 A gael ddod o'i'r gweithio'r gweithio gyda'r gweithio gyda'r cyffredinol, ond yn MSF wedi bod yn ddweud bod yn ddweud, a'r gweithio'r Gwyddo Anu'r Ravey, yng Nghymru. Rwy'n gweithio'r cyffredinol, a'r tyd i'r I.V. o'i Ffluid, o'r cwrnau ar y llanwyr. Rwy'n gweithio'n gweithio yng Nghymru o'i gweithio'r cyffredinol. Rwy'n ei wneud o fel y gweinwag reisio gwylltaeth newid o'r cyflwyno ffocws ar y gweinwch i'r meddwl yn ei wneud unrhyw beth o gweinwch yn oed ar flynyddoedd ym MSEF, o fe meddwl yw llyfr ymddiadau ar hyd. Rwy'n cerddwch eich holleg o'r ydydd ymwneud yn ysgrifi larydd ymlaenctr, ond mae dyne'n cyflwyno mewn adnes mwy i arwain i'w meddwl a'r hyn yn ei ddweud. y product. Y product is outside in the hall and you can go and see it. So anecdotal evidence and internal MSF research has brought to light various barriers to innovation that exist within MSF. We wanted to find an approach to design an innovation that addressed five common barriers. First the MSF has a poor reputation in some areas for collaboration and this is not only true externally but also internally within the various country offices within departments either even. We are an emergency organisation. Staff are extremely busy and there's not all that much time to step back and think about new approaches to problems or issues in the field especially if we've got a solution that kind of works. There's a tendency to address field issues outside the field. This can and has in some cases led to inappropriate solutions and time and money wasted. The problem of securing IV bags has been addressed. It might have even been addressed today somewhere in the world. People are constantly tying them with bits of string or medical gloves. What we often have trouble with is providing a fix rather than a patch to field problems. And lastly MSF is full of highly motivated and competent people but can you really ask a midwife with a good idea to also have the project management skills or the prototyping skills that she might need to realise it and turn it into a sustainable solution. So our aim was to design a process, design an approach which would put MSF field staff at the centre of design. So embedding field staff within a product design agency. Not just to be consulted a bit more than normal but to take a lead in the design process and be a solid part of that team. To test this we needed certain ingredients. So one we needed a design challenge and Idris on the left provided the IV bag problem. So a nurse in Congo told him that all nurses would love him if he's sustainably solved the problem of hanging intravenous bags in land cruisers during patient transfers. So at the moment it's a glove or a piece of string or sometimes the patient's carer holds the bag or sometimes the patient holds the bag. It's not always particularly safe and it becomes an issue when it doesn't need to be. Josie and Anup were chosen as the MSF part of the design team partly because they've got between them good field experience but particularly because they're a nurse and logistician. So the two profiles that are probably most affected by this problem. They've both run numerous times to find something to hang an IV bag. And the last ingredient was fearsome so our design partner. This was important because we needed a design partner that shared a vision of how co-design could work when taken to its logical conclusion and a willingness to experiment with approaches to get there. What they also brought was an appropriate physical space in which to base the project team. A kind of evolving tools and workflows that could be co-opted and adapted to a new approach and the lovely Nils, a product design engineer who would guide the MSF part of the team through the design process. So to evaluate this we had several data sources they're listed here but most importantly the post project interviews. So these were done with everybody who was involved with the project and we used qualitative methods analysing the data thematically to see if we did actually address our five barriers but also to see what the factors for success were, what the challenges were and whether the participants thought the approach could scale or be transferable. So a bit of a report card on the barriers. Lack of collaborative approach. So the interdisciplinary collaborative approach seemed to work really well. The inputs that were there externally within the team, the nurse and logistician and the designer, they worked well together, they bought different things but also outside inputs from the ambulance service and conversion company who actually convert Toyota Land Cruisers for MSF. From all these inputs the prototypes and the requirements that were built were very solid and ideas and prototypes were able to be tested very rapidly. Lack of staff time. So taking a newp and Josie out of their day to day and giving them three weeks really helped them to consider the challenge from a new perspective. They both admitted to turning up with the solution in their heads already. But these solutions were discarded within a day or two. Inappropriate solutions. So because of the first-hand experience of the problem that was present within the field, all of the participants believed that they had a high level of confidence in the final prototype. So from the MSF side they thought that they would not be wasting their colleagues time if they wanted to take this for field testing. From the fearsome side they said they had a very high level of confidence because they hadn't had to make many assumptions at all in the ideation or design process. They had people there who knew the space and could push back against bad ideas or misunderstandings. Patches not fixes. So for fearsome this three weeks was a short amount of time. Obviously the MSF guys were wondering what they'd do with the other 14 days once they solved the problem on day one. But actually three weeks meant a rigorous approach to all stages of that design process. Neither of the MSF participants think they'll have to run for a piece of string again if this is implemented. Lucker skills. So what Josie and Inuit lacked in terms of skills, Nilth and the fearsome team were able either to provide or facilitate. And the MSFers came away with actually a whole load of new skills which potentially they could then take into the field to their normal work from design thinking to 3D printing. And that's the only time I'll rhyme in this presentation. So we believe that to a good extent we addressed the barriers that we'd intended to. But also interesting was the other insights that came out of the project. So this is the board we used to thematically have thematically evaluate the data. And you'll see there's more