PROPOSED VALIDATION · NOT YET CONDUCTED
DOES THIS MODEL FIT THE WAY COORDINATORS WORK?
I would start with five facilities-service coordinators, asking each to walk through a recent incident: how work was divided, where context was kept and what allowed the next step to proceed. They would then use the fictional ventilation scenario to assess the evidence, identify responsibilities and decide what should happen next.
The model would be worth developing further if it reflects real coordination needs and helps participants make these decisions without guidance. I would look for three signals:
- Work has the right structure
- Participants can map a recent incident to a shared request and separate work tickets, with a clear reason for separating tasks. If tickets duplicate work or a checklist would be sufficient, I would simplify the model.
- Context supports a decision
- Participants can compare the relevant sources, explain what is known and identify what still needs checking. Side-by-side panels are one possible aid; successful assessment matters more than using a particular view. If participants still need to reconstruct context elsewhere, I would revisit how information is grouped.
- The next step is clear
- Participants can identify who owns the next action, what approval is outstanding and how ticket progress relates to the overall request. Confusing a completed task with a resolved incident, or overlooking a required approval, would trigger a revision of the hierarchy and dependency cues.
I would record where participants act independently, need help or reach an incorrect conclusion, and compare their explanations with their real working practices. Consistent evidence across accounts and tasks would support another iteration; recurring workarounds or mismatches would challenge the model itself. This first round would guide design decisions, without establishing productivity gains or readiness for implementation.
