Storymap - Admin
Hi
Morgan
I've created a more detailed storymap for the admin side of ISLG. Feel free to review when you get a chance and let me know if you want to talk through anything. I'm still proceeding with the wireframe phase so don't feel rushed to provide feedback on this.
Storymap: https://industrialagency.storiesonboard.com/m/islg-admin
Thanks,
Stef
Morgan
I've created a more detailed storymap for the admin side of ISLG. Feel free to review when you get a chance and let me know if you want to talk through anything. I'm still proceeding with the wireframe phase so don't feel rushed to provide feedback on this.
Storymap: https://industrialagency.storiesonboard.com/m/islg-admin
Thanks,
Stef
Morgan
I've provided my feedback through a series of screenshots with comments in the Word document below. Let me know if you have time to review and discuss this today. Otherwise, we can follow-up on Monday.
Thanks,
Morgan
A couple things to note: when you say non-ITA documents, you're referring to documents that we don't have the text for (Non-investment treaty documents and publications), right? If so, we have the ability to add/assign adding those.
The other question... Did you imagine that adding the legal analytics would be a separate task from the DC analysis? I imagined this happening during that process.
For the subject navigator, I imagined that the user would read and tag subjects in the document with the ability to add subjects as they go - and therefore this would be a document task. Would you need to assign a task to the tree itself independent of a document? I'd also assume that when they're adding a document, they may make changes to the tree and all changes would go to approval, so these users would actually need to receive two tasks - one for document and one for tree for which they'd have to mark both complete to submit for approval?
The changes to the storyboard look good. Here are answers to your questions above with some comments:
When referring to non-ITA documents, I'm referring to Non-investment treaty documents for the purposes of the Jurisprudence Citator.
I foresee the data used for legal analytics being entered at both the document upload/edit stage and during the data capture (DC) analysis stage. More basic meta-data (party names, etc.) would be entered at the document upload/edit states, and more nuance data (e.g., findings on jurisdiction and merits) would be entered to the data capture analysis stage.
Yes, the subject navigator (SN) review process would be a document specific tasks. The user would be analyzing and tagging a document, and then making adjustments to the Master Tree as necessary within the same page (similar to how the tagging tree can be adjusted while tagging documents in P3). You would not need to assign an independent task to adjust the Master Tree, it would all be document specific. I don't think we need a separate approval process for changes to the Master Tree. Any changes made to the Master Tree (e.g., adding/deleting branches) would be reviewed/approved by the reviewer as they are reviewing the document. However, if this requires a separate approval process to be technically feasible, I'm fine with that as well.
Here are a couple more screenshots to clarify some other points on task assignments and documents states:
Finally, in my original comments I flagged the issue of having legal analyst and editors performing analysis on the same document at the same time. Is there a way we can overcome this problem to ensure there can be simultaneous analysis. Perhaps we can create different versions of the document depending on what task is being performed by the users? For example, one version for DC analysis and another version for SN analysis, which is then consolidated when reviewed and approved by the review.
Let's plan to have a call on Monday to discuss. I'm available anytime other than 10-11am Vancouver time.
Thanks and have a good weekend.
Morgan
Does 3pm (noon your time) on Monday work for you?
Sure. That works for me. Talk to you then.
Morgan