than five categories on there. So I just take you through those other insights. Firstly the testing environment proved vital. Anecdotally from the MSF participants they both seen people come to the field with ideas or solutions that once they arrived were immediately obviously inappropriate. They felt that having a strong testing environment mitigated this risk which not only saves then time but it saves field people time like field visits are fairly heavy for field teams. This mitigates that risk and hopefully means that a visit will be productive. Oh yeah so here's a little bit more of the video. This is the actual testing environment. I don't know if you can see but it's actually a wooden section of a land cruiser with the prototype within it and you can shake it around to simulate Congolese roads or whatever. So you can actually go and do this at lunchtime it's just out there. So informal networks were really interesting. Josie and Anu kind of naturally when they were doing their information gathering wanting to kind of sense check ideas they got in touch with colleagues and peers through Facebook and Whatsapp and the rest. And actually the engagement was really strong and what they ended up creating was near real-time feedback loops on all these things so they could get feedback to an idea kind of like that which was really powerful. And from from Fearsome's point of view this was golden because not only do they have two MSF field workers in the team but also access to this breadth and depth of experience and perspective outside of the team. Lastly no not lastly there's more. In terms of project time and intensity both MSF participants likened the experience of the project to being in the field. They were in a foreign exotic country Scotland. They lived together they worked together they had a shared purpose and they bought this kind of intensity into the Fearsome office which the general director of Fearsome thought fueled massive amounts of progress. Team profile was also important. This time this ended up being called the Goldilocks question. So between Anup and Josie they have about 10 missions or 10 you know 10 jobs in the field between them. They both they both talked about how this was a success factor and that maybe someone very early in their MSF field career wouldn't quite understand the the problems and limitations that come with working in the field all the opportunities and maybe someone you know who's 30 years into the field maybe has given up trying to change the the simple things. So they kind of they kind of agreed on you know someone who's frustrated with the status quo but not resigned to it. That was the kind of ideal profile. In terms of MSF support there's two kind of three parts to this. Firstly completely unexpectedly Josie and Anup both said that being invited to use their field expertise to solve a field problem but while they weren't in the field actually made them feel really valued and invested in like they were using stuff that they'd learnt in the field to to help their colleagues. The the second part was the MSF communications network so they documented the project through blogs and this was shared very widely and it actually got a lot of engagement and they felt that this engagement not only kind of enriched the project but again added to that feeling of feeling of value. And lastly a good project management so the it's like project management but they felt that it provided them with some perspective some targets and some milestones. They felt they could very easily get lost in IV holders and this kind of pulled them out and made them think a bit broader. Last but by no means least the process so neither MSF participant could name a process internally for design or innovation but this defined everything from the from the lab testing to the information gathering to the skills and the tools needed. So this was was really important although it's got the least amount of words on the slide. So we think we addressed the barriers that we set out to address. We gathered a whole load of other insights around around what can what can work in projects like this and stuff that can be taken forward into other projects but the last question for us was would this scale would it would we be able to adapt it apply it to more complex problems and this question was asked directly in the interviews to all the participants. So the overwhelming response was yes. The general director of fearsome said this approach isn't just something about product design it's not just about service design this this speaks to the fundamental principles of design it can be applied anywhere but those yeses did have some clarifications and some considerations with them. So the IV holder is a very self-contained nicely defined design challenge. If you blow that up into something like warehouse management everything changes can we take a similar multi-disciplinary embedded MSF approach to designing the strategy for a much more complex problem. So at the very start when you're doing your project planning how are you going to break it down? Who are you going to involve? Can that also be done with an embedded MSF element? Should we be bringing in multiple specialist collaborators at different stages of the design process bringing in value as and when it's needed? Can we build on the idea of field staff being the perfect design teams or part of the perfect design teams? It worked very well here but if you have an issue that affects 10 people's jobs rather than two people's jobs can you still represent those people within a design team and keep it agile and flexible? Informal networks it really was quite surprising how powerful this was. Can we use these better like peer-to-peer support communities of practice? Simply using colleagues who are obviously very willing to contribute. Continuity approach was interesting so taking what we did which seemed to be fairly successful and iterating on it making it better. The wooden land cruiser section was a very good lab test but if you're trying to redesign pharmacy how do you represent that in a workshop? And the last one was buy-in and governance so how do you keep buying high governance light and productive? Governance is often used as a dirty word but it can be a very positive thing. How can we take the lessons from this and apply it to bigger challenges? So just a huge thanks to the MSF guys who are awesome and all of the team at Fearsome, particularly Idris and Nella MSF UK but also everybody who engaged with the project whether it was through the blogs or whatever like it was really great. I'd love to talk to people about this kind of stuff and hatch more plans so come and find me if you'd like to.