Sprint 1 was preceded by a couple of weeks before the Christmas break in which the team did a lot of desk research and liaising with other DfE teams to understand what was already known about user needs in the area of self-serve content, existing guidance and comparable services. Having gathered this insight, we set our sights on enhancing our understanding by talking to users and trying out some early ideas.

SPRINT 1 GOAL

Develop a documented view of the journey a user has from identifying help to improve cyber security to acting on self-serve content.

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

  1. We have an initial journey map for a user identifying help and acting on self-serve content
  2. We have begun to validate issues users face (including accessibility) when trying to find, understand, and act on standards/recommendations
  3. We have a content audit
  4. We have considered different solutions to and begun to prototype and test different ideas
  5. We understand portfolio goals & what success looks like for this phase

How did we fare?

AC1 - We have an initial journey map for a user identifying help and acting on self-serve content - Met in spirit due to change of direction

  • We learned that this is a much more complex area than can be defined in one user journey, and that the usage of self-serve content cannot be defined as a user journey in its strictest sense.
  • Instead we recognise that, having read a standard or received a recommendation, users go through several “stages of thinking”. Screenshot of a diagram showing stages of thinking for Standards and related, supporting content, from Pre-contemplation, to Contemplation, to Preparation, to Action and finally, to maintenance
  • We agreed that there would be benefit to layering the 'stages of thinking' on top of the ‘layers of advice' concept (James' circle diagram) rather than progressing with trying to draw up a user journey. Screenshot of a diagram showing a "content matryoshka" – concentric circles with a Standard or other main theme at the centre, wrapped by related advice and guidance, finally wrapped in a layer of supporting content

AC2 - We have begun to validate issues users face (including accessibility) when trying to find, understand, and act on standards/recommendations - Met

  • We spoke with eight users, including two with accessibility needs, both exploring their experiences around cyber standards and testing initial concepts.
  • Our findings were constrained by only being able to engage with users with mid-high cyber maturity, but we did learn that while these users might have less need for additional content to help them implement standards, they would find it useful to have simple content to help them explain concepts and get buy-in from less technical colleagues.
  • We learned that implementing standards can be a collaborative process, so having tools like a simple checklist / RAG tool would be very useful.
  • We feel that, while the understanding we have gained in this sprint around the wider context of how users travel through standards to get to the point at which they might need additional content has been useful, in the next sprint we need to focus in more on the practical side of what content is useful and how this is found/accessed by/presented to users.

AC3 - We have a content audit - Partially met

  • We are building our understanding of what content is available, either in published or draft form, and are working with the Central Content Team and associated SMEs to understand the types of content that will be required, as described in content trees drafted by the Capital ICT team.
  • In the next sprint we will look to finalise the content audit structure and apply it to the cyber standards theme.

AC4 - We have considered different solutions to and begun to prototype and test different ideas - Met

  • For this round of research we created and tested three low fidelity concepts:
    • A checklist / RAG tool for recording which standards a user has met
    • Guidance on the possible cost of meeting one of the standards
    • An 'advice & guidance' section with links to further information Screenshot 2023-01-16 at 16.33.23.png
  • These generated both positive and constructive feedback that will help to shape the next round of concepts

AC5 - We understand portfolio goals & what success looks like for this phase - Partially met

  • We have an understanding of the overall programme goals but further work is needed to solidify this and the positioning of this Alpha within that overall goal
  • To be sure of what success looks like for Alpha, we need to work with the Central Content Team in particular to establish clear roles, responsibilities and delivery expectations across our workstreams.

Overall we have made good steps forward in this sprint, enhancing our understanding of the problem space and testing out ideas.

There are still some questions to be answered relating to the output(s) this Alpha will deliver, which lead to a question about whether the timeline is sufficient. In the next sprint we will look at how we establish what is "enough" in terms of our deliverables (prototypes, content, taxonomies etc.) and we will revisit this timeline question at the end of the sprint.

Share this page