NHSX:NHSEI Open Source Discovery

Description

Summary of the work Our Data Strategy commits us to Open Source wherever possible, but we have no baseline assessment of how projects currently work under that model. This project fills that gap, surfacing blockers/enablers. Using interviews, case studies and workshops it ensures our Open Source Playbook will be backed by robust evidence. Expected Contract Length 4 months Latest start date Monday 15 November 2021 Budget Range up to £245,000 Why the Work is Being Done There is currently no assessment of either modes of success or failure when it comes to open sourcing projects across the NHS. Each new open source project starts from scratch, and its developers often lack confidence that they are using the right approaches, licenses or methods. A centralised policy for best practice will help solve this problem, and institute standards that create high quality projects, robust to challenge, and that invite collaboration. With such a policy in place, those who have not felt able to open source their projects will be emboldened to do so, increasing both cooperation and visibility across the NHS, which in turn will reduce the number of times we need to solve the same problems in different places. This will increase the strength of the developer community, decrease wasted effort, time, and cost, and create stronger services through wider involvement, both within and without the NHS. It will also create a better environment for NHS suppliers, who will be able to build off of current solutions more efficiently, assess persistent problems and propose new solutions, and understand the new policies we will demand of them in future. Problem to Be Solved The Open Source Playbook needs to outline Case Studies of open source development and use in healthcare that are then organised by Scenarios of Use and Pathways to Success. Each Case Study must include: Situation Aspiration Solution and impact Functionality Capabilities Scope Key learning points Key figures / quotes Blockers To substantiate around 20 of these case studies, we require An audit of open source healthcare projects available on Github and other platforms, followed up by interviews with responsible staff A survey put to the NHS’ developer communities (R, Python, others) and analysis of results A series of workshops that investigate case studies, needs and blockers around Practical and technical issues Legal issues inclusive of IP and licensing Regulatory issues Commercial issues The policy agenda. This work should investigate steps along the journey to open sourcing a given project including acquiring sign off (talking to those at board level), presenting a funding case, relevant metrics, liability concerns, division of code and data, maintenance, useful resources, common areas of pushback. It should also help us develop key policy around when projects should or should not be open source, developed in the open, closed or confidential. More detail is found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AQWbU4a7OgTx5pNkcbom9xlUi7STeixyjo3KZtMurU0/edit?usp=sharing Who Are the Users The Standards and Interoperability team within NHSX will use this report, along with wider CTO collaboration, to write the Open Source Playbook, due March 2022. The playbook will then be used by analysts and developers across the NHS to achieve commitments under the Data Strategy relevant to open sourcing new code. They will be able to take routes for success and best practice to their local IT departments and boards, helping them put in place necessary local systems and policies, while anticipating common blockers and modes of failure. They will be able to develop and publish in the open, share their work between trusts and across barriers, and feel confident in doing so with centrally approved licenses and practices. Those outside the NHS will be able to see that best practices are being used, to inspect and contribute to new work, and to benefit directly from that transparency. Early Market Engagement No early market engagement has been undertaken Work Already Done A report consisting of a preliminary security assessment has already been conducted. Relevant extracts will be shared with the awarded supplier. Existing Team The existing team consists of one Open Tech Lead and a programme manager from NHSX. We are working closely with colleagues from across NHSX and NHS Digital who will help distribute the survey, provide key attendees for workshops, and suggest repositories for audit and follow-up interview. We are also working closely with DHSC and regulators, who will need to be looped into this project. Current Phase Not started Skills & Experience • Demonstrable expertise within the last five years in user research, including stakeholder engagement and sourcing, conducting workshops for different audiences, structured interviews, surveys, desktop research and use case modelling • Demonstrable capability (with examples) in survey analysis and successfully documenting user requirements using popular formats such as user stories, journey mapping, acceptance criteria using behaviour-driven development format, etc. • Demonstrable subject matter expertise (over the last three years) in UK-based open source code development and deployment, including both community development, and legal and regulatory requirements. • Demonstrable capability in engaging audiences and participants across technical, regulatory and policy