Board minutes – May 2024

John-Mark Frost (JMF) – Acting Chair

Samina Ali (SA)

Andrea Gale (AG)

Harriet Green (HG) – CEO

Glyn Jones (GJ)

Neil Prior (NP)

Ben Summers (BS)

Phillipa Knowles (PK)

Item 6 only:

Poppy Evans (PE)

Joanna Goodwin (JG)

Jemima Monteith Thomas (JMT)

Emma Morales (EM)

Vic Smith (VS)

Secretariat: Jon Morris (JM)

Apologies: Sharon Gilburd, Myra Hunt

The meeting opened at 14:00

1.1. Board members noted the apologies and agreed for the meeting to be chaired by JMF in the absence of SG. The Chair noted a quorum had been achieved. 

1.2. Board members noted the Conflict of Interest Register and were content that it was reflective of all current interests.

1.3. The Board approved the minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2024 as a true and accurate record.

1.4. The action log was received, and members noted the progress on actions and the actions that had been closed. The chair raised that there were a number of actions which could be closed as they are in motion with no further clear actions needed from the board. 

ACTION: Board members to provide feedback to PK, proposing actions which they consider can be closed.

ACTION: PK to close or merge Board Check-in Meeting Actions tab with standard Action Log.

1.5. Board members agreed there were no matters arising not already present on the agenda.

1.6. Board members noted the Draft End of Year finance report, previously presented to the Audit and Risk Committee, with no further comments. The chair commended colleagues for swift and accurate production of report.

2.1. HG presented the May 2024 CEO update to the meeting, noting the scale of change needed in the Welsh public sector and the pace at which the changes can be made.

2.2. Not included in the update was HG’s reflection on the inspiring apprentice show and tell presented on 15 May. She recommended that board members who missed the live show and tell watch the presentation on our YouTube channel. HG also expressed her thanks to JM and AG for the videos used to promote the Finance Advisor board role.

2.3. GJ raised two minor points of accuracy in the report, which were accepted by the CEO and will be updated in the report. GJ also raised that the risk of raising awareness of CDPS with the Cabinet Secretary could be countered by showing the impact of CDPS rather than increasing face time with the Cab Sec. Finally, GJ advised that starting to develop more partnerships with academia and others would be an excellent strategic position for CDPS to take, and that CDPS should make the most of its access to Cardiff University's Digital Transformation Institute through sbarc|spark.

2.4. Board members reflected that the report was very positive, identifying challenges and turning them into success stories. The hope is that Wales can use digital tools and technologies to deliver the policies it wants to deliver successfully to the benefit of users. CDPS wants to develop a pan-sector message: “Here are ways that you can improve the delivery of your services and get better value for money by doing it and joining up with others.” This is why we have implemented a service approach in CDPS for multiple streams of support through CDPS’s four key services. 

2.5. The board discussed timescales of demonstrator projects to deliver impact which CDPS can use as evidence of the benefit of change. CDPS aims to show benefit on a continuous basis, through a rolling plan of projects delivering incremental improvements, building a powerful case for investment in digital to solve pressing problems. This is a long journey, but we do need to point to demonstrable live services where we have had a direct involvement. The CEO commented on the work to persuade partners with positive messages and taking advantage of people's desire to improve. She noted that CDPS has no concrete incentives or penalties, and that GDS used spending compliance around spending stage gates, etc. and had funds available to give if stakeholders presented a compelling case.

2.6. Board members agreed that it would be beneficial if CDPS were more involved with developing baselines to accurately measure the impact of CDPS’s involvement.

2.7. GJ reflected that CDPS has limited resources, and that our partners must show commitment by investing in their own services in order to move to more live services. Therefore, external cultural aspect can be seen as a main blocker to impact. The board considered whether CDPS needs to be more disruptive and agreed that we have had success in creating change without costing more, e.g. taxi and private hire vehicle project. Board members are aware that new projects are coming on board through Q1 and will take some time to show impacts. MI pack coming to July meeting. 

2.8. One board member raised the need to be aware that all attendees to CDPS events need to feel welcome, example of a non-public sector representative not being welcomed by other attendees (not CDPS staff) at a CDPS event. CDPS must reinforce that we are the Centre for Digital Public Services, not public sector.

SA Joined the meeting.

2.9. Overall very positive to see breadth of connections and being involved early with WG. Interesting to see service reviews and board would be interested if this could be brought to a future board meeting. The board were also keen to see more detail on the EDI report commissioned by CDPS, and potentially add to a future board agenda.

ACTION: PK to share EDI report via email and bring to future board meeting.

ACTION: PK to arrange for service reviews to be included at a future board meeting.

3.1. Board members gave their reflections on the effectiveness of their recent group and one-to-one coaching experience. Universally this was seen as a positive experience. The board have appreciated the coach’s approach and agreed that it has worked positively. Members have seen a step change in terms of how they interact as a board. The board agreed the upcoming sessions should be how they can embed that change to ensure they don't go back to old habits. Board also reinforced that they would like to be involved outside of formal board meetings when CDPS needs some input or advice and support on a particular item.

