Pattern

HCD engagement intake and triage

Create a visible front door for HCD demand, centered on the decision at stake rather than the artifact someone initially requests.

Connected MyKMHub content

Purpose

When to use this pattern

Use it for new requests, major scope changes, research support, accessibility concerns, design reviews, and requests for HCD artifacts. It is especially useful when demand exceeds capacity or work currently arrives through personal relationships.

Intake should be proportionate. A short, accessible conversation can create the initial record; the requester should not need to understand HCD terminology or complete a long form before the team will listen.

Shared record

Capture a minimum intake record

Decision or outcome
What decision, commitment, or measurable outcome must this work inform?
People affected
Who uses, receives, supports, administers, or is excluded by the current experience?
Current evidence
What is known, inferred, disputed, missing, or already documented?
Timing
Which planning, procurement, design, implementation, or release decision creates the real deadline?
Risk and obligations
Which accessibility, privacy, safety, policy, ethical, operational, or reputational constraints apply?
Owner and collaborators
Who owns the outcome, can provide access, can make decisions, and must participate?
Existing work
Which research, services, systems, projects, standards, or prior decisions should this connect to?

Record the request in a shared location with an owner, received date, current state, next review, and links to connected evidence or efforts. Keep sensitive research and personal information out of general intake records.

Sequence

Triage before promising a deliverable

  1. Clarify the decision and the people affected.
  2. Check for immediate accessibility, safety, privacy, or policy risk.
  3. Find existing evidence, related efforts, and prior decisions.
  4. Identify the latest point when evidence can still change the outcome.
  5. Assess priority using shared dimensions rather than one composite score.
  6. Define the smallest responsible engagement and required collaborators.
  7. Assign a routing outcome, owner, rationale, and next review date.
  8. Communicate the decision and preserve the intake record.

Prioritization

Compare demand across six dimensions

Consequence

What happens to people, mission, compliance, cost, or trust if the decision proceeds without better evidence?

Reach and equity

How many people are affected, how often, and whether impacts fall disproportionately on underserved or excluded groups.

Decision leverage

Whether timely HCD work can still change the decision, requirement, design, implementation, or release.

Evidence gap

How consequential the unknowns are and whether existing evidence is current, representative, and sufficiently traceable.

Readiness

Whether owners, participants, access, data handling, decisions, and delivery partners are available to support responsible work.

Effort and capacity

The smallest responsible engagement, specialist skills, calendar time, and opportunity cost relative to other demand.

Do not hide judgment inside a mathematically precise-looking total. Record the evidence, assumptions, and tradeoffs behind the priority decision, including which dimensions outweighed others.

Routing

End triage with an explicit outcome

  • Clarify: return for a missing decision, owner, access path, or constraint.
  • Advise: provide a short consultation, standard, pattern, or referral.
  • Discover: run focused research or problem framing before delivery commitments.
  • Embed: assign ongoing HCD support within a delivery effort.
  • Review: evaluate existing evidence, requirements, designs, or implementation.
  • Escalate: route material accessibility, ethics, privacy, safety, or governance risk.
  • Sequence: accept the need but schedule it against higher-priority work.
  • Decline: document why HCD engagement is not appropriate or feasible now.

Governance

Review the intake system, not just requests

  • Can people request help without knowing the right person?
  • Are request and priority decisions visible to affected teams?
  • Can urgent accessibility or safety risks bypass normal cadence?
  • Are declined and deferred needs reconsidered when conditions change?
  • Does intake reveal recurring capability, policy, or process gaps?
  • Are lead time, demand, capacity, outcomes, and unmet need reviewed together?
  • Can the organization explain why one engagement preceded another?