All right, so I've got three oh five, so we'll go ahead and get the session started so hello and welcome everyone to the power of partnership a graduate college in university library connection. I'm sharing this information with you is on Natalia Bauer, Wendy Cartier. Corinne Bishop lead dots and Sarah Norris and Kerry botter off. I'm so sorry if I mispronounced any last names as someone whose last name is Wookner I do know how that is so I apologize. So I my name is Emily and I will be your moderator for the time of this presentation. And so just a quick reminder before we begin during the presentation please keep your audio and video muted. And please feel free to use the Q&A tab to post questions which will be addressed during the Q&A portion. And so I will go ahead and turn it over to our presenters. Thank you Emily I'll go ahead and get it started again my name is Natalia Bauer I'm an assistant director with the College of Graduate Studies at UCF and just going to tell you a little bit about UCF first and then ask the rest of our panelists to introduce themselves and what they do. But UCF stands for University Central Florida if you're not familiar with us we're located in Orlando, Florida. We first graduated students in 1968. So we are relatively young university, but we are very large. We have currently I just look this up 70,730 students. Currently we have 10,362 graduate students and medical school students. So, relatively large university we want to show to you that you don't necessarily have to be a large university with a lot of resources to have great partnerships. The way our partnership works is that we are a centralized College of Graduate Studies. We've had a College of Graduate Studies, a little over 10 years now. Prior to that it was a division of graduate studies but we just to let us know what we do we do centralized admissions. We do centralized policies and things like that on behalf of the university we do a lot of centralized processing for all of the other colleges on our campus. The first thing in that is ETD processing. So we work with our partners at the UCF libraries to do the ETD submission process. Or in part that's what we work with our partners at the library on. We also have other services that we offer or that they offer through the libraries. So we began our ETD program in 2004. It started with a working group. Lee is one of the original members of that. She's still here from that. I was not here but I came in a few years later. But we've had ETDs at UCF since 2004. So our programs it's getting up there in age actually. But basically that kind of is what I think I would say probably set the tone for some of the partnerships that we have or the strong partnership. I'd say we have between the grad college and the libraries. But yeah that's basically kind of a little overview about UCF and just kind of invite each of our panelists to just say what their role is in their unit. And basically what we do to support students graduate students here at UCF through the ETD process. So let's start with Corrine. If you'd like to start us off. Sure. Corrine Bishop. I serve as the UCF engagement librarian for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers and also as social sciences liaison. Are we just going around and introducing ourselves now? Or are we? You can go ahead and yeah you can go ahead and go into it. I figured that's probably just easier at this point just to make sure we have enough time at the end for Q&A. So go ahead and yeah let them know what you do. All right. So I've been I've served as a graduate engagement librarian at UCF for about six years. And during that time I've collaborated with Nathalia and others a lot at graduate studies to provide several events to support grad students and postdoctoral researchers. As part of our collaborations we've offered thesis and dissertation forums that have included full and half day sessions for masters and doctoral students. The programs also included invited speakers from the UCF faculty, the University Writing Center, Sage Publishing, and sessions that covered topics about thesis and dissertation formatting, strategies for conducting lit reviews, scholarly communication and publishing topics, and citation management. Additionally, we've also collaborated on a lot of other projects, some of which were programs for the university's Research Week events where the library had sessions. We've also collaborated on providing information about library services in the Graduate Students Guide to Success, which is a Canvas course provided by grad studies and partnered each year in the fall for library orientations where grad studies helps us promote the sessions by contacting students and sending out announcements and also announcing the orientations in their Canvas course for graduate students. So as part of my graduate assignment, graduate engagement assignment, I also collaborate or excuse me coordinate the library's graduate and postdoc workshops each semester. We collaborate to schedule and promote the sessions and then they're presented in graduate studies pathways to success programming. Our workshops are presented by UCF librarians and they are presented either in the graduate studies presentation room or online via Zoom. And the topics cover a range of interest or topics of interest to graduate students who are planning research projects or working on course assignments. Currently, we offer about 10 sessions, actually not about. We offer 10 sessions, including a three part getting started series that covers some foundational topics that aren't typically taught in the program curriculum and they include let review and library research and note or Zotero citation management and selecting journals to publish your research. It's often assumed that graduate students already know how to use academic resources, but most graduate students do benefit from learning strategies about locating and using those academic resources and especially resources that are related to their discipline or their research areas. So as many of you likely know, academic libraries offer a wide range of services for graduate students such as providing support through subject liaisons and research consultations, their research guides course instruction. And many libraries also partner with other campus units like graduate colleges and writing centers. And these are real helpful, useful, valuable partnerships because they definitely promote student connections with library services. And due to our strong partnership with Natalia and others like Wendy and others at graduate studies, we have reached many students who would probably go through programs and not be totally aware of the services that are available to them and how librarians can support them in their academic goals. So in closing, I'll just share that proudly share that through our workshops alone, we've reached approximately 2000 students to date who are enrolled in programs across the university. And our overall feedback from students is that these programs are helping them and supporting them and their academic goals. And our success in outreach is due in large part to our partnerships, our great partnership with College of Graduate Studies, which has significantly helped connect students and researchers with library services and just promote overall the visibility of the library on campus. So thank you. Awesome. Thank you, Karine. Let's have Carrie. Let's have Carrie go next. There was Carrie needs to unmute. Oh, there you go. Yikes. So I'm Carrie Bautorf, and I am an adjunct librarian here at UCF. I do a wide variety of projects. You name it, I've probably touched it, primarily working in stars, which is UCF's institutional repository, which Lee is going to talk about more later. Briefly, we stars as part of the press. It's one of the digital commons instances. We went live in mid 2015. And up until that point we had, we were using content DM for our digital collections and we kind of cobbled together some collections of ETD's and RTD's just here and there, the best we could to make things work. Well, once stars went live and we had an excellent place to display these, we needed a way to migrate them into stars. But we really wanted to do it the most efficient way possible and the best way possible. And that included working with Wendy and Natalia in grad studies in order to ensure that we were displaying what I felt was important information about each work to display, but also what they felt. What they felt was important from their standpoint and ensuring that the accurate, the information was accurate. And that came from either the original PDF record, the original print record, if we go back to previous to doing ETD's, but then comparing it with their records, which are the authoritative records for ETD's. So what I did is I took the ETD collection that I had built out on content DM, and then worked like I said with Natalia and Wendy to compare the records compare what they had, and display it in such a way that was good for everybody involved good for the students as most importantly or the alumni most importantly, but also to ensure that it worked for what grad studies needed for their items. One of the challenges that we faced over the years that seems to be an ongoing issue is really how students don't natively deposit into stars because grad studies has built a very robust and very good system for maintaining student information, maintaining format review, communication with students, things like this. And we didn't want to, we didn't want to interfere with that because it works very well for them. And while stars does have a lot of, or digital comments specifically has a lot of things that it can do it wasn't everything that they needed and we needed to maintain what they had. So one of the face challenges that we have faced through the years is how to get the PDFs from grad studies to the library and we've gone through a variety of different ways to do it the way we do now really works well. So until that doesn't work, we won't mess with it. So it took some time. We've definitely changed things, changed what types of reports their system generates the fields that it generates what it sends to me what their reports can show what I pull from PDFs various things like that but with definitely with trial and error, we have a very good system now. And it's been developed, you know, like I said, really over a lot of years, and it works, and they send a report to me every semester. And it has very good very basic information on it that they have compiled through their system but that I'm able to then plug into the batch upload process in stars. And it's almost seamless it's a lot of copying and pasting from spreadsheets and it, it really works.  