development. A track record (including examples) of finding and surfacing marginalised voices in online communities. • A recent example (within 5 years) of delivering complex user research on tight time scales through realistic resource planning and risk management. Nice to Haves • Demonstrable experience of working in, and an understanding of, the challenges of digital transformation in the health and care sector. • Demonstrable specialist capability and expertise in information governance and policy analysis within healthcare. • Demonstrable capability (1-2 examples, pdf or html) in producing high quality reports for policy advisory. Work Location The work can be performed from any location, but it will be coordinated by staff in NHSX London office, Skipton House. Working Arrangments In order to maximise knowledge transfer and to be integrated with the team the supplier staff will work to NHSX standard hours, that is 7.5 hours a day during 9.00-17.30 Monday to Friday. Meetings will be by video conferencing using G-Suite technology. There are no expenses expected for this work as travel will not be required. If a need should arise this will be in line with NHS E/I travel and expense policy. Security Clearance All must have BPSS as a minimum Additional T&Cs No additional terms and conditions will be used No. of Suppliers to Evaluate 5 Proposal Criteria • Expertise, realistic approach and methodology (40%) • How the Offeror plans to communicate to stakeholders, including progress (10%) • Risks and dependencies are identified with approaches to manage them (5%) • Value add (5%) Cultural Fit Criteria • Be transparent and collaborative when making decisions. • Work as a team and work well with our organisation, other organisations and other suppliers. • Demonstrate approaches for working with a wide range of stakeholders from diverse backgrounds. • Provide evidence of seeking out new audiences, users and stakeholders- valuing minority voices in tech and healthcare, preferably through deliberate and direct inclusion. • Demonstrate the above within the supplier’s own organisation through inclusive and accessible recruitment and working practices (including remote working). Payment Approach Capped time and materials Assessment Method • Case study • Work history • Reference • Presentation Evaluation Weighting Technical competence 60% Cultural fit 20% Price 20% Questions from Suppliers 1. Has there already been a Discovery phase to arrive at the concept of the ‘Open Source Playbook’ as a solution to this problem space? Yes, both in support of the forthcoming Data Strategy and to explore security concerns. Excerpts from the latter report will be shared with the successful bidder. 2. Are you expecting the supplier to write up the case studies ready for publication or to only gather the info for the table of contents you outline? Case studies should be ready for publication. 3. Do you want links to actual reports when you ask for this experience: ‘Demonstrable capability (1-2 examples, pdf or html) in producing high quality reports for policy advisory.’? Yes, thank you. 4. Demonstrable experience of working in, and an understanding of, the challenges of digital transformation in the health and care sector. Demonstrable specialist capability and expertise in information governance and policy analysis within healthcare.” Can you please elaborate how the above aligns with Digital Marketplace guidelines help SME with no prior healthcare experience bid fairly against the incumbents in the Healthcare sector ? This is a 'nice to have' but not an 'essential' and is weighted appropriately. No one will be excluded from selection on the basis of a nice to have criteria. 5. "Regarding the below Nice to have skills :- It indicates that SME with non-healthcare background would lose advantage in the bidding process ? Ideally it would be better to state what skills in Healthcare/care are you particularly interested in solving e.g. regulatory,time-budget,technology know-how etc ? This makes it more clear to respond to the skills and bring an objective output to the bidding process?" This is a 'nice to have' but not an 'essential' and it is weighted appropriately. No one will be excluded from selection on the basis of a nice to have criteria. 6. Is this project in the discovery or Alpha phase? This project is in the Discovery phase. 7. For the initial selection we are limited to 100 word responses, can you therefore please clarify what is meant by ‘PDF or HTML” for “Demonstrable capability (1-2 examples, pdf or html) in producing high quality reports for policy advisory” given we cannot upload additional attachments. Links to published reports would be ideal, a link should only count as one word against the word count. 8. In the Nice-Tohave skills can you please elaborate how an SME with no prior Healthcare experience bid against incumbent players ? This is a 'nice to have' but not an 'essential' and will be weighted appropriately. No one will be excluded from selection on the basis of a nice to have criteria.There are no incumbent suppliers. 9. In the Nice-Tohave skills can you please elaborate how does the description align with DOS5 guidance to drive objective questions rather than domain specific queries ? This is a 'nice to have' but not an 'essential' and is weighted appropriately. No one will be excluded from selection on the basis of a nice to have criteria. 