3.2. The board agreed the current meeting schedule for ARC was appropriate as is and does not need amending. It was agreed that ARC meetings should take place before board meetings.

3.3. Board members agreed that there would be benefit, with agreement from SG, from July to move to quarterly meetings. This would also allow for two additional creative and generative meetings in the year where board members could have space to consider ongoing or emerging questions with the CEO, SLT, or advisory panel.

3.4. Members feel that they are kept well informed on CDPS’s activities between board meetings through regular show and tells, weeknotes, communities of interest involvement and newsletters.

ACTION: PK and CEO to discuss proposal to amendment of board meeting frequency with SG for ratification.

ACTION: PK to suggest new board meeting schedule from August 2024 onwards.

4.1. PK introduced the draft Terms of Reference, previously considered by the ARC, for approval by the board.

4.2. GJ suggested three amendments to ensure consistency with the Articles of Association and Framework Agreement. These changes were agreed by all board members.

4.3. The board approved the ARC Terms of Reference for adoption subject to the updates suggested by GJ. 

ACTION: JM to update and publish the ARC Terms of Reference.

5.1. Board members discussed progress made on the current knowledge hub. Some members had concerns about elements of the project, but acknowledged that this was a key user ask shown though a number of discovery exercises and an ongoing ask from stakeholders through our communities of practice.

5.2. Members see real value in knowledge hubs when they are well delivered. A question was raised about the selected platform CDPS is using to deliver the resource. The resources being shared were seen as useful, but there was a question on whether the platform is suitable for testing and whether the search function would surface useful results. Members considered the key need to user test the content for insights as we develop the offer. 

5.3. The board agreed that the paper be noted and should be treated as a response to queries raised.

ACTION: BS to connect with Peter Thomas to discuss challenges with current platform.

6.1. The chair welcomed members of the design and improve service and led a round of introductions for board members and CDPS staff. CDPS staff then delivered a presentation on engagement and projects with various parts of the health sector.

NP left the meeting.

6.2. CDPS staff opened up for questions from the board. The board were very pleased with the level of work that had gone into the projects and had received independent positive feedback from stakeholders prior to this session.

6.3 The board raised the question of user research participant demographics and whether CDPS had managed to reach members of diverse communities either directly or through specialist agencies. EM offered to share aggregated demographic data for participants and noted that the first work package of Digital Maternity Cymru particularly focused on seldom-heard voices.

PE described that the neurodiversity project used WG as a gateway to access people from diverse groups, but noted that if this project progresses to alpha, testing will focus more on recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups. SA offered to connect the team to underrepresented groups if this would be helpful.

6.4. JG explained that CDPS develops a stakeholder engagement plan for every project. We approach established networks to try and make research as representative as possible. GJ noted that accessing diverse groups is a common problem for all, and guidance would be appreciated. How can CDPS share best practice?

JG replied that CDPS has developed a user research panel consisting of 500 people from diverse backgrounds. She also described that all user research goes through CDPS’s ethics panel before commencement, but that there are always research participant recruitment challenges. Where CDPS fails to recruit all representative users, we include this clearly in the recommendations. Further, we would never go live with a solution if there were any gaps in understanding the needs of users from diverse backgrounds.

JG explained that we are looking at our offering. Research Ops is probably one of our most mature areas within CDPS at the moment where we are developing a lot of that guidance, tools, techniques, and templates which can be utilised. These can help organisations develop research repositories, research panels, recruitment processes and ethics committees. We're not confident enough to go public yet, but that is definitely in our plans with it quite soon as well and start working with the community through that. And then more broadly as well. 

6.5. GJ questioned whether the positivity towards change and new ways of working was coming from practitioners or decision makers/budget holders? How do we get the right people to the show and tells? We need to demonstrate impact and value to budget holders. JMT explained that the best way we have found to demonstrate value is by fully blending a project team and including stakeholders staff into the process. This allows the partner organisation to see the effort taken rather than just the output and helps them understand a new way of working. She noted that it is critical to build relationships with partner organisations as this is critical in removing impediments and blockages to progress.

6.6. HG summarised, stating that she was very proud of our work with health. She noted that due to the size and scope of health and social care, the task may seem immense. The health sector has shown they want to modernise, but it can be daunting to change ways of working. The pace of change in health has to be incremental, but it is a hugely important area of engagement. These projects have shown the tremendous value in change, and that taking the user-centred design approach is essential to understand their users’ needs.

7.1. Board members approved the publishing of meeting notes to CDPS’ website in arrears.

7.2. Review of board meeting – members were happy with the balance reached during this meeting. They stressed the importance of maintaining a balance between governance and presentations from teams.  

7.3. Planning for next meeting on 10 July 2024 – the following items were agreed for July’s board meeting, with no additional items nominated by any members.

• Board succession and forward look - GJ agenda item 
• Risk appetite

The meeting closed at 16:55