This kind of goes into one thing that another partnership is they wanted a way to get a lot more statistics because anybody who uses digital comments knows that the statistics you can get from it are just fantastic. So, we worked with ways to create that one of which was using the auto collect features that are in digital comments to create a variety of other collections so obviously things live in one place in our ETB collection. But we pull them into various other collections we have a graduate thesis and dissertations only so it excludes statistics for the honors undergraduate thesis program. They like to show the doctoral dissertation statistics and master CC statistics so we created a couple different collections for there. But then I started getting requests for specific college or departmental level collections. So we created those two and it's really nice when somebody reaches out, say from engineering and wants to see what their statistics look like I can point them right to that collection. And all of that comes directly out of the partnerships that we built and meeting each other's needs. Another, not collection but a custom search that came about was they grad studies was being contacted by advisors and dissertation chairs. I was being contacted by people what have I chaired what have I served as a thesis advisor on things like this. So I was able to create custom searches. And I have a dynamic list that I update about once a year because it's a lot of pre populated searches and the advisors can just go to the page click on their name. And it shows every thesis that they have either served as a thesis advisor dissertation committee chair I guess for and it goes back. I think anybody who has served since about 2015 forward, but it does show everything they've done so some of our faculty who have been here for many many years it does show all of their work. So the other briefly I'm going to touch on our RTD collection that we have been working on for a lot of years, but this collection has also evolved. And we have also worked together to pull in, you know, existing lists, catalog searches, records that they have had print copies versus, you know, what's in their systems that only go back so far obviously because, you know, we weren't collecting a lot of that data. And so we have built digital collection now in stars for our our RTDs. And those were also added into stars which has also generated exposure for those legacy works and it's, it's very exciting. It's really exciting to see what just a simple email to somebody can create and just build over the years. That's about it for me. Thank you. And I realize I'm sorry I went out of order a little bit. I know you guys are laughing at me. I know I meant to call on Lee first my apology so I think we can we can rectify that now and have Lee go next. I'm sorry about that. So but Lee can tell you a little bit more about stars which we've inadvertently introduced in advance. So that's okay. We'll we'll get there. So I did want to say, you know, Natalia, you mentioned that we started in 2004 with that group and the group has changed over the years based on changes in resources and staffing and technology and what the students need and, you know, what the needs of each unit is. So in the beginning it was graduate studies, the library, the writing center and our faculty multimedia center. So you can see on the panel today that you know that has changed a little bit but it's always the heart of it is always what can we do to support graduate studies and the students working on their thesis and dissertations. From the library. My goal in the beginning was focused on sustainable long term access. So no matter how we have done that that is really the goal that we're going for there. When we began hosting in 2004 we had no institution repository. So my part of this discussion is the benefits of an institution repository. So from 2004 to 2015 we did not have one. So I did want to acknowledge that a little bit here. So we did host the ETDs on a server and we had manual embargoes. Some of those we are continuing to try to get migrated over off of those manual embargoes. Access through a link in our catalog records. So our catalogers are still very involved in this process even now. But of course what they do has more over the years as well. And then as Carrie stated, we have the metadata and a content team collection to expose it so that people could hopefully find it outside of just the catalog. So then when stars came online. We had all these new opportunities. So I thought I would just share five ways that the IR supports are ETD services that you are UCF. So the first one is we make the ETDs findable and discoverable. So it's very search engine friendly. This we always tell people about digital commons. If you want it to be found, Google will find it. A majority of the downloads are a direct result of a Google search. So it makes them very findable and discoverable. Wonderful. However, not everybody likes that. So number two is we can restrict access to ETDs and we do. So we have IP restrictions. So they're only restricted to UCF IP addresses, as well as embargoes on top of those IP restrictions. And now that the items are in stars, they have an automated embargo release. So no more lists of Wendy Natalia. Can you confirm that we need to lift these restrictions and going through all that. So thankfully we can make them discoverable. We can restrict those that need to be restricted. We also, like Carrie mentioned, provide statistics. So really that third thing for statistics, the readership information and the downloads are phenomenal, whether it's for the entire collection or a subset. And right now, fun fact, graduate thesis and dissertations are closing in on 3 million total downloads. And that's only since they've been in there in 2015. So really exciting. The other piece of that is the author dashboard provides graduates access to their own statistics. So if we have their email, they can log in, they have their account, they can see their own downloads. If their email isn't there, they just contact Carrie and she is happy to add emails for anybody who needs it added. So we do make sure that they have that information. We also can allow multiple administrators and a variety of privileges on those so that if Carrie isn't there, I can help out or, you know, we can give Wendy Natalia access, whatever people want to do. We want to make sure that it is a seamless process and everybody can make sure that it is working. So we do have that and we can restrict privileges. So if people just need to go in and look at something but not necessarily edit it, we do that as well because we want to maintain the good solid record for that ETD. And then the last thing is it accommodates a variety of workflows. So Carrie touched on this earlier that that workflow has changed over the year. So over time, things change and the workflows change, but also depending on what we're doing in STARS, we can have multiple workflows. So she can batch upload via a spreadsheet or batch upload through XML or we can upload them one at a time. So if there's someone else that just come in here and there, if one got skipped in the batch upload, we can do that. We can log in and change one field at a time or we can do a batch edit on a spreadsheet. If there's a whole lot of fields that need to be updated, if a college name changed in between people submitting things, so we can go in and do those things. The review processes, if we wanted to do any sort of backend review of these and use some of those things, those workflows are built in. And also like Carrie said, create those subsets materials for ease of navigation. And I will say that that probably from an IR perspective, aside from Google and statistics is one of the biggest benefits we have because we have had folks contact us and say, I saw that engineering or history or somebody else has a collection. Why can't I have a collection? Oh, you can. Can I have one for a regional campus? Can I have one, you know, just for these? Yes. So we definitely put those examples out there because we know that the more people see them and the more people can see how it will work, the more people will want them for themselves too. So that is my part. Thank you. Before I introduce our last speaker, just to kind of wrap up with stars and working on that side of our library partnership, you know, if there's something we need, you all are always open to that and vice versa. If you need support, you know, why stars is so important, you know, I remember we had our Dean write a letter to support that because we were like, we're the only university that doesn't have one in our state, you know, those sorts of things. But then even like helping get acknowledgement of stars you all offered. So on our website, if you go to our ETD pay our thesis dissertation page, there's a map that shows all the downloads of a thesis or dissertation and Kerry offered that to us and we're like, yes, we will put that up on our website. So that helps introduce people to where is our, where are our ETDs, you know, where do they reside and help kind of promote stars to the greater UCF community so they know through, you know, if they find an ETD there might be other things they can go find in stars as well. So just to kind of wrap up that that side of the partnership a little bit. Yeah, but I would introduce our lot or one of our other panelists is Sarah Norris. So she is also from the UCF libraries. Thanks, Natalia. So good afternoon everyone. As Natalia said, I'm Sarah Norris. I'm our scholarly communication librarian. And I suppose it's fitting that I'm kind of ending some of the library perspective because I work with all of you in really different ways, but all to support research copyright publishing, especially for ETDs. And as you probably saw, I'll give you a quick apologies or fun for the afternoon you probably saw my cat cactus who is an honorary panelist as Emily mentioned so you may see him pop in the joys of working remotely, as I'm sure you all are very aware and familiar with from the last year or so. But I'll talk a little bit about the copyright and publishing support that I work with both in the library and then also graduate studies, the ways in which we engage our students and help not only tackle sort of those ad hoc case by case copyright and publishing questions, but really looking to provide a strong educational opportunities. I know Gail mentioned that earlier in the keynote, you know, really making sure we reach our students throughout the process, not when they're turning in their thesis or dissertation and there's a copyright conundrum or challenge, which Wendy will probably not her head we have lots of those. But we really want to get those students earlier on. And so, as I've been at UCF for the last six years, those conversations have been ongoing we've developed new services, and different kinds of workshops and that's really due to the partnership that we have between graduate studies and a library, because we can really bounce off different ideas feedback that we're getting from our faculty and students the questions that are coming up and that's really driven a lot of the different things that have evolved over time. So we do several things that I mentioned workshops, individual assistance, those are probably the key areas. And that happens with stars so Lee and Kerry will reach out to me when we have those queries. We do like to make sure that for graduate studies. I work closely with Korean on how we incorporate scholarly communication topics in our graduate workshop series. And so we've got kind of that primary workshop series. Through