Feedback from the pitches by table

Each team had 2 minutes to report back – it’s a bit ambitious to try and solve all the railways problems before lunch!

It’s all about helping us get familiar with the process, and to make any mistakes before we do it in public.

It’s probably more useful to feedback on the question, the bit you did first. We’ll collect up the sheets to process and analyse afterwards.

Table 1:

What we’ve done is all about data – large amounts of data that need to be put in context in order to get information we can exploit (predictive/preventative/corrective) – the big challenge is around that data – there’s an ever-growing amount, but is the data we’ve got what is needed? Do we have the right data, full stop? How do we manage that data, in terms of tech and also transfering it back and forth. How do we interpret that data, from multiple points. How to bring it together… [applause ]

Table 2:

We agreed with table 1 – we deconstructed the question and picked up on some keywords – control, we need to be clear what we mean by control (decision-making, false positives, when are we confident enough to make a decision, how much data to we need) – Railway – it’s a massive, diverse system, across many different types of infrastructure. It’s joined up, lots of IT and people systems. Multiple data sources – ownership, currency, accuracy, trust and provenance. Different data is important over different time-scales. Different data is relevant to diff. users. Different formats of data…

Table 3:

How do we develop key future information architecture and best practices. We discussed a lot of how we apply the to futro. We need data coming out of our current spaghetti. Let’s try and start with tomorrow, and we might achieve in 5 or 10 years time… (will clarify this from the recording!)

Table 4:

We had an interesting discussion, we agreed with the main points about the value of data, but had a discussion about the idea that we’re not trying to redesign the technical parts of the railway. We thought control was a dangerous word to use, should be about input not output, about changing habits, a softer exercise than a technical exercise. We also talked about the trade off of not starting til we know where we going, vs not ever getting started. The answer is ‘yes we can’ and we need to get moving. There’s data out there, we’re good at hiding it, so we should be able to find good valuable info if we’re given a target.

an example? Location information which will allow everyone to go and look what data we have and build on that.

Table 5:

We agree with Table 4 in terms of the question – manage not control, the Q only makes sense in the context of the bigger aim (capacity, cost, customer experience and carbon) it’s one of the right questions but not the only one.

Table 6:

(to be added)

Table 7:

we didn’t really have much beyond the question. We talked about scope – are we focussing on what passengers do? Where’s the passenger voice in this question? we could see that… it’s important to communicate and monitor as well as control.

Table 8 :

we had a problem with the word ‘railway’ – it’s not just rail, it’s about integrated transport data, can we listen to the passenger, make it more responsive. Data is a big word, and takes you to ‘what’s the rail network for?’ – we agree that it’s about management not about control. Which had us thinking about purpose – service comes first. We need data to support management as well as control.

This entry was posted in FuTRO Monitor Jam. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.