national jsna data set project
DESCRIPTION
National JSNA Data Set Project. Surrey Anupama Shrestha, NHS Surrey Jenny Smith, Surrey County Council. Surrey JSNA. Background Aims Methodology Outputs Future plans. Surrey JSNA. Background Political and demographic environment Priority places & ‘heat maps’ JSNA 2008 Aims - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
DRAFTNovember 2009
Surrey
Anupama Shrestha, NHS Surrey Jenny Smith, Surrey County Council
National JSNA Data Set Project
Surrey JSNA
• Background• Aims• Methodology• Outputs• Future plans
Surrey JSNA
• Background– Political and demographic environment– Priority places & ‘heat maps’– JSNA 2008
• Aims• Methodology• Outputs• Future plans
Political and demographic environment The Surrey Strategic Partnership serves an estimated population of 1.1 million
Priority Places & Heat Maps
Priority Places & Heat Maps
JSNA 2008
A good start:
• Gathered lots of relevant data
• Generated joint priorities
• Raised awareness
But still a long way to go:
• “Morass of data”, no information
• Not enough district, borough or VCFS involvement
• Data not granular enough
• Static document
• Assessment not joint enough
• Need better engagement with communities
• Lack of shared vision to develop JSNA
• Lack of common ICT systems limits potential of JSNA
Surrey JSNA
• Background
• Aims• Methodology• Outputs• Future plans
Surrey Fieldwork: Project aims
JSNA at the heart of
single LIS for SSP
Gain wide partnership buy in
Commit resource to
develop JSNA
Secure high level buy in to
vision for JSNA
Agree project plan
Surrey JSNA
• Background• Aims
• Methodology– Market research– Consultation– Working together
• Outputs• Future plans
Surrey Fieldwork: Method
Market research: What can we learn from other LIS?
Requirements gathering: What do we need from LIS?
Working together:We can achieve more...
Surrey JSNA
• Background• Aims• Methodology
• Outputs– Options analysis– Business case template– Project plan
• Future plans
Surrey Fieldwork: Outputs
• Market research & options analysis• Business case template• Project plan• Outputs attached
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Examples • Isle of Wight ‘Eco-Island Information Observatory’
• Norfolk Insight
• East Sussex in Figures (ESiF)
• Data Unit Wales
• Milton Keynes Intelligence Observatory
• SEPHO and ERPHO
• ‘Nomad+’ Nottingham
5 Year Costs Under £100,000 £200,000 £300,000 – £500,000
Time to implement Less than 6 months 12 months 2 years +
Outline Specification
• Database: Range from non-existent to satisfactory
• Data visualisation tool: Excellent
• Web portal: Range from non-existent to excellent
• Database: Excellent
• Data visualisation tool: Excellent
• Web portal: Good
• Database: Excellent
• Data visualisation tool: Excellent
• Web portal: Excellent
Scalable Problematic:
• Solutions in this category are either niche or relatively small in terms of data capacity & processing power.
Yes:
• Option 3 is built on option 2
• Relatively large database.
• Option to upgrade SLIS to option 3 later.
Yes:
• Often built on option 2
• Relatively large database.
• Specialist content management solution makes growth of the web-portal easier.
Risk Medium:
• Proven solution, quick to deliver
• May not be as well future proofed as other solutions.
Medium:
• Gaining analytical power but risk alienating non-specialist users.
Medium:
• Bespoke solution will take at least two years to develop and may require significant outsourcing for consultancy/expertise.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Examples • Isle of Wight ‘Eco-Island Information Observatory’
• Norfolk Insight
• East Sussex in Figures (ESiF)
• Data Unit Wales
• Milton Keynes Intelligence Observatory
• SEPHO and ERPHO
• ‘Nomad+’ Nottingham
5 Year Costs Under £100,000 £200,000 £300,000 – £500,000
Time to implement Less than 6 months 12 months 2 years +
Outline Specification
• Database: Range from non-existent to satisfactory
• Data visualisation tool: Excellent
• Web portal: Range from non-existent to excellent
• Database: Excellent
• Data visualisation tool: Excellent
• Web portal: Good
• Database: Excellent
• Data visualisation tool: Excellent
• Web portal: Excellent
Scalable Problematic:
• Solutions in this category are either niche or relatively small in terms of data capacity & processing power.