that I offer a publishing workshop and a copyright basics workshop so there are two different workshops that are offered. The first one deals with more broad scale publishing. But one of the things that was brought up also in the keynote that I think is helpful to talk through is this idea of author right so helping students, again really early in that process. Understand what permissions are what they might be signing when they sign an agreement with a publisher. Understanding use rights post publication. I think that one's really critical for ETDs, especially for those who might be utilizing published works in them already. And so we get lots of questions about that so really providing that foundational information earlier is very helpful. And then the copyright basic session that's through our graduate workshop series that librarians offer is more foundational and getting them started getting them thinking about copyright as they're going through their 10 year at UCF. And then I mentioned that we have a lot of those area of conversations, what's working, what are the outstanding needs, what are some areas that we can provide additional education for. And one of those developed this last year, we've seen a real rise in questions related to images and copyright for ETDs. And so again thinking about ways we can provide some good education earlier in the process. Natalia and Wendy suggested, hey, we have this academic integrity workshop series. It's a required workshop series for some programs at UCF and so many of our graduate students are going to go through that program. What if we offered a workshop on copyright and images, and so we were able to put a proposal together that got approved. We launched it this summer. And I've been really pleased with it because we're getting lots of students attending asking good questions. And hopefully that's going to help as those students go through the process, mitigating some of the challenges that many are facing during the submission process for their ETD with copyright and images. So that's a really good example of how these conversations can grow and evolve into new opportunities. Same thing with faculty. So through our conversations, we developed a faculty specific workshop geared towards graduate faculty who are advising on thesis and dissertation. Again, just to kind of reach everybody and help provide that education. And then of course we do a lot of individual assistance. I think Wendy and Natalia and I are emailing all the time about different things that come up from students. So Wendy and Natalia are great at forwarding any queries that come through that they don't feel like they are able to fully address so that we can make sure that we take care of those in a timely fashion. And again, help those students at the point of need. Many times it's at the end of that thesis or dissertation submission process. So there's a real time sensitive nature of those queries. So we do a lot of that. And again, those are all really good ways to drive how we navigate copyright support more broadly at the institution. And the last thing I'll mention, it's sort of tangentially related is our open access publishing fund that we have through the College of Graduate Studies. This is just another example of the way our partnership has evolved with the library and grad studies. So we have a scholarly communication faculty advisory board through that board. We developed some ideas for an open access publishing fund graduate studies made that come to life. And so we have this great fund that's available for graduate students and postdocs interested in open access publishing. And so that's available. And then I also help throughout that process when any of our colleagues have questions, especially about vetting criteria or other kinds of things that arise through the approval and proposals for that open access publishing fund. So there's a lot of different ways that you can collaborate, evolve services. And certainly I think all the different examples everyone shared today really shows that we can be providing really substantive support to our students throughout the process, whether it's an ETB or any time during their tenure at UCF. So that's it for me. Thank you, Sarah. Well, we'll finish up with our last person is Wendy Cartier, also from the College of Graduate Studies, but can tell them your role in all of this, Wendy. Thanks, Natalia. So, like Natalia said, I am under the College of Graduate Studies on the coordinator for thesis and dissertation. And so my role is to conduct a format review for all of the masters and doctoral students who plan to graduate in any given term. And we typically receive between 200 to 250 submissions on average, each term, fall, spring and summer. And those submissions usually result in a little under 200 or right around 200 actually completing in that term with the rest rolling over. But it's, it's a large number of documents to look at and Natalia provides a lot of support for also looking at the documents for review purposes. But the other support that I rely on so much comes from these wonderful people at the library who you've been hearing, especially with the copyright questions. I am constantly sending people to Sarah. It's like, okay, here's this situation. I think I know the right thing to tell you, but here's who you want to talk to. And I'm always contacting Carrie with questions or responding to a question from her from a student who's asking about when their document is available or why is their document available. Sometimes they fill out an embargo and then they don't actually know what they've done. UCF has several different ways in which students can have a limited embargo before their work ultimately becomes publicly available. But they can have limited access within the UCF community for one, three or five years. And they do have the option for a six month patent hold. And we know that when we transfer those records to the library that the students who have that community hold. It's going to be locked down that you need ID access to be able to see the document until such time as that expires. And then that's where sometimes students don't realize that the five year embargo does expire. And then it's out there. So we get some questions sometimes. But, you know, with all of these ladies, we know that we can direct students there for questions and they likewise send people back to us and none of us could do our jobs without knowing how much we can count on each other. And that's really it for me. I see that we may have some questions. Oh, yep. Lily has a question for you, Sarah, about sharing your copyright resources. Yes. So we actually don't have we're actually in the midst of redoing all our copyright and intellectual property research guide right now. I don't have a great copyright and images page, although I've been putting many of my presentation on copyright into stars. So I can hear some of the stars link so you can always go there and hopefully we will start adding a bit more of those as well So feel free, Lily, to send me an email and I can send you any of my slide decks that aren't in stars right now because some of them I don't have in as they are evolving and changing. Well, thank you for the question. Anybody else has any questions. Please go ahead and feel free to ask. I would like to thank everybody for for telling us a little bit about everything. I think the important takeaway I would say is reaching out to people right it's making those connections and is there somebody on your campus and I know where we're a large campus but is there somebody that is providing a service that you can talk to about or partner with it's it's it's finding folks who have an expertise and and and offering something in kind like I can help you with this. Can you help me with that. It's something we've done over years and years and it's really, I think, all of us have, I think a big goal to serve our students right like that's what we're all here for is to is to serve students. And I think we achieve that in different ways but I think that's a good end goal probably to to kind of say that we all do is really how can we help them where meets being met where they not being met who can help with something. And everybody's only so gracious with this and I feel like we all are very lucky with our supervisors as well right like we have to kind of not it's not just us we have, we have that support from our individual unit as well as like, yes we want you working with the library and vice versa the library is always. I work with a college graduate studies and I know that can be a challenge in some places, but it's opening up those conversations sometimes it might take having a dean or somebody higher level talk to somebody else if if that conversations not really flowing as well or you're not sure who to go to it first but our relationships, like as we said have been built over a long period of time. It just takes reaching out and trying you know to say who can help with something who can do something who are your experts on campus who really knows how to do something. You know that that you you're maybe not as comfortable with so I would say that's probably my my parting comment on all of this so. To tell you I would say that really having good strong open communication has been so important because some of the conversations are not easy conversations right I mean we yes heard that in the keynote we know that all the time some of these are not easy conversations some of them are very detailed conversations. So some of the things that we have done, we, you know, have really been very thoughtful about how we approach things, and we said, you know, we're going to change this process, but we're going to change it over the next year. And we're going to have monthly meetings we're going to have quarterly meetings we're going to get everybody in the room, and we would just sit down and we would talk for an hour. And then we would go away and process, you know that we would come back so really that has been the best thing is that everybody has been willing to be open with the dialogue. Yes. And then reaching out when there is a problem not letting it, you know, I if there's something that might be not so great, I would rather just say hey league heads up this thing might be coming along or something might happen. You know, there's an issue over here, you know whatever it might be or Korean you know we've we've got this, you know, thing that might come up so it's like she said that open communication and and respecting your partners and that they have a role in what you're doing so is a huge part. So, I don't know if anybody has any other questions but you can always are there email any of us as well I mean we're listed on the contacts. Well, thank you so much for this really wonderful presentation you given us a lot of things to think about and a lot of things to strategize at our own institution so thank you so much for your expertise. And like Natalia said if you all have any questions for them after this session is over feel free to reach out via email. So I hope you all have a wonderful rest of the day and hopefully we'll see you again tomorrow too. Thank you.


