Board Members Present:
Sharon Gilburd (SG) – Chair
Samina Ali (SA)
John-Mark Frost (JMF)
Andrea Gale (AG)
Harriet Green (HG) – CEO
Myra Hunt (MH) – CEO
Glyn Jones (GJ) – WG
Ben Summers (BS)
CDPS Staff:
Phillipa Knowles (PK)
Kath Morgan (KM) – Item 4 only
Secretariat:
Jon Morris (JM)
Apologies:
Jonathan Pearce
The meeting opened at 14:00
ITEM 1: Board Business
1.1 Apologies were noted from Jonathan Pearce, and the Chair noted a quorum had been achieved.
1.2 Board members noted the Conflict-of-Interest Register. SG and JMF noted that they needed to submit additional declarations due to recent changes and appointments.
ACTION: JM to send link to Declaration of Interest form to SG and JMF.
1.3 The Board approved the note of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 as a true and accurate record.
1.4 The action log was received, and Members noted the progress. Members did not raise any concerns on progress being made.
1.5 Board members noted the 2024-25 Q3 finance report, previously considered at January’s ARC meeting. GJ requested an update on CDPS’s projected end of year position, which was provided by PK. As CDPS draft forecast position was likely to be over the permissible 2%, GJ asked that CDPS formally notify WG of this, in line with the Framework agreement between WG and CDPS.
ACTION: PK to notify GJ of likely end of year position, and update as position solidifies.
1.6 There were no matters arising which were not covered on the agenda.
ITEM 2: CEO Report
2.1 HG introduced the CEO report to the Board. She noted that this report covered the period from November to date, including the Critical Friend Review and all in-flight work.
2.2 Board questioned whether current staff turnover and the new remit was an opportunity to revisit succession planning, examining what CDPS needs from a new structure to maximise impact across all areas. They noted that it was important to consider new areas and roles rather than recruit like-for-like for leavers. They also agreed with the CEOs that it was a positive to have CDPS staff leaving to roles across the wider public sector to increase skills across Wales.
2.3 HG laid out that the goal this year is to build confidence and ambition, delivering success stories with WG. This will allow us to open the door with wider service owners and service teams who are willing to work with us.
2.4 The Board noted that CDPS typically engages in three to five demonstrator projects at a time, but as this is an ambitious programme would like to seem more around impact and outcomes. They also raised concerns over resourcing for the planned works over the coming year, particularly around resources available for software development as we still lack a Tech strategy, and CDPS taking on the role of managing the gov.wales domain presenting potentially a lot of effort with no extra resources.
2.5 GJ stated that CDPS have the opportunity to focus on deliverables over the next 6-months then iterate based on learnings. HG explained that CDPS has a clear resourcing plan developed by SLT and will need to broaden our skills through this year – taking advantage of the flexibility that vacancies give us, we can flex our ability to react to public sectoral needs.
2.6 HG further explained that CDPS is now developing our KPIs from our granular workplan, with a focus on developing shared assets and templates, and building smaller things to help service providers either spin up new services or develop existing ones.
2.8 PK introduced an updated MI Pack format, noting the amendments made from the last format, and explaining changes we expect to make for the next version. The new version will be based on the new remit and agreed KPIs previously discussed.
2.9 Board members found it useful to see the links between objectives, actions and impacts, and being able to follow the threads in the workflow. Members noted they would like to see data-based approach rather than anecdotal in the next version.
2.1 Board also suggested breaking down target increases by quarter to track progress through the year and allow increased responsiveness. E.g., target 70% increase in engagement by end of year, but how can we see the journey – 20% Q1, 45% Q2, etc. members also suggested a multi-level approach which would identify direct impacts and assumed impacts.
ITEM 3: CRITICAL FRIEND REVIEW UPDATE
3.1 Commercially Sensitive – Item removed from published note
ITEM 4: 2025-26 DRAFT WORKPLAN AND DRAFT BUDGET
KM joined the meeting
4.1 HG introduced the draft workplan for 2025-26. The plan sought to answer what CDPS should do in each area and whether CDPS has the resources to deliver. She continued that the plan is a journey of change and continuity – with an expansion in Standards and staff to support service standards.
4.2 The Chair questioned whether delivery plan was too ambitious. The CEOs are confident that CDPS has sized pieces appropriately, though there may be opportunity to restructure some roles/business areas in CDPS to adapt to our evolving needs. This will be discussed with WG for authorisation before any action taken.
4.3 Board members questioned how we can assure CDPS has appropriate resources available for planned workstreams to ensure success, with the CEOs noting the importance that skills follow need rather than the other way round.
4.4 Board members questioned whether SLT had considered what would be dropped if workstreams overrun, and how will this impact CDPS? How do we ensure we don’t drop the big things which will scale in preference for small unscalable? They also raised concerns that CDPS may not have the capacity to take on novel pieces with a lot of items being moved to BAU. Members recommended that SLT consider allocating to 65% to 85% of staff time to take into account external forces/leave/unexpected items rather than allocating 100% of staff time.
ACTION: CEOs to share resource plan to back up 2024-25 workplan with Board members. The resource plan should consider appropriate volume of work and value of prioritisation.
4.5 The Board agreed the importance of understanding the benefits and impact of the work completed, giving the example of understanding the impact of services which have “passed” their service assessments; it is critical to learn from this rather than just move to the next assessment.
4.6 GJ expressed his opinion that CDPS should explore strategic partnerships to develop skills, e.g. computer sciences depts, following success of Apprentice programme. SA offered to support given the experience from Cwmpas’ partnerships with Cardiff Business School and Comp Science department.
ACTION: PT to engage with computer science departments to develop strategic partnerships.
4.6 PK introduced the draft budget for 2025-26 and invited the Board to comment. MH noted the budget is very high level at this point, with a 3:1 split of Squads vs. Comms & Ops, with an overall staff cost of 80% of total grant.
4.7 Board members discussed the increase in costs from quarter to quarter, with KM explaining that this was due to annual pay review forecasts and staff in-year changes.
4.8 The Board noted the progress made in the Operations team with significant reductions on the costs of outsourced services compared with the position only a couple of years ago.
GJ & KM left the meeting
ITEM 5: ANY OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 Members asked the CEOs for insight on the UK Gov climate and how recent changes may impact CDPS and Wales in general. HG confirmed that there were some conversations ongoing with the potential of huge opportunities, though still at early stages.
5.2 HG noted the difficulty in achieving alignment as GDS normally focus on large UK civil service departments, so there is a large difference in scale. GDS has indicated they want to work with Wales and drive up use of centrally provided platforms, tools, assets of all kinds and drive up use of ones which are developed within Wales. Overall, this opportunity presents potential and willingness, but there is uncertainty.
5.3 PK asked whether Board members were interested in finding new dates for the Healthy Boards workshop. Members confirmed they were still interested in pursuing, and asked JM to arrange new dates.
ACTION: JM to recirculate new dates for Healthy Boards workshop.
5.4 Review of Board meeting – The board found the session helpful and constructive. Members noted these were interesting times with interesting problems while CDPS adapts to new ways of working and a new remit. NEDs also appreciated the clarity and collaboration between exec and non-exec members.
5.5 Board members agreed this was a useful governance meeting and that there was no need for the six-monthly face-to-face strategic sessions. The benefit of strategic sessions may be revisited in the future.
ACTION: JM to remove face-to-face strategic meetings from the calendar of Board meetings.
The meeting closed at 17:00
