The code lists

The assessment of the code lists against the developed Business Intelligence performance measurement framework reveals that the product has got the same characteristics and usage as the registration model. It is used as an internal capability for the DGAAO development and therefore placed in the framework as an input and output capability. Because the code lists are tailored with additional documentation and support for the shipment to the forensic care organizations and the software suppliers it is additionally place in the framework as a capability package.

Like the registration model the characteristics of the product suit the definition of data acquisition and management capability because the code lists shares metadata about the type of content (data) which is valid within de DB(B)C data storage environment.

The identified product performance areas are:

 Input capability - data acquisition and management  Output capability - data acquisition and management

 Output deliverable capability package - data acquisition and management with related documentation and support.

These product performance areas are used as a starting point for the assessment on the value- for-money analysis cause and effect chain. Members of the DB(B)C FZ BICC have

identified the following performance measures for all processes and stages which relate to the code lists.

Funding

As mentioned the funding of the DB(B)CFZ BICC consists of a yearly forecasted project budget for all BICC tasks and products. Therefore the funding performance area is project funding.

The identified performance measure for project funding in relation to the code lists development is total cost spent on hiring personnel because this is the main cost driver.

Economy

The transition from funding to input is limited to hiring the personnel that is needed for the development and organizational alignment of the code lists. Because all members of the DB(B)C FZ BICC are hired externally the identified performance area is vendor management on external personnel.

The identified performance measure for vendor management on external personnel is rate per discipline.

72

Input

Like the registration model the input for the development of the code lists is limited to personnel and internal capabilities. The hired team members come with sufficient knowledge, the required tooling and hardware for their role. Therefore no additional (external) input is required. Same as the registration model the internal capability which is used as input basis for the code lists is a previous version of the code lists.

The identified performance measures for personnel are:

 Hours spent on (project) management for coordination and alignment within forensic sector

 Hours spent on account management for internal knowledge transfer and external business alignment

 Hours spent on development for translating requirements into a set of code lists  The identified performance measure for the internal capability is the existence of a

previous version of the code lists (yes / no)

Efficiency

The efficiency of transforming input means into new code lists and documentation updates is mainly affected by the nature of the updates and the underlying requirements. The nature characteristics like number of changes and complexity of the changes determine how much time is needed. The characteristic of the requirements determine the potential need for rework and extra time needed to clarify the requirements.

The identified performance measures for the demand performance area are:  The total number of changes that the code lists update cycle contains

 The complexity of these updates, each update is identified as simple, medium or complex

 The stability of the requirements is measured by the number of requirement changes during the update cycle

 The timeliness of requirements is measured by the number of additional requirements which arise after the development is started

 The quality of the requirements is measured by the number of requirement alignment sessions which are needed during implementation and the number of revision cycles which are needed before a new version of the code lists is completed.

Output

As described earlier the output of the code lists update process is a new revision of the code lists with the related documentation and support. These code lists are used as an internal capability for the validation of the data which is uploaded towards the DGAAO and it is shipped as deliverable capability package towards the forensic care organization and their software suppliers for the development of registration systems.

The identified performance measures for the internal capability and the deliverable capability package are:

 The total number of versions of the code lists which are developed over time  The size (number of pages) of the supporting usage guidance and documentation

Effectiveness

Like the registration model the effectiveness of the code lists is mainly influenced by the product adoption rate of the forensic care organizations. If organizations use the code lists in the correct way a common “language” for registering and sharing DB(B)C information will emerge and the targeted transparency will be achieved. The developed code lists share the same basis as the somatic care code list, which will lead to the targeted compliancy with the somatic care DBC approach. Product characteristics like usability and support are indirect performance areas which influence the adoption (Use) rate of the forensic care organizations.

The indentified performance measures for the product performance area are:  The usage of the product is measured by the number of organizations which

implemented the latest version of the code lists

 The user satisfaction is measured with a survey which assesses the product’s score on timeliness, usability and quality

 The support effectiveness is measured by the number of support calls and account management questions

Effect

The identified performance measure in the political effect performance area is the number of forensic care organizations which have implemented the code lists in their registration software. This indicates the percentages of forensic care organizations which are aligned to the somatic care DBC registration approach.

The identified performance measure within the productivity enhancement performance area is the number of DB(B)C’s which are registered according to the latest version of the code lists. Each DB(B)C which is registered according to the model enhances transparency as it is available for comparisons and analytical research.

74