Hi everyone, and welcome to this session on user-oriented design and innovation, which is a part of the developer track, because it's partly related to development of apps, while also taking a bit of a broader perspective on these issues of design and innovation with the HIS2. My name is Magnus Lee, I'm working at the University of Oslo, where I lead this DHIS2 design lab project, and also doing research. So in this session, as I mentioned, we will take a bit of a broader perspective on design and innovation, and particularly oriented towards addressing the needs of end users. The reason for this being part of the development track and app development track is that apps and app development is an important part of this design issue, as it provides this arena where we actually can have the flexibility to design and innovate more new things that are not part of the generic features of the HIS2. So again, it's not just about apps, but also more about design approaches, the project structures, and the capacity that is needed in order to drive these kind of innovation processes. So just a few words about the design lab for those who did not attend the small session yesterday. This design lab project at the University of Oslo includes a group of master students, I think, from 15 to 20 students who are now, and also some researchers that are collaborating with the HIS2 practitioners on multiple levels, both here at the core team and also in implementation groups, HISP groups in different countries, to try to look at what are the current kind of innovation and design practices, specifically related to designing for end users, and how can we kind of strengthen these practices and try to make the HIS2 more usable and relevant to what is becoming increasingly diverse audience of users, both within health, but also now increasingly also in other contexts and multiple contexts within health. And we do this by working with practitioners in, for example, particular implementation projects. We have been working with HISP India, HISP Mosa Bik, and others to see how these implementation processes unfold, and then to test out and look at and explore the challenges of doing innovation in these contexts. So the structure of this session will be first to try to define some concepts and to make some kind of nuances with these concepts, for instance, what we mean by user-oriented design and innovation and what we mean by usable and relevant technologies. And then we will look a bit more concretely at some key challenges of doing this kind of design and innovation in the context of implementing the HIS2. And then finally discuss some plans we have in the design lab for the future, which also includes, hopefully, some collaboration with potentially some of you that are attending this track. So moving to this concept of user-oriented design and innovation, our aim in the lab with this is to, as mentioned, make the HIS2 more usable and relevant. We see that there are many different user groups and there are some user groups that have great value of the HIS2 in decision making, for example, getting data and presentations of data that supports work processes. Well, there are a lot of other user groups that could have more benefit of the HIS2 if we were to design and innovate more with these different groups. And I constantly refer to this term usable and relevant throughout this session.  And with that, I basically mean that something that is usable and relevant have user interfaces and functionality and features that are both perceived as easy to use and learn. So it has kind of usability. It's easy for users to use it. Of course, pending or relative to the task that it's being supported. Advanced tasks also needs kind of advanced systems, but not simple tasks should not be very difficult to do with a usable software. But also related to whether the system is perceived as providing value to the work of users. So these are very interrelated, but also a bit kind of separate aspects. One is about making something that is easy to use. And the other is about making something that really provides value to the work of the user. Meaning that it supports something in a better way than something, or it solves an issue, makes work easier or more efficient, these kind of things. And I think what is important when we talk about these concepts, because there is a kind of common misconception that design for user-oriented design is about finding the right colors of buttons. What is the right label for this and that menu or so on and so forth. But it's also a bit more kind of deeper. That's certainly a part of it. But it's also about what is kind of typically said as building the right thing. Something that is actually relevant in this context for the given set of users. And then building that thing right. Meaning, for example, making it easy to use and understand and learn. And I think it's just important to have that in mind. That it's not just about fancy user interfaces or user interfaces with the right colors and labels and texts, but also about what is actually a useful thing in this context when we are designing. So when we are implementing the HS2 and we want to support the work of some users, for example in hell, what kind of features would make this the right thing for them to provide value to their work. And just a bit about why this is relevant. There are some obvious benefits of investing in thinking about these aspects of designing with users and thinking about usability and relevance and so on. One is that typically systems that are easy to use and learn requires less user training. And also you might have a higher user acceptance. Maybe also less errors, for example, during data entry or during use, which again increases data quality and makes better decisions based on that data. But also, and maybe increasingly important with all these app resources and the possibility of developing radically new tools for the HS2, is that it also helps drive designing and evaluation processes of totally new kind of tools that support the work of different types of health workers or other, or workers in other domains. And of course also these local innovations. Let's say you're doing a design and innovation project in a specific implementation. We often see that things that are relevant in one context might also be relevant other places. So based on these local design processes, that also might feed into being generic innovations. For example, published on the DHS2 app hub, which Austin talked about yesterday. So one issue with DHS2 and also which it shares with a lot of other kind of generic software solutions is that what is the right thing for the users and the right thing or the right way to build it and so on and so forth, could typically vary across contexts. So something that is very usable and relevant in Uganda at certain contexts there might not be relevant in other place and so on and so forth. And this makes it very hard for the core team to design kind of one size fits all solution that works perfectly anywhere. So typically what is usable and relevant depends a lot on the practices and the way things are organized in the specific context where the system is going to be used. And this is very hard to then accommodate when you're designing for multiple contexts. Thus, doing these kind of user oriented design processes should also be an important aspect of the implementation of a DHS2. So when the software is taken into a concrete context, then it is important to work with the specific needs in that context. And again, apps is then one approach to kind of addressing very specific needs in this context. And because of this, in this design lab that we are running here, we have a very particular focus on the implementation level design as we call it, where some of our quick questions are how can DHS2 be customized and extended to meet very particular needs. So needs that are not met by the generic features or let's say user interfaces or functionality that is not ideal in that context, how can kind of that be responded to on the level of implementation without going through the whole kind of JIRA cycle and making all the changes in the kind of generic bundle of the DHS2. Then also what are appropriate design methods. So what kind of methods can be used to, for example, engage with users prototype and evaluate with users and so on and so forth. And then what kind of resources could be provided from the side of the core developers and from the design lab and from the generic level to better support this. And again, one very good example here are these app development resources both for web and Android, for instance makes it much more efficient and easy to develop apps and tools based on specific needs but then also what about for example methods and processes, implementation guidelines and so on. So these things are stuff that we are exploring in the design lab. So just to say a bit about what we mean about innovation and also kind of who we are designing for and how. And I think two key questions is what are we actually building when we are implementing the DHS2. And I will touch upon the difference between the concept of digitisation and digital innovation which are two related but different things. And who are we then building these things for. So who are these things that we're designing and developing relevant for. So this is just to kind of get on the same page on what we kind of mean by innovation and design and to try to create maybe some ideas and awareness around this. So there is an important difference between what we call digitisation and digital innovation. So digitisation that refers to actually making kind of a digital version of the analog system so taking something analog and making it into something digital. So some would call this putting electricity on paper. So for example taking a paper based system and then kind of making the exact same system but with a digital system. Then digital innovation, that is actually a bit of a more extensive thing where some have defined that combining digital technology in a new way and also potentially with physical non-digital components which enable some kind of social technical change and create new value to the adopters or the users. So this means that in contrast to digitisation where you're kind of building the same system in a digital format with digital innovation you're doing something new using these digital capabilities which results not only in that okay now something is not analog anymore, it's digital. It actually enables some kind of social technical change, changes in work practices, changes in how people work, the services that they can offer, these kind of things and thus then creating some kind of new value for these adopters of this technology for instance the end users. And if we look at implementations of a lot of software including the H2 in many countries, I think we can see a lot of traces of digitisation that things that have been on paper is transferred into a digital format but for at least some user groups it kind of stops there. So previously for instance data was entered on paper now it's entered on a digital surface desktop computer for example. So this is an example for that specific user. This is an example of a digitisation process. This gets a bit complicated because for the people that are using this data there you might have some kind of digital innovation for example, because they might use the data in different ways because it now comes in a digital format and can be used in other ways but for one user group this is the case. And a recurring thing that I experienced by being out and talking to users different places in the world for example with the H2 is that a lot of end users actually still prefer paper forms. So then this quote is from a user somewhere saying that I prefer the paper forms because it's easier to fill out, it's easier to carry around, easier to comment, it's more flexible in kind of any way and it doesn't require an electricity. So for this user moving to the digital world hasn't kind of provided any from their perspective and the additional value to their work specifically. It might have provided value to someone benefiting from the data outputs but for them this is clearly not kind of an advancement to move to a digital world through the digitisation. And I suspect at least when I talk to implementers around the world I think this is not kind of a surprising thing. This is something I experienced many places that users, especially data people that enter data without actually using that data much. Let's say I'm from a health facility somewhere doesn't always see the benefits of having just a copy of the paper form in a digital format typically just more cumbersome to enter data. So I will give a couple of