10. Could you please clarify whether “finding and surfacing marginalised voices in online communities” is to be intended as finding and surfacing those with limited online accessibility? We'd like suppliers to find and surface projects whose authors or recipients possess protected characteristics less commonly represented in digital discovery work. If suppliers would like to go beyond protected characteristics to tackle other (often related) aspects of marginalisation (like digital exclusion) we'd be very happy to see those approaches in bids. 11. Could you clarify why “open source code development and deployment” must be UK-based? We are specifically interested in projects that serve the NHS and its partners across the devolved nations. Where projects are authored by those overseas but they explicitly tackle NHS challenges they may be included as an exception, but the focus must remain domestic. 12. Will you consider relevant examples of open source code development and deployment outside of the UK? We are specifically interested in projects that serve the NHS and its partners across the devolved nations. Where projects are authored by those overseas but they explicitly tackle NHS challenges they may be included as an exception, but the focus must remain domestic. 13. By sourcing, do you mean finding and recruiting participants for a user research study? Finding participants might be one part of this requirement, but finding stakeholders representative of affected groups to help inform study design would also help satisfy this criteria. 14. How would you like examples to be supplied given the limits of the response format? Links to published reports would be ideal, a link should only count as one word against the word count. 15. What evidence of “community development” are you looking for? We would like to see some awareness of how communities around open source engage and develop, not just in technical terms, but in terms of the kinds of people involved and the challenges they may face. Running a successful open source project on Github with a vibrant user community might be one form of such evidence. 16. Could you provide an example of “a legal and regulatory requirement” in relation to open source code? Some forms of software can count as a medical device, which is then regulated by the MHRA. Openly published software is not exempt from this regulation. 17. How would you like examples to be supplied given the limits of the response format? Links to published reports would be ideal, a link should only count as one word against the word count. 18. Please can you confirm how we access the Google Document you have linked and should it only be one person per organisation who requests access? Please request access, which will then be supplied shortly. One person per organisation would be preferred, but as many people as necessary can do so. 19. Re: “Demonstrable capability (1-2 examples, pdf or html) in producing high quality reports for policy advisory.” – Where reports are not yet published, and may need approval from the client to share, would it be acceptable to describe the policy challenge, and provide links upon shortlisting? We would prefer published material, but yes. 20. What are the most important decisions that will we made using the Open Source Playbook? The Open Source Playbook will help teams to determine where and when they should open source their projects, who to involve, and how to pursue the right avenues to success. Given the transformative nature of many solutions in healthcare, that decision alone may be extremely important: shaping development of tools across the system as a whole. The Playbook (and following policies) will then help teams to make decisions that keep their projects compliant with regulation, legislation, and NHS policy. 21. What is the expected format of the deliverables? Case studies must support the format of pre existing digital playbooks. The formats of other deliverables are negotiable. 22. Is the audit of open source healthcare projects available on Github/other repositories limited to those created by NHS contributors? No 23. Is the audit of open source healthcare projects available on Github/other repositories limited to specific types of projects? No 24. Are there other solutions being explored alongside the Open Source Playbook? The Open Source Playbook is a commitment in the forthcoming Data Strategy that must be supported by this work. The evidence gathered here will also help inform other NHSX products and policies in the following months. 25. How is the scope of this ITT linked to the ITT “NHSX – Layered Open Architecture”? This procurement is conceptually linked to the Layered Open Architecture ITT in that both will result in work that promotes a separation of application and data layers. The process by which we achieve that goal is very different between the two: the former relying on a target architecture and data model, and this work focussing on publication and collaboration models. These two approaches support each other. 26. Are you aware that adding URLs to responses does not comply with the criteria for this stage of tender via this platform? Although procurement managers can reject responses that include URLs, we are choosing not to. Evidence that a supplier has produced relevant work is the requirement for this criteria. A short description, accompanied by a link, is the easiest way for us to observe that evidence. We will not be scoring the content of published material.