Scope (SC) Suit

DBD Cornucopia > Deck > Scope

The Scope (SC) suit is a clustering of threats around the range of features implemented for the policy, including breadth of functionality, depth of provision, and extent of these across claimants' actual activities needed to use the service, and the fit with claimants' lives.

All six suits are broad groupings of threats which, while useful for game play, should not be allowed to restrict thinking about either where and how the threats defined on each card could or do arise, nor the types and locations of harms occuring. If suits overly dominate thinking, it can be useful to think about 'what would be revealed if this threat card was in a different suit?'.

The other suits in the deck are: Architecture, Agency, Trust, Porosity and Cornucopia (plus Jokers).

Thirteen Cards in the Scope Suit

Each suit is a broad grouping of threats, and are relevant to all sort of implementation team roles and stages of the service lifecycle. The suit names should neither constrain thinking about implementation choices which may cause the threat, nor restrict the types of harm identified.

Tommy does not create, publish and maintain publicly all the service assumptions, specifications, constraints, source code, algorithms, formulas, configuration settings, operating instructions and processes

SC-2

Charlotte designs the service so that claimants themselves have to generate/enter data about personal activities (e.g. job search) or obtain/enter existing data from elsewhere (e.g. care/health services, education providers)

SC-3

Sofia undertakes features which require claimants to provide information repeatedly or which is already held (e.g. address, other welfare benefits awarded, tax code)

SC-4

Imogen excludes features from the implementation which would a) support claimants submit feedback, and/or formal complaints, and/or mandatory reconsiderations, and/or appeals (or separates them into different channels or isolated systems), and/or b) support government officials to address any of these and redress/corrections promptly and efficiently

SC-5

Lucas creates workflows which require claimants to access the system very frequently, regardless of claimants` work, health, life situations and day-to-day events and circumstances

SC-6

Joshua constitutes the service which is unavailable using some delivery channels (e.g. digital, telephone, paper/post, face-to-face) and options (e.g. for digital: chat, website app, mobile app, API), or all these are not offered to claimants, or all these do not provide full service, or all these are not supported equally, or all are not reliable or available every hour of every day

SC-7

Lilly composes full service provision across multiple channels and multiple digital options, but they are not interoperable (e.g. claimants cannot mix and match as needed) and/or claimants can only use one channel ever

SC-8

Daisy implements service provision without spanning temporally all the activities claimants have to do, either a) earlier before a claim is submitted (e.g. discovering what benefits are available, understanding how to apply, copying evidence), and/or b) later after a claim has ended (e.g. producing a record of past payments, providing evidence of past eligibility)

SC-9

Stanley omits building in some necessary activities required of claimants while making/maintaining a claim (e.g. between service touchpoints, during touchpoints), and/or the activities are provided inadequately or only partially (e.g. do not span all the situations which can occur like separation from partner but still co-habiting, do not include all aspects of certain personal circumstances like mature student, self-employed)

SC-10

Elliot perpetrates simplistic assumptions about the realities of claimants` everyday lives which makes the calculation and checking of award payments difficult, and/or payments are unstable and difficult to predict

SC-J

Elsie executes the system to only permit a single end user per claim (e.g. the claimant, their appointee)

SC-Q

Bonnie puts into effect a service which does not attempt to identify the best choices for individual claimants, and/or does not optimise each individual`s claim, and/or does not warn claimants about potential problems, and/or does not inform claimants of other services they are possibly eligible for, and/or other ways to improve claimants` lives related to the service`s policy intent

SC-K

You have invented a new implementation decision related to scope of the service that is harmful to claimants

SC-A

Note About Card Values

Card values (e.g. 3, 8, King) are for game play and are not correlated with the severity of harm. This is because threats cannot be ranked directly since they can affect individuals in different ways due to situations and circumstances, or affect fewer or more claimants, or the harms can arise in claimants' support networks and wider society.