examples of what at least hints of digital innovation if we were to kind of do more digital innovation looking things with this kind of example. So at the University of Oslo we have this course which the design lab is engaged in where we have students over 100 students actually working on building DHS2 apps as their kind of project work for the semester which also provides an environment where we test a lot of app development resources. And here we try to give a case where we try to see is there anything we can do with this data entry application so that it provides a bit of additional value compared to how it is currently that now it's kind of a copy of the paper form but otherwise it's kind of still the paper kind of wins because it's flexible. So we had some students making for example this application where you get an overview of deadlines and different types of forms and when they are due. So here we can for example see a specific clinic and then they can search their different data entry forms which is then data sets in DHS2 for those of you that know DHS2 well where they can see okay which forms are due soon which are overdue and expired and so on and so forth and then you can even get an overview of different health facilities and when and now how many forms have a different status so these red ones are something that is overdue actually so they need to look like they have a lot to do the user that is using this. So what is happening here is that it's not just a kind of digitization thing anymore it has some hints of digital innovation it's trying to you know add some additional value which was not possible in the analog paper based regime and I think the point is that there are a lot of examples of this out there when working with users and implementations we see a lot of these things that you know could be added to provide additional value to DHS2 and to the end users of course and which is it will be interesting if we were able to act more on these kind of things. En and another example which is a more extensive kind of digital innovation thing is a case where we supported health logistics management especially reporting consumptions from health facilities of medicines equipment and so on and so forth where they earlier had the bi-monthly kind of reporting regime so they reported every bi-month they think they have to bring up these paper books where they have registered different transactions and then they calculate it and then they send it through the DHS2 and then it's used for distributing medicines and planning and so on so the users there again they prefer the paper based regime or the hospital store workers because these paper forms were very flexible and so on and so forth and of course we experimented with what can we do to make it a more useful tool for them and then someone created this commodity dispenser system which kind of removes the need for all this bi-monthly reporting and rather introducing a dispensing system where the user every time they dispense commodities they register it here so then you eliminate that kind of replace the paper based system for that and then the reports are generated automatically based on the data that you enter kind of continuously through the system which again then reduces the reporting burden that you have to do every bi-month so that's also an example of trying to kind of think differently and building something which provides value also to the kind of data entry side of the DHS2 and again this is things that are powered by you know building in this case web-based applications for the DHS2 so you can quickly think in four weeks or something these students had built an app that were able to address some of these basic needs in this use case I just also wanted to highlight some of the kind of real innovations from out there I think also an excellent example of some kind of digital innovation where they are having new value so someone is this smart display app by his Buganda where they as they describe it so need that you know decision making users are sitting in a room and they are doing you know meetings where they are discussing and so and then they saw that okay maybe we could you know support this specific activity that they are doing by building an app that has this kind of slideshow of different graphs that they can kind of use as a discussion arena an excellent example I think of small but important digital innovation for DHS2 Yes, so that was a bit about digitisation where it's just digital innovation and again I think there is a lot of potential to move more of our design work also towards digital innovation and not just digitisation part of course there is always a lot of digital innovation going on and I think maybe the data output side has radically improved a lot of aspects related to decision making and so on and so forth but still there is a lot of potential in thinking you know beyond the digitisation of paper reporting for example then another very relevant question is who are we building for so for whom is the systems we are building relevant and I found this very interesting thing in the news a year ago or something where a UK start-up created and then I'm quoting here creates an uncomfortable toilet to increase workers productivity which is called standard toilet and you can see it here on the left hand side there is a toilet which is tilted slightly forward which makes it uncomfortable to sit on the toilet for a long time and the point is according to them then to limit the time that their workers are spending in the toilet because people are sitting on their phones and spending a lot of time in the toilet which also brings a semblance to a Norwegian innovation many years ago in the late 1700s which is called the fold-out mine toilet which was built on the same principle and the user of the toilet will get tired of sitting on it so they spend as little time as possible on the toilet an interesting question to ask here then is who is this relevant for because here there has obviously been a design process and kind of an innovation process trying to solve some kind of issue which obviously is relevant beneficial for someone but it is obviously not made thinking about the real end users as it says in the quote here the main benefit is for the employer not the employees and I think that's also relevant when building information systems and software for reporting who are we building and who are we involving in our design processes and who are we trying to make the system relevant for is it for example IT project managers are they the ones driving the process deciding on all the needs and what should the system be and for whom is it the health managers on the top level the health hierarchy is it clinicians like nurses and doctors if they are users of the system or is it the data entry clerks for example and I think at least one group of users that might be sometimes neglected in some of the projects I have been involved with at least is the data entry clerks with this data entry thing as a readily available example that is for some people and maybe also for let's say nurses that actually are occupied with talking to patients and working with them they also have to do this routine reporting and then if the data entry tools are not providing any value then it is a burden rather than the benefit to go to digital formats so the point being that there is a difference between digitisation making digital versions of paper processes and then trying to provide new and valuable capabilities for different users and there is of course a kind of question who are rebuilding something relevant for is it for top managers is it for clinicians and nurses is it for different people yes so that was just to establish some kind of concepts and maybe create some kind of thoughts around this now I will move a bit towards specific issues and challenges of doing user oriented design innovation during DHS2 implementation so as I mentioned in the DHS2 design lab we have been working a lot with implementation groups in concrete projects that could last couple of years or three years close to now and I thought I would share some kind of thoughts and issues that typically we have seen being faced in this by these practitioners so a question that we think a lot about is how do we strengthen this capacity for user oriented design innovation how can we promote more of building useful tools, apps and promoting customising DHS2 to suit and be usable and relevant to different types of end users and I think there is at least based on my experience three kind of dominant and important aspects in these processes which is both related to that software but then also to the practices of actually implementing DHS2 and the competence and awareness and user orientedness in the implementation practices itself and also whether the projects that the projects that the DHS2 is implemented through for example in collaboration with ministries of health or with different types of NGOs just the structure and the scope and the mandates of those projects actually allow or provide any fertile grounds for doing any digital innovation and design with and for end users so I thought I would say a bit about these three different aspects I think starting with design flexibility of DHS2 Let's say we were engaged in implementation projects we are implementing DHS2 within let's say NGO that has certain names and goals and then we are discovering what kind of other requirements and user needs in this specific case then DHS2 provides us with some kind of options on how to address these needs and typically the default mode would be to try to leverage the generic kind of core features of the DHS2 so using the kind of bundled apps and the generic functionality as much as possible to address these needs meaning for example that okay we can use the data app to do this and that and then we can use graphs in this and that way we can configure and set up programs and then if that falls short if there are requirements that are beyond what DHS2 generic features can couple now there is an increasing kind of buffet of third party apps, generic apps which are available in the app hub or you might find them on Github sometimes also which kind of increase the amount of features that can be supported out of the box which is great I think so I think again this you know feeding innovations from the local to the global increases the chance that we have actually generic features that could support different needs then there are also of course the possibility to build custom apps from scratch or maybe based on customizing some of the generic bundled third party apps where you actually don't have the flexibility to know design exactly maybe what is needed and you know come up with new features and so on or in the worst case if any of these are kind of not applicable to dismiss the requirement or renegotiate to redefine the requirement to make it fit with something that we have available generic or also maybe unfortunately from my perspective try to solve it through end user training so meaning that you kind of maybe see it as easier to instead of trying to address these requirement by building a custom app for example you rather try to train the users and make some manuals and training so that they can kind of learn to work with the flaws of the system or the things that are you know let's say terminology sort of way things are organized so that it's kind of still still works even though you haven't had the need to actually implement any changes and of course just to mention that this arrow also goes in the bit of another direction because of course when you are in the implementation context you typically also have in mind what is possible to do with DHS2 which then also actually you know shapes there is kind of a communication between of course on one hand the requirements and the needs and the you know the scopes and the aim that you initially set in the project define those requirements that you want to address but also these projects typically evolve over several years of course and then there might be told the new requirements coming up at one point and then again you will have to deal with you know how do you address them through generic means or through building custom apps and I won't go too much into detail on this because of the time limitations here but there are of course pros and cons with each kind of approach to addressing needs using generic features and third party apps is of course faster and easier than starting to develop custom apps and building things from scratch at least traditionally had been so on the other hand the design flexibility is limited you have to deal with what you kind of have the generic features and for the third party apps you also have maybe some uncertainties