NDIS and technology: what 2017-18 Senate supplementary estimates reveal about priorities

I have written previously on the NDIS and technology in relation to what supports are funded and who gets funded (see here). But what about how the NDIS is deploying technology to support administration of the scheme? 

My day job is managing a team who support an enterprise-wide student information system in a university, so I have some knowledge of how intelligently applied technology can benefit organisations with processing high volumes of enquiries and/or transactions. Indeed, sometimes small changes can reap the big benefits, e.g. adding a column to a report, reducing the number of 'clicks' to enter data into or extract data from systems.

Discussions at the Senate Estimates hearing of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on 25 October 2017 highlight two uses of technology in administration of the NDIS:

1. Nadia

Nadia, the NDIS's proposed virtual assistant, to be voiced by Cate Blanchett has been heralded with much fanfare as providing a significant cost-saving to the NDIS, presumably by automating level 1 queries from participants through an AI-enabled chatbot.  

Press reports (e.g. ABC News here) cite spending of of $3.5 million for Nadia to September 2017. However, National Disability Insurance Agency CEO, Robert De Luca told the Senate Estimates hearing of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on 25 October 2017 that:

Nadia, from our perspective, has been in a holding pattern until we complete our pathway work to ensure we know exactly how to best utilise the Nadia technology as we move forward. (2017a, p48)

This might be a tactical decision to delay implementation of ambitious technology in a highly politically sensitive program, when recent government IT failures (particularly Centrelink's robot-debt debacle) are so fresh in the media's minds. (See articles here and here linking Nadia with 2016 #CensusFail and Centrelink robot-debt.)

Or it may be that the National Disability Insurance Agency is genuinely unsure how to use this bright, shiny new technology. 

Either way, the National Disability Insurance Agency confirmed in December 2017 by way of responses to questions on notice that:

The National Disability Insurance Agency’s spend on Nadia from August 2015 has been $4.5 million and includes: human resources, academia, vendor and technology partner services. (2017b, emphasis added)

2. Draft plans

Meanwhile, participants cannot see a draft of their NDIS plan before it is finalised, as a technical change is required to systems to permit this, prompting this almost unbelievable exchange at the Senate estimates hearing:

Senator SIEWERT: What they want to see is the draft. Will they see the draft?

Ms Gunn: It needs technical change to the system to enable us to do that. They will see the way the plan is constructed in the planning conversation, which they currently are not doing.

Mr De Luca: Yes, they will see a draft of the plan.

Senator SIEWERT: From now? Not just in the pilots, but across the board?

Mr De Luca: There are two elements to it. One is that in the conversation with the participant they can visually see that with a laptop or a computer before it's finalised. That's the first thing. The second is that the system works so they can review it at their own leisure. The second part does require some systems work. 

CHAIR: What is the timing of that second part?

Mr De Luca: I can't comment on that.

Senator SIEWERT: Why can't you put it in a PDF and email it to them?

Ms Campbell: We're talking about some of those logistical challenges—if there were someone visiting, without a printer, something like that.

Mr De Luca: If you think about a situation where a planner and local area coordinator has gone to someone's house in a regional or remote area, or wherever they may live, the process would be to walk through the plan with them, make sure they understand it, see it on a system. There may be difficulties in printing it at that point in time. They may not have a printer at their house, or there may be technology challenges in being wi-fi enabled. There are lots of different challenges that mean we can't say 100 per cent that we'll see it at a point in time and be able to print it. The process being put in place, though, is the expectation that when a planner leaves the room or person's house or a meeting room, the participant understands what's in their plan. Then they will have visibility of that online in the portal. (2017a, pp61-62, emphasis added)

Let's be clear that this should not be a significant technological challenge in 2018, with or without wi-fi. If nothing else, there are portable printers on the market that could be used to print draft plans, e.g. Canon's iP110. Indeed, I had a salesman visit me last week, and after a discussion, he prepared and printed a quote for me using a similar printer. 

The challenge for the NDIS is to amend their systems and business processes to handle the requirement to provide draft plans to participants for meaningful feedback and review, whilst at the same time managing the workload of thousands of plans at different stages in a complex workflow. 

But again, this is not a new problem, nor one that has not been solved by other organisations in the past.