Yes:
• Option 3 is built on option 2
• Relatively large database.
• Option to upgrade SLIS to option 3 later.
Yes:
• Often built on option 2
• Relatively large database.
• Specialist content management solution makes growth of the web-portal easier.
Risk Medium:
• Proven solution, quick to deliver
• May not be as well future proofed as other solutions.
Medium:
• Gaining analytical power but risk alienating non-specialist users.
Medium:
• Bespoke solution will take at least two years to develop and may require significant outsourcing for consultancy/expertise.
LIS Components (and associated benefits)
Financial savings Efficiency Effectiveness Communication and engagement
Single database of shared data
Financial savings to be gained from redirection of resource from basic data processing to advanced analytics and high value analysis without having to backfill
• Builds capability for strategic assessment, targeting resources and joint commissioning
•Automate basic level data analysis and shift resource to production of high value intelligence
•Data is collected and collated once and used numerous times, reducing duplication
• Builds capability for service design and delivery that meet local needs (improve NI 5: satisfaction with local area)
•Live, automated data feed makes data available fast
• Single, joined up view of people, places, issues
• Key component in developing a strategic marketing capability to;
• influence attitudes
• improve reputation
• facilitate dialogue with residents
• leverage behaviour change
• working in partnership
Data visualisation tool
Financial savings from reduction in add hoc requests that could be redirected to a self service LIS (reduction in internal and external avoidable contact, e.g. FOI requests)
• Automatic reporting function reduces time taken to produce high quality reports
• Reduction in number of internal requests for information (reduction in internal avoidable contact)
• Provides basic self service decision support material
• Provides a desktop tool to enable employees to understand communities and become increasingly outcomes focussed
• Source of reliable, local intelligence for Members
Public facing web-portal
Intangible savings based on CLG estimate that on average 19 minutes is saved per visit to a LIS
• Reduction in number of external requests for information (reduction in external avoidable contact e.g. FOI).
• Procurement of a shared resource
• Provides common, shared evidence base for SSP
• Flexible web2 technology provides a forum for dialogue
• Empowers local people and facilitates public involvement in local decision making and delivery (improve NI 4: feel able to influence local decisions)
LIS Components (and associated benefits)
Financial savings Efficiency Effectiveness Communication and engagement
Single database of shared data
Financial savings to be gained from redirection of resource from basic data processing to advanced analytics and high value analysis without having to backfill
• Builds capability for strategic assessment, targeting resources and joint commissioning
•Automate basic level data analysis and shift resource to production of high value intelligence
•Data is collected and collated once and used numerous times, reducing duplication
• Builds capability for service design and delivery that meet local needs (improve NI 5: satisfaction with local area)
•Live, automated data feed makes data available fast
• Single, joined up view of people, places, issues
• Key component in developing a strategic marketing capability to;
• influence attitudes
• improve reputation
• facilitate dialogue with residents
• leverage behaviour change
• working in partnership
Data visualisation tool
Financial savings from reduction in add hoc requests that could be redirected to a self service LIS (reduction in internal and external avoidable contact, e.g. FOI requests)
• Automatic reporting function reduces time taken to produce high quality reports
• Reduction in number of internal requests for information (reduction in internal avoidable contact)
• Provides basic self service decision support material
• Provides a desktop tool to enable employees to understand communities and become increasingly outcomes focussed
• Source of reliable, local intelligence for Members
Public facing web-portal
Intangible savings based on CLG estimate that on average 19 minutes is saved per visit to a LIS
• Reduction in number of external requests for information (reduction in external avoidable contact e.g. FOI).