regarding the maintenance of that app if it's a third party app and it's not developed and maintained by the core team you don't know what this is going to be maintained in the future possibly then you have maintenance costs on your implementation on the later part for custom apps then you actually have the flexibility to design exactly at least partly exactly the right thing and the thing exactly right referring back to what we talked about earlier according to the specific user needs but of course then you have to develop the app and that app has also to it has to be maintained locally unless you are able to kind of make it into a generic feature so it could be more costly As a note to that I would say that this app development platform resources which Austin talked about yesterday is a great kind of example of how to try to keep the flexibility of developing custom apps while actually trying to eliminate or externalise some of these costs of developing and maintaining apps so with this app development platform now you actually have a lot of flexibility to design things but a lot of the aspects that goes into an app is actually maintained and developed by the core team so the weight of that maintenance and development becomes less so it's going to be very exciting to see in the future how much you're able to kind of make it keep the flexibility in order to design new features new functionality, new user interfaces based on local needs while actually trying to have as much as possible of the development and maintenance work kept on the core team or on the generic level Of course this option of dismissing or solving it through end user training is not an ideal thing many times but it happens a lot I've seen it in many places because it doesn't require any custom development but then of course the usability and relevance of the software might suffer if you're not able to build actually what is needed and what is the ideal thing in that context then again data quality, user acceptance and the potential benefits of digital innovation might then suffer so that was a bit about this technical flexibility thing moving back to this triangle again the one of the elements of capacitating user-oriented design innovation is about having flexibility and I think then the app development platform and also SDK for Android is a great kind of advancement in this field making it possible to easier and faster and cheaper create innovations increasing the capacity here but then also it's about design methods and approaches so how do we actually then design when we implement the HSI to how do we go about engaging with users and doing these kind of things so there are a lot of these design methods that have been developed to guide the kind of user-centered or user-oriented design so there are for example this human-centered design approach something called participatory design which emphasizes a lot of participation from end users and these have some kind of typical steps that needs to be done in kind of an iterative manner typically in order to try to build both the right thing and building that thing right as they say so one of them is to try to when designing systems you should always use the existing practices and needs of users as a starting point and this means that it is a projectivity to try to understand what is needed by the end users and of course this always happens in an IT project there is kind of a phase of requirement definition and requirement analysis and defining requirements but typically the argument in these user-centered or user-oriented approaches is that this should not be dominated just by the IT project team and by top level managers but also involving the users that are actually using the system on different levels so for instance when building a reporting system based on DHS2 one should then engage also with for example the people entering data at the lowest level and so on and so forth and then understand what are their practices and needs and then analyzing and ideating how can we then support this in a good manner and I think by looking at implementation projects different places around DHS2 there is a lot of this going on already and some places there might be very dominated by top level managers and not maybe that much of user activities and in other project there is a lot of going into the field trying to understand how the users work mapping out their tools and processes and then basing the requirements on that which I think is great. Another important aspect typically promoted by these approaches is that there is an ongoing iterative prototyping and evaluation process so based on this initial understanding of the needs and the practices of the users one develops prototypes which are then ideally built very low fidelity at first maybe just using paper for instance trying first to test out the concept so is this the right thing starting with that understanding what would be a valuable addition to your work and what could make things easier and what could address your challenges and then maybe gradually building more high fidelity prototypes starting also to address how do we build this thing right meaning more about is it intuitive and easy to learn to understand and so on and so forth so in the DHS2 example that would be experimenting with DHS2 one issue typically with DHS2 is that since it's possible to very easily configure quite a high fidelity prototype with the kind of generic DHS2 sometimes it could be to jump past and more what is the right thing which is maybe that you see when developing apps where you have more flexibility and you can really explore what is the right thing in this setting not just kind of bringing always bringing the same data entry app regardless of what you learn in the when you try to understand the practices and the needs so how this typically looks in the DHS2 context in many places would be that you have this process of understanding the practices and the needs talking to users so maybe you ask them tell me about your work going out there in the field then they explain that okay we do this then we do that then we use these tools to gather data then we send it for approval here and there and then what I think is very interesting is that if you are a very kind of experienced DHS2 implementer then you already know have a lot of concepts in your mind so you know okay when the user is saying okay we do this and then we have this report then there is kind of a analysis process going on in the head of the DHS2 expert listening thinking about you know data elements programs, stages, tracker custom form that's what we need for this and then this is kind of an ongoing mapping from the real world into the world of DHS2 and the kind of capabilities that are available there and sometimes we also think that okay here we actually need a custom app but again this is typically matched towards what are the budget of the project and what are the scopes and the aims and sometimes maybe custom apps is not an option and I think what is interesting is sometimes the output of this process going and talking to users and then analyzing and thinking about what could be built sometimes this translates into kind of a digitization initiative at least for some users that you know now you're going to do this not on paper but on a digital copy of paper and sometimes it actually results in you know more digital innovation kind of things and I think again this is you know why this kind of can result in two things is one how you do this first thing how do you actually go about you know talking to users what are the right techniques for you know observing them or who to talk to and what to focus on when talking to them which is quite difficult at times because you get a lot of information and then how is this analysis and ideation process going so what are you actually doing systematically to take this rich description of the world and the practices of the users into a kind of very concrete design so as one aspect other is you know is it viable to think in terms of customization and building custom apps how much flexibility do we have to not just use generic features but actually you know experiment with with hopefully new kind of features and then as I will turn to quickly now is the and then also you know what are the kind of scopes and the mandates in the project is the room for thinking outside the box or has it already been defined that this is going to be you know like this then maybe this isn't actually feeding that much into anything and then also typically in the implementation there will be something that is resembling this design approaches that I talked about regarding prototyping and evaluation where based on requirements gathered and the way you have kind of mapped this into DHS2 you present an early version of the DHS2 configuration for eksempel and you know ask how is this addressing the issues and is it working according to requirements and then the users might say great but we have some issues here and there and then of course it's the same process again what is viable here, is it possible to build custom features and is it not and also to mention this again here since we typically start with the quite high fidelity prototype prototype that has a lot of functioning functionality we might sometimes then skip the very fundamental question of what is the right thing here maybe the users have been talking about a lot of issues that they have but then we keep dragging in the same the same generic app for any kind of problem instead of moving out of the box and trying to build maybe a custom map which could be the way we are doing design as a practice or it could be because we are suffering from a very tight project scope and mandate for eksempel og så on and so forth så har vi også denne quickly turned to what I have hinted a bit about that this last thing in this maybe also returning to this triangle that there is the design flexibility of the software that we are designing with is of course an important determinant on the kind of space we have what kind of design practices we are adopting, what kind of methods to be used for analysing innovating and ideating is an important aspect but then also this the way the projects are geared and structured is obviously also a potential enabler or disabler maybe if that's the word to actually innovating and designing based on user needs so some of the challenges that we have seen many times I think is that some of these implementation projects let's say for NGO again or Ministry of Health or whatever is for instance design more as a kind of waterfall process that is very heavily defining things in the beginning and then planning the whole maybe three, four years of development in advance and then there is very little room to kind of change the focus as you know the project moves along so let's say and that has been a constant problem in many countries also including Norway where you start to plan the solution and then it's going to take four or five years to build it but then as we get into the third year for example many of the requirements has already changed meaning that meaning that you're kind of aiming at moving target all the time and if you plan too much in advance it's very hard to kind of adapt to changes along the way and that also then results in or another very difficult part of some project is that defining what is the right thing to build is not actually part of the scope and the mandate so as for example his group when you are working with a client it's not part of your mandate to explore what is the right thing to build which is an essential part as I talked about in innovation so if the project already has defined that okay what we're going to do is to take these paper forms and we're going to make them electrify them and then we're going to have these kind of data outputs supposed to resemble the old system and so on and so forth then there is actually no room for going down to the basics and exploring what could provide additional value in this context this also relates to another point which is about when you are building this system it doesn't typically just require very technology focused change but might also then require changes in organizational structures so let's say you're innovating the way approval processes are going on maybe you can make less steps and make it easier automate things and so on that would also then of course require organizational changes which then again might be beyond the kind of scope and mandate of either the specific his group in charge of designing something or the kind of technical team so then there needs to be some kind of collaboration which could be very difficult and then I think maybe one of the most prominent issues is to you know if it's not defined clearly