The National Disability Insurance Agency confirmed in December 2017 by way of responses to questions on notice that:

The initial pilot of the revised pathway will see a new style of planning meeting being tested between a participant, Local Area Coordinator (LAC) and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) planner. The pilot will include enabling participants to see a working draft version of their plan as it is being developed and have the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback during the planning meeting. This is to allow for any queries to be discussed and addressed before the plan is finalised. The initial pilot will commence in mid-December 2017, with early communications and training for LACs and NDIA planners, followed by the new face-to-face planning approach commencing in late January 2018. (2017c, emphasis added)

Note, nowhere does this say that participants will be given a draft plan. The inference to be drawn is that participants will be able to see and comment on a draft plan during a planning meeting, but will not necessarily have the opportunity to review a draft plan over a few days, at least not in the January 2018 timeframe. My understanding is that plans are only reviewed after 12 months, so reviewing a draft plan (especially a first plan) is something that participants will want to take some time over. Even mobile phone contracts have cooling off periods!

Incorporating user requirements into existing systems and business processes is not always sexy (unless your particular turn-on is business process management and the associated software), nor does it necessarily allow you to get A-list actors on board to rollout shiny new technology. But providing draft plans to NDIS participants is a basic requirement for success as the NDIS is rolled out to full implementation. 

If $4.5 million can be spent on an IT project with no tangible outcome to date, and no date for a projected delivery, but a basic user requirement for draft plans cannot be met, what does this say about the the National Disability Insurance Agency's technology priorities?

References

Commonwealth of Australia. Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. (2017a). Estimates: Wednesday, 25 October 2017: Canberra (Final Hansard). Retrieved from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/7282aeca-2466-4081-8448-3da6e52dbca2/toc_pdf/Community%20Affairs%20Legislation%20Committee_2017_10_25_5673_Official.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia. Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. (2017b). Answers to Estimates Questions on Notice: Social Services Portfolio: 2017-18 Supplementary Budget Estimates Hearings: Question No: NDIA SQ17-000196. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloadattachment?attachmentId=92f4e55a-820f-42e8-8ec9-2924b113f36f

Commonwealth of Australia. Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. (2017c). Answers to Estimates Questions on Notice: Social Services Portfolio: 2017-18 Supplementary Budget Estimates Hearings: Question No: NDIA SQ17-000200. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloadattachment?attachmentId=c213bbe0-a89e-4f7c-bc78-5e5e54f9e262


4 responses
Great article Melissa! Reviewing a draft plan is absolutely essential, particularly for participants with complex needs who may have several goals and budget lines to review. If you are someone who is intending to self manage it is critical. Many planning meetings are being held over the phone because of the sheer number of participants to get through by the end of the year. This means that there is not even the opportunity to look at the plan on the laptop with a planner present. Also many people require assistive technology to enable them to read it. The planning meeting will undoubtably be quite nerve racking for many participants. There is so much information that needs to be provided and some people are likely to be quite fatigued by the time they get to the stage of reviewing the plan in the presence of a planner. This means that people are at risk of missing critical information in their plans and then having to wait at least 3 months to have it reviewed. Generally reviews are only occurring if critical information is incorrect or if the person circumstances have substantially changed, so yes in many cases people will be waiting 12 months to have their plan changed. Surely even if somebody does not have access to the Internet it would be possible to print off a draft plan which the participant could sign and return by post. I recently engaged Public Trustee to assist me with something. They were able to email me drafts of the documents they were preparing and it was lucky they did as there were amendments that needed to be made. This was because the person drawing up the documents had actually missed the information herself. She was grateful that I had picked it up otherwise the hall thing would have had to be drawn up again.
Thanks Deb. Your feedback is much appreciated. The need for draft plans seems obvious, doesn’t it?
Hi, Absolutely agree that it is just disgraceful and incompetent that people aren't given draft plans and a chance for feedback to solve all the reviews that happen based on misunderstandings. It is something that the first NDIA Board during the trial phase should have sorted out - however they were intent on successfully running several small scale sites rather than developing policies and systems that could scale for the final numbers - the trial period was quite wasted really. I think it all stems from the NDIA still essentially viewing the NDIS as welfare in how it is implemented and rolled out - rather than a joint implementation with the disability community. Disabled people have to apply and justify everything and then the NDIA goes away and secretly assesses things and you get a plan back that often bears no resemblance to the planning meeting. What is needed is a joint approach to planning and working out supports and a draft plan with feedback is a step towards this. Dale.
1 visitor upvoted this post.