• Procurement of a shared resource
• Provides common, shared evidence base for SSP
• Flexible web2 technology provides a forum for dialogue
• Empowers local people and facilitates public involvement in local decision making and delivery (improve NI 4: feel able to influence local decisions)
Surrey JSNA
• Background• Aims• Methodology• Outputs
• Future plans– Consult– Engage– Communicate
Surrey Fieldwork: Future plans
JSNA on LIS platform enables
Greater district, borough & VCFS
involvement in JSNA
Increase granularity of JSNA to get more local
Less time processing, more time analysing &
joint assessment
Engage community and hard to reach groups in
JSNA
Promote JSNA 2009
Communicate key messages clearly
Conclusions
• More to LIS than meets the eye – visits and demos are essential
• JSNA a fundamental driver for LIS
• Sell the benefits of LIS, make it real and get the buy in
• Stay focussed
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Examples • Isle of Wight ‘Eco-Island Information Observatory’• Norfolk Insight
• East Sussex in Figures (ESiF)• Data Unit Wales
• Milton Keynes Intelligence Observatory• SEPHO and ERPHO• ‘Nomad+’ Nottingham
5 Year Costs Under £100,000 £200,000 £300,000 – £500,000
Time to implement Less than 6 months 12 months 2 years +
Outline Specification
• Database: Range from non-existent to satisfactory• Data visualisation tool: Excellent• Web portal: Range from non-existent to excellent
• Database: Excellent• Data visualisation tool: Excellent• Web portal: Good
• Database: Excellent• Data visualisation tool: Excellent• Web portal: Excellent
Scalable Problematic:• Solutions in this category are either niche or relatively small in terms of data capacity & processing power.
Yes:• Option 3 is built on option 2 • Relatively large database.• Option to upgrade SLIS to option 3 later.
Yes:• Often built on option 2 • Relatively large database. • Specialist content management solution makes growth of the web-portal easier.
Risk Medium:• Proven solution, quick to deliver but may not be as well future proofed as other solutions.
Medium: • Gaining analytical power but risk alienating non-specialist users.
Medium:• Bespoke solution will take at least two years to develop and may require significant outsourcing for consultancy/expertise.
Appendix: Options Analysis
LIS Components (and associated benefits)
Financial savings Efficiency Effectiveness Communication and engagement
Single database of shared data
Financial savings to be gained from redirection of resource from basic data processing to advanced analytics and high value analysis without having to backfill
• Builds capability for strategic assessment, targeting resources and joint commissioning•Automate basic level data analysis and shift resource to production of high value intelligence•Data is collected and collated once and used numerous times, reducing duplication
• Builds capability for service design and delivery that meet local needs (improve NI 5: satisfaction with local area)•Live, automated data feed makes data available fast• Single, joined up view of people, places, issues
• Key component in developing a strategic marketing capability to;• influence attitudes• improve reputation• facilitate dialogue with residents • leverage behaviour change• working in partnership
Data visualisation tool
Financial savings from reduction in add hoc requests that could be redirected to a self service LIS (reduction in internal and external avoidable contact, e.g. FOI requests)
• Automatic reporting function reduces time taken to produce high quality reports• Reduction in number of internal requests for information (reduction in internal avoidable contact)
• Provides basic self service decision support material• Provides a desktop tool to enable employees to understand communities and become increasingly outcomes focussed
• Source of reliable, local intelligence for Members
Public facing web-portal
Intangible savings based on CLG estimate that on average 19 minutes is saved per visit to a LIS
• Reduction in number of external requests for information (reduction in external avoidable contact e.g. FOI).• Procurement of a shared resource
• Provides common, shared evidence base for SSP• Flexible web2 technology provides a forum for dialogue
• Empowers local people and facilitates public involvement in local decision making and delivery (improve NI 4: feel able to influence local decisions)
Appendix: Business Case
Appendix: Project PlanExcel spreadsheet also available
Appendix: Useful Links
Wealth of information out there about LIS, here are a few of the best:
– http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/324177.pdf
– http://www.esd.org.uk/EsdToolkit/News/NewsDetail.aspx?Item=382
– http://www.data4nr.net/local-information-systems/
– Cambridge/Surrey research (IDEA ‘Healthy Communities’ community of practice)
Appendix: Useful Links cont…
Some of the best examples of LIS:
• http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/ - good example of partnership branding and design
• http://www.nomadplus.org.uk/ - good example of how GIS can be used to enhance LIS
• http://www.eastsussexinfigures.org.uk/webview/ - powerful database
and data analysis tools • http://www.mkiobservatory.org.uk/ - very flexible web content
management