that there is a aim and is a need and is a reason for engaging with end users in the way projects are defined then of course that is not going to be a part of it it's not budgeted in and it's not kind of designed into the way working and there we have seen a lot of very different approaches in different implementation groups so some for example you know really based the whole project around user oriented design principles that okay we're going to work in this iterative manner and we're going to extensively bring end users into the process prototype and doing these kind of things while some projects there are kind of a total lack of that kind of focus it's totally geared towards you know IT the IT management of the project and there is no kind of budget or flexibility to work with users at all and then of course finally this again this issue with the software of course the flexibility of the software is from the outset a very core and to rely on generic features that also of course shrinkens the space of you know the ability to explore alternative ways of doing things if you're only going to use the standard standard applications for example yes so so that was some of these kind of overall challenges and I think this is relevant for a quite large audience because as for example an implementation group specialising in implementing the HS2 of course this is important when thinking about how do we design and what kind of practices are we designing with and how are we negotiating these kind of mandates and projects and then also from the customer organization side you know creating awareness around the need for thinking in terms of users and innovation and design making that part of the projects I think there is a kind of long way to go there in many projects to and it is of course difficult the balance between making projects scopes and mandates that have flexibility for finding potentials for innovation while at the same time making sure that it's not getting out of hand because you need to have some kind of clear objectives that's a very difficult thing and it's one thing that we're also exploring together with some of his groups in the design lab you know what what kind of mandates and scopes are kind of balancing the need for you know control and trust and so on with the kind of right type of flexibility for allowing innovation and user oriented design to happen and also not just you know building the thing right but also then explain what is the right thing to build in this given context So finally I will just wrap it up I hope some of these topics, phenomenon and challenges that I touched upon was interesting to some of you So I will just say a bit about what the future plans for the DHS2 design lab are So what we already do and what we want to continue to do is work very closely with his group but also groups in different countries such as India and Mozambique and so on but also with other DHS2 practitioners maybe independent implementation specialist groups or user organizations in exploring developing and documented best practices around these kind of design and innovation things especially trying to work together on looking at what are the current practices of trying to design and innovate and maybe also implementation of DHS2 in general and then looking at what do we have any space and opportunity to test out new kind of techniques and ways of working with mandates and processes to increase our kind of innovation capabilities and we're also in the process of discussing to establish some kind of DHS2 design and innovation community So let me know if anyone finds these things very interesting and would like to be part of a more open and global initiative of exploring these things and then we're also working on this DHS2 user oriented design and innovation toolkit where we want to combine this kind of related to these app development resources but also focusing on the capacity related to conducting and negotiating the mandates for user oriented design and innovation in projects. So last slide I just wanted to say that please write on the community of practice in this session Q&A which I think is linked in the chapter or contact me on my email address at any time if you have any questions thoughts or ideas related to the things that I discussed in this session or if you have any experience with doing user oriented design and innovation and have some interesting experiences with success or with challenges or if you have been involved in any concrete projects where you have been again either successful or found a lot of challenges with trying to work with users and innovation and of course also if you want to learn more about these things or if you want to collaborate with us in this lab on exploring methods and understanding challenges about this please write a post on the community of practice or send me an email yes so I guess that would it for me thank you very much for joining the session and hope to hear from some of you regarding these things and I'm looking forward to see the future of DHS2 especially related to innovation and apps and supporting increasingly diverse and dynamic audience of users with usable and relevant tools thank you


In this presentation, we will take a look at a partnership liquidation in which one partner will end up with a negative capital count and have to pay back the partnership within the liquidation process. So here's going to be our data. The profit sharing split is a 321 split. That means that we're going to have to use a ratio in order to see what the split will be, the ratio will be, or the percent will be, between K's capital C's capital and M's capital our three owners. The way we do this is we take the 3 plus the 2 plus the 1, adding up to 6, and then we just compare each to the 6. So the 3 belongs to K, the 2 belongs to C, and the 1M. Therefore, we just take the 3 over the total 6 and we get the 50% capital distribution or capital sharing for K. If we take the 2 over 6, we get the 0.333 on forever. This being the reason why we can't use a percent, but must use a fraction. And then we'll take the 1 over 6, and that'll give us the 0.1666 on forever. Once again, that being the reason we need a fraction rather than a percent. Need to understand how to calculate those because if we don't understand that, can't move forward with many partnership problems. So that's going to mean that we have a 50%, about a 33.33 for C, and about a 16.67 profit sharing that we'll be using throughout the liquidation process. Then we have basically our trial balance here listed out in a table format. We will also see the trial balance in terms of a trial balance format, but it's useful to see in a table format because often presented in practice and in book problems in table format. When we see it in a table, they're also often going to condense numbers and call everything assets accounts and liability accounts rather than having the account names. It's useful to have the account name. So we're just going to make a very small actual example of accounts here so we can see the actual accounts and not just generic names of assets and then liabilities. So what we have is we've got cash at the $182,500 we got inventory, the other asset $530,000 liability accounts payable $240,000 and then the capital accounts for KC and M at $93,000, $212,500 and $167,000 respectively. We can see that this is in essence the accounting equation assets minus liabilities equals equity or assets equal liabilities plus equity. So the assets here are $182,500 plus the $530,000 gives us $712,500 for the cash and inventory. That should be equivalent to the liabilities and equity who we owe that to as the company, $240,000 liability and then the capital accounts at $93,000 and $212,500 plus the $167,000 giving us that $712,500. So we're basically when we use a table format we're basically just doing an accounting equation format. Then we're going to say we're going to sell the assets remember we always have to do this in order meaning we're going to sell the assets we're going to apply the gain or loss on the sale to the capital accounts in accordance with their profit sharing then we'll check if there's any problem with negative capital accounts which here there will be and then we'll deal with that problem then we'll pay off the liabilities with the cash that we get then we will pay the partners we really have to go in that order because that will cause the least amount of problems problems such as negative capital accounts which even going in this order will not always remove all those problems but if there is a negative capital account we want it to be as a result of just the process and not our fault and that means that we're not going to pay the owners before we sell the inventory because that will just make things worse if we don't sell the inventory or the assets at book value. So if we go through this then we're going to sell the assets we're going to say that we're selling them for 320,000 and they're on the books for 530,000 clearly we have a loss here so we're going to take them off the books and take the inventory off the books then we're going to split the difference between the partners in accordance with their profit sharing agreement so if we pull out the calculator here we're going to say that we had the 530,000 that we sold or that's what the assets were on the books for the inventory minus 320 which is all we can get for them during this clearance sale gives us a loss of 210,000 50 percent of that's going to go to K so I'm going to say times 0.5 that'll give us the 105 if I do that same thing 530,000 minus 320,000 210,000 if I multiply it times 0.3333 times 0.3333 it's close not exact that's the problem with the percentage here we can use a fraction however and that would be the same 210 times remember what it was 2 I can say times 2 over uh over the 6 2 over 6 so that'll give us the more exact 70,000 so remember what we're talking about 2 6 so I'm taking the 210 times 2 6 2 over 210 210 times 2 divided by 6 so that's going to give us the 70 and then one more time we're going to do this one more time we've got the 210,000 then again if I say times 0.1667 close not exact if I was to say 210,000 times the ratio of 1 divided by 6 we get 35,000 more exact so there's the 35,000 more exact number then we're going to bring down the balances the cash that we received 502,500 inventory then going down to zero accounts payable just being pulled down capital accounts is 93,000 minus 105,000 4k bringing us to a negative capital account that's the problem and then C is having a capital account of 212,500 minus 70,000 or 142,500 m's capital account 167,000 minus 35,000 or 132,000 here is our problem k has a negative capital account so this could happen we did everything properly and we still ended up in negative capital account why because we sold the assets and we didn't get as much for them as was reported on the books for those assets therefore resulting in a loss that loss being allocated bringing a positive capital account flipping it to negative so now we got to go to k and say hey k you know we're closing the company we did everything we could and your capital account went negative would you you know pay the partnership so we can go through the closing process properly and hopefully they should because that's part of the closing process so they owe the the company so we're going to say that k pays the company 12,000 that would be the nice thing to happen because it's a closing process where liquidating partnerships are closing everything not always the nicest time in practice it may be an issue to get that 12,000 and we'll take a look at a case what would happen if we don't get the 12,000 at least from an accounting standpoint and then we're going to reduce the 12,000 for capital for k bringing it to zero so our new balance is going to be the 502,500 plus 12,000 for cash bringing us to 514,500 we bring down the accounts payable at the 240,000 the k's capital is going to zero and then we're just going to bring down the other two capitals for c and m at 142,500 and 132,000 respectively then we're going to say we're going to pay off the liability that's going to be the next step we want to do we of course will pay it with cash liabilities on the books for 240,000 we're taking it off the books for 240,000 that's how much cash we will be paying so we're going to pay out the 240,000 cash so the 514,500 minus the 240,000 we're going to pay off two accounts payable whoever we owe leads us with a balance in cash of 274,500 the accounts payable going from 240 down by 240,000 to zero then the capital accounts we're just going to bring down at 142,500 and the 132,000 for c and m respectively now we finally have this last step that we've been looking forward to which we can finally pay out the