translation Core KBHN apoetz@yorku.ca Questions
Editor's Notes
- 25 minutes total, for presentation
- Business Analysis is a set of tasks and techniques to work as a liaison among stakeholders in order to understand the structure, policies, and operations of an organization and to recommend solutions to enable the organization to achieve its goals. A Business Analyst is any person who performs business analysis activities, no matter what their job title or organizational role may be. A BA is responsible for the following: Elicitation (discovering underlying needs to be addressed, information related to the product and project requirements often through conversations with stakeholders) Analyzing requirements – organizing, specifying and modeling the requirements to ensure they are complete and unambiguous Specifying requirements – documenting the requirements in a format that can be shared with stakeholders Validating and verifying requirements – ensuring the requirements map to the real business need, are approved by all relevant stakeholders, and meet essential quality standards Source: http://www.bridging-the-gap.com/what-is-a-business-analyst-role-anyway/
- There can be more than one root cause, here are examples: Training (formal and informal) Management Methods (resource and schedule planning) Change Management (Modifications to existing process) Communication (effective or not) External (factors outside of the control of the agency) Design (equipment and systems that support the work) Work Practices (methods used to achieve the task) Work Organization (organizing performance and sequence of tasks) Physical Conditions (factors impacting performance) Procurement (getting necessary resources) Documentation (instructions and procedures) Maintenance/Testing (including preventative maintenance) Man/Machine relationships (alarms and controls in place)
- Each causal factor (which was identified because of its ability to directly influence the incident) was analyzed for its root cause. The root causes of the problem (the ResearchSnapshot processes) that prevented us from achieving our goal of providing excellent service included: 1) Researchers were expecting a draft that was close to final, that would require minimal editing. This root cause was addressed by changing the subject line of emails with drafts attached to “for review” instead of “for approval”. (For an example of the email see Appendix B). 2) Team of student writers trained in clear language writing, but lacked sufficient scientific background for adequate understanding of the material in the original scientific papers. Resulted in summaries that did not accurately portray the research; 3) Previous process was new and developed without input from researchers/Principal Investigators (PIs) so when they were approached to review drafts it ‘came out of left field’. In terms of root causes #2 and #3, some researchers agreed to review the paper but were displeased with the amount of content revision needed, some refused to review for various reasons, and others did not respond at all to our requests. When we presented this root cause analysis to the KT Steering Committee they offered suggestions that were both cost and time effective.
- Each causal factor (which was identified because of its ability to directly influence the incident) was analyzed for its root cause. The root causes of the problem (the ResearchSnapshot processes) that prevented us from achieving our goal of providing excellent service included: 1) Researchers were expecting a draft that was close to final, that would require minimal editing. This root cause was addressed by changing the subject line of emails with drafts attached to “for review” instead of “for approval”. (For an example of the email see Appendix B). 2) Team of student writers trained in clear language writing, but lacked sufficient scientific background for adequate understanding of the material in the original scientific papers. Resulted in summaries that did not accurately portray the research; 3) Previous process was new and developed without input from researchers/Principal Investigators (PIs) so when they were approached to review drafts it ‘came out of left field’. In terms of root causes #2 and #3, some researchers agreed to review the paper but were displeased with the amount of content revision needed, some refused to review for various reasons, and others did not respond at all to our requests. When we presented this root cause analysis to the KT Steering Committee they offered suggestions that were both cost and time effective.
- Each causal factor (which was identified because of its ability to directly influence the incident) was analyzed for its root cause. The root causes of the problem (the ResearchSnapshot processes) that prevented us from achieving our goal of providing excellent service included: 1) Researchers were expecting a draft that was close to final, that would require minimal editing. This root cause was addressed by changing the subject line of emails with drafts attached to “for review” instead of “for approval”. (For an example of the email see Appendix B). 2) Team of student writers trained in clear language writing, but lacked sufficient scientific background for adequate understanding of the material in the original scientific papers. Resulted in summaries that did not accurately portray the research; 3) Previous process was new and developed without input from researchers/Principal Investigators (PIs) so when they were approached to review drafts it ‘came out of left field’. In terms of root causes #2 and #3, some researchers agreed to review the paper but were displeased with the amount of content revision needed, some refused to review for various reasons, and others did not respond at all to our requests. When we presented this root cause analysis to the KT Steering Committee they offered suggestions that were both cost and time effective.