partnership and be done with the partnership so we have the 274,500 which will be equivalent to the 142,500 and the 132,000 so our accounting equation has always been in balance here as we go through this process so now we can just pay it out in accordance with their capital accounts note as we do this that these two are not in the same ratio as the 321 of course and so don't get in them in the thought process that they have to be in that same ratio because that's only profit sharing doesn't account for draws doesn't account for investments so the capital accounts will almost never be in alignment with the same kind of profit sharing percentages so then that'll give us our zero balances that we have been looking for we'll do that same process now with journal entries it's very helpful to do this in both kind of ways a lot of book problems will show this format here and in practice when you're working with lawyers and whatnot they tend to like to see a table more than a trial balance when we work in on the accounting side of things of course I tend to see a trial balance better it's easier for me to work through this with a trial balance and actually work through the journal entries to see what would happen if we go through this closing process and of course when we actually record this we will need to do so we'll need to see the journal entries and actually record them in a journal entry type format typically so here's our journal here's our trial balance it's got the debits in non-bracketed numbers the credits in bracketed numbers debits minus the credits equal zero meaning debits do equal the credits assets in green liabilities in orange equity is in the light blue the income statement accounts of revenue and expenses in dark blue note that there are no revenue and expenses in this problem in essence we have a post closing trial balance that means that we must have the revenue and expenses closed out to the capital accounts otherwise the capital accounts will not be properly valued when we start the problem so we're going to go through this now and go through the same steps as the table we did above we're going to say that the cash is is what we're going to receive when we sell the inventory we only got 320 we're going to increase cash by the 320 in our journal entry the credit's going to be for the 530 to take inventory completely off the books the debit minus the credit is not in balance we're going to put that as we normally would when it wasn't in a closing process to a gain or loss in this case loss so we had a loss on the sale of the 210,000 now in the table we just allocated those directly to the owners but typically when we do a journal entry in practice that would be going to a gain or loss so this probably looks more normal in a journal entry format so let's do this in a two-step process we'll record the loss and then we'll close out the loss to the capital accounts in accordance with their profit sharing agreement taking us to that same format we had prior to this so if we post this out then we're going to say that the cash here is going to go to the cash here it started at 182,500 it's going to go up by 320,000 to a balance of 502,500 then we have the inventory in our journal entry here going to the trial balance here starting at 530,000 going down with a credit by 530,200 and then we've got the gain or loss down here on the income statement going from zero up in the debit direction similar to an expense bringing down net income by 210,000 to 210,000 so if we look at everything now we've zeroed out our inventory that's our first step and we we received the cash that we could get for that and we put now this loss on the books though and remember we said that we have to close out all income statement accounts in order to move forward with the closing process that will then be our next step just like well to move forward with the liquidation process so that will be our next step similar to a closing process so we're just going to close out this gain or loss to which is a loss in this case to the capital accounts in accordance with their profit sharing agreement so we're just going to take this 210 and close it out in accordance with the profit sharing so we're going to credit the 210 so we'll put that on the bottom and we're going to debit k c and m capital accounts in accordance with profit sharing so we're going to say that we had the 210 we're taking this 210 210,000 times the 0.33 again that's an estimate and that was for c so it's not quite exact because it's really 0.3333 it should be 70,000 but that's you know we should use the ratio to get more exact same as we did with the table and then we take the 210,000 times 0.5 and that'll give us the amount that's going to go to k and then we'll take the 210,000 times the 0.17 and that'll give us close to the amount that would go to m so again that would be the 70 to 35 that would go to k c and m 105 the 70 and the 35 so then just remember that we did use the rounding here if we use the fraction it would be exact just as we did with the table if we post this out then we're going to post this we're going to say that the capital account started at 93,000 for k in the credit side then we debited it doing the opposite thing to it bringing it down not only to zero but beyond zero to a negative capital account this is the most confusing thing to look at you know when we look at the trial balance because we typically think of the capital accounts as having a normal credit balance which they typically do so if you ever see a capital account that has a debit balance it's a problem typically it means that the owner owes the business money or the partnership money and that's basically what this means in this case then we're going to say the 70,000 here it's going to be posted to this area so the 212,500 c's capital goes down in the debit direction by 70,000 to 142,500 then the 35,000 here is going to be posted to the capital account here on the trial balance the 167,000 going down by 35,000 to 132,000 then we've got the loss that's going to be taken care of or removed it's at 210,000 debit we're going to credit it 210,000 bringing it to zero so if we see our trial balance now here is our problem we've got this negative capital we're back to all zeros on our trial balance so we can move forward but now we have to say hold we have to stop here and go hmm there's a negative capital we got to take care of that somehow talk to k and see if he wants to repay it if he does great then we can move forward that's what we're going to do here so now we're going to say we got to take care of this negative capital how he's going to pay us or he or she's going to pay us $12,000 and that'll bring the capital account back to zero and so basically investing money into the company and the partnership even though it's closing as part of the liquidation process so if we post that then the cash is going to go back up to 514,500 and that's basically because of course this 12,000 is owed to the other two partners or to some liability that hasn't yet been paid so that's the case responsibility to pay that back so then we're going to reduce the capital account back down to zero again we can you can kind of think of it as we're bringing it back up to zero because this is a negative capital account so it's a debit balance we're going to take the debit balance the normal unusual debit balance down to zero by doing the opposite thing to it so there we have it and we're left then with cash the accounts payable and the two capital accounts for C and M now we're going to pay off the liabilities as we did in the table we've got the accounts payable on the books at 240,000 it's a credit therefore we're going to debit it to make it go down we're going to then credit cash because that's we're going to use to pay off the account payable liability if we post this out then we've got the 240,000 credit for accounts payable which we will then debit bringing it down to zero we've got the cash here that's going to be posted to the trial balance starting at 514,500 going down by 240,000 credit to 574,500 we're left with just cash and then the two capital accounts for C and M so now of course the two capital accounts are equivalent to the cash and we could just pay it off and be done with this partnership so the way we're going to do that will of course be just doing whatever we need to do to make these go down to zero so this has a credit balance of 142,500 we then will do the opposite thing to it debit it 142,500 this has a credit of 132,000 we will do the opposite thing to it debit it 132,000 then the cash has a debit of 174,500 we will do the opposite thing to it credit 274,500 I hope I said that right but there we have it and of course the two debits will equal the credits if we post this out then cash is going to go down to zero capital accounts down to zero M's capital account down to zero and we've zeroed everything out I can just keep in mind that I always get mixed up or people I used to get mixed up a lot that these two capital accounts should be somehow in alignment with the profit sharing doesn't have to be in alignment with the profit sharing we're just going to close everything out whatever's in there will be closed out what should happen is the two capital accounts should be equivalent to whatever cash is left at this point which it must be if we are in balance


I don't know what to do with this question, but I'm going to answer it, see if you want to answer it. Have you heard of Jeff Bezos' recent divorce? They announced it today. I don't know if you saw the newspapers, but today he's got $117 billion. His wife is now entitled to half his wealth, estimated at $65 billion. I don't think that's right.  He's done nothing to deserve it, but I'm curious to know your thoughts. Well, we don't know what Jeff is like to live with, first of all. But you go ahead, because I do have feelings about something like this. I do too. I mean, I mean, I don't know if we're going to agree, but who are you to say she's done nothing to deserve it?  I've made all the money in our relationship in that sense, right? I've gone out and produced in that sense. But she deserved every damn cent she got, you know, for making my life what it is, for being with me, for helping me, for being on the journey with me, for loving me, for everything. And the idea that you can enter into a relationship with the outside and say she doesn't deserve it or does deserve it or whatever, given the press release that came out today, certainly sounds like she deserves it. And I think most wives, in a loving, you know, most good women in a loving relationship, absolutely, even if they didn't do the actual work, deserve it. I mean, yeah, it's a marriage as a partnership in a lot of ways and you help one another up and lift one another up and support one another in ways that are intangible and definitely something you can't put a price tag on. That said, that said, I do think the laws around divorce and the divvying up property are very anachronistic. I don't think, I think they don't reflect changing times and the independence that women have now and the earning capacity that they have now. And even though we're still sort of progressing down that road, I personally think it's something that two people, there shouldn't be hard rules with respect to that in the States. I think it should be between the two individuals involved and it should be fair. I don't know that it's fair. I know a lot of men have been taken to the cleaners by women and unfortunately abused by a system and who are good parents who were deprived of visitation rights of their children who were used as pawns and there needs to be some reform with respect to that. But we don't know what Jeff was like to live with so he could have been a bear. We don't know what she's like and we don't know anything about their relationship so making assumptions about their lives would be wrong. And I agree with you and I think the more we move away from marriage as something grounded in religion and something that the state authorizes and the more we view it as a contract as a relationship as the more I think we'll have contracts that have more, you know, the state shouldn't be dictating all these things in advance and so rigidly so that it should be a much more flexible system in which these things should be contracted. Yeah and because they sort of preemptively decide for people, it makes the idea of negotiating an agreement between the two of you and preenups so ugly and unromantic and it's just sort of it's a buzzkill on every level but let's get the state out of it that would be a great job. That's why if you get the state out of it and you make it marriage is a contractual relationship then it's just a contract and you negotiate the best terms that you can.