- Each causal factor (which was identified because of its ability to directly influence the incident) was analyzed for its root cause. The root causes of the problem (the ResearchSnapshot processes) that prevented us from achieving our goal of providing excellent service included: 1) Researchers were expecting a draft that was close to final, that would require minimal editing. This root cause was addressed by changing the subject line of emails with drafts attached to “for review” instead of “for approval”. (For an example of the email see Appendix B). 2) Team of student writers trained in clear language writing, but lacked sufficient scientific background for adequate understanding of the material in the original scientific papers. Resulted in summaries that did not accurately portray the research; 3) Previous process was new and developed without input from researchers/Principal Investigators (PIs) so when they were approached to review drafts it ‘came out of left field’. In terms of root causes #2 and #3, some researchers agreed to review the paper but were displeased with the amount of content revision needed, some refused to review for various reasons, and others did not respond at all to our requests. When we presented this root cause analysis to the KT Steering Committee they offered suggestions that were both cost and time effective.
- Each causal factor (which was identified because of its ability to directly influence the incident) was analyzed for its root cause. The root causes of the problem (the ResearchSnapshot processes) that prevented us from achieving our goal of providing excellent service included: 1) Researchers were expecting a draft that was close to final, that would require minimal editing. This root cause was addressed by changing the subject line of emails with drafts attached to “for review” instead of “for approval”. (For an example of the email see Appendix B). 2) Team of student writers trained in clear language writing, but lacked sufficient scientific background for adequate understanding of the material in the original scientific papers. Resulted in summaries that did not accurately portray the research; 3) Previous process was new and developed without input from researchers/Principal Investigators (PIs) so when they were approached to review drafts it ‘came out of left field’. In terms of root causes #2 and #3, some researchers agreed to review the paper but were displeased with the amount of content revision needed, some refused to review for various reasons, and others did not respond at all to our requests. When we presented this root cause analysis to the KT Steering Committee they offered suggestions that were both cost and time effective.
- Each causal factor (which was identified because of its ability to directly influence the incident) was analyzed for its root cause. The root causes of the problem (the ResearchSnapshot processes) that prevented us from achieving our goal of providing excellent service included: 1) Researchers were expecting a draft that was close to final, that would require minimal editing. This root cause was addressed by changing the subject line of emails with drafts attached to “for review” instead of “for approval”. (For an example of the email see Appendix B). 2) Team of student writers trained in clear language writing, but lacked sufficient scientific background for adequate understanding of the material in the original scientific papers. Resulted in summaries that did not accurately portray the research; 3) Previous process was new and developed without input from researchers/Principal Investigators (PIs) so when they were approached to review drafts it ‘came out of left field’. In terms of root causes #2 and #3, some researchers agreed to review the paper but were displeased with the amount of content revision needed, some refused to review for various reasons, and others did not respond at all to our requests. When we presented this root cause analysis to the KT Steering Committee they offered suggestions that were both cost and time effective.
- Result was a process that was more efficient for PIs and also benefitted trainees in terms of building capacity for clear language writing.
- Result was a process that was more efficient for PIs and also benefitted trainees in terms of building capacity for clear language writing.
- By understanding stakeholder needs, you can increase the chances that your KT activities and plans will help move your research toward uptake, implementation and impact. Because they will have greater buy-in if you have asked them about their needs, and if you have listened well and adapted your project accordingly, your information and products/solutions have a greater chance of being used because you will be helping to solve their problems.
- [Put some notes here about what a BSA is and why it is done]
- Currently undertaking an environmental scan to learn 1) what stakeholder engagement has been done within the Network and 2) what are the stakeholder needs that have been identified? The needs could be known by either formal SE, or informal SE (e.g. clinician researchers know the needs of their clients from regular contact/appointments with them).