Board minutes – November 2024

Sharon Gilburd (SG)

Samina Ali (SA) 

John-Mark Frost (JMF)

Andrea Gale (AG) 

Harriet Green (HG) – CEO

Myra Hunt (MH) – CEO 

Glyn Jones (GJ) – WG 

Jonathan Pearce (JP)

Ben Summers (BS)

CDPS Staff:

Phillipa Knowles (PK)

Phil Baird (PB) – Item 5 Only

Poppy Evans (PE) – Item 6 only

Secretariat:

Jon Morris (JM)

Apologies:

None

The meeting opened at 14:00

1.1 The Chair welcomed JP to his first Board meeting and noted that his expertise and experience will be a great asset to the Board.

1.1 There were no apologies, and the Chair noted a quorum had been achieved.

1.2 Board members noted the Conflict of Interest Register. JM highlighted that some members needed to resubmit their annual declarations of interest in line with the Conflict of Interest Policy. 

ACTION: JM to follow-up on any outstanding Declarations to ensure interests are correctly noted.

1.3 The Board approved the note of the meeting held on 10 July 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 and approved the closure of a number of actions. 

1.5 Board members noted the externally audited accounts, previously considered at October’s ARC meeting. JP reiterated an action from the ARC meeting, for CDPS to explore whether JP needs to be added to the accounts before submitting to Companies House.

1.6 Board members noted the 2024-25 Q2 finance report, previously considered at October’s ARC meeting. The Chair commented that there is a lack of strategic overview in the report, which explains what, but not why. She asked if the report could be more specific ongoing so it may be considered as a standalone source of information.

1.6 There were no matters arising which were not covered on the agenda. 

2.1 MH presented the CEO report, highlighting the impact of political transitions and summer hiatus on project progress. She mentioned the successful rollout of the Leadership Academy and the work on accessibility and the AI community of practice. 

2.2 MH discussed the decision to leave Sbarc|Spark due to its high cost and limited usage by staff. She noted that all staff are remote workers, and the cost was not justified by the small number of ad hoc users. She emphasised the need to manage this change and consider alternative arrangements for face-to-face meetings.

2.3 Board members questioned whether the decision to leave Sbarc|Spark should have come to them for approval as it changes the external perception and availability of the company. The CEO reflected that we should keep the Board more in the loop and treat them more as a resource. HG noted staff feedback on the importance of remaining a remote organisation. HG explained the comms to staff encouraging meeting at free locations and submitting a short business case for any payable space in recognition that we are spending public money.

2.4 GJ suggested considering a location in Cathays Park, offering to broker a conversation with their estates people. He mentioned the availability of hotdesking options and the potential benefits of being closer to policymakers.

ACTION: JM to engage with WG officials to explore options for co-working at WG locations.

2.5 Board members inquired about staff wellbeing, and whether there were any areas NEDs need to consider or be aware of? MH and PK provided insights from the monthly staff survey. They noted mixed feedback, with some teams feeling positive and others experiencing anxiety due to recent changes and the review process. PK discussed the measures taken to support staff, including regular team meetings, an employee forum, and an "ask the CEO" session where staff could anonymously ask questions. These measures aim to address staff concerns and improve communication. Members commended CEO and SLT for not only running Staff survey, but developing an action plan based on responses.

2.6 HG described the recruitment of CDPS’s new interim Head of Standards, Jemima Monteith-Thomas. Jemima will focus on strategic oversight, the standards working group, and further development of products like the service manual and service assessments. HG mentioned that the recruitment process included three excellent internal candidates. AG, who was on the recruitment panel, noted that all candidates emphasised the importance of making the standards central to CDPS's work.

2.7 GJ identified the opportunities for joined up thinking between sectoral Heads of Standards. CEO still committed to recruiting new Head of Technology, probably in the new financial year. BS recommended developing the tech strategy before recruiting and sourcing a person to fit the strategy.

2.8 HG introduced the Management Information Pack (MIP), noting that this will be the last time the Board see the MIP in its current form. The MIP is still developing in line with the recommendations from CDPS’s Information Architect, and will come back in a much clearer format in the new year. 

2.9 GJ noted that the report should be iterated, and suggested we could include results from staff survey. He further questioned the relevance of leadership challenges, and should this be treated as a strategic risk? Board members suggested the inclusion of more quantitative data and a need to be realistic on how much impact CDPS can have given the relative size, available resources, and complexity of task in Wales. JMF offered support in development.

ACTION: PK to engage with JMF in developing a new style MIP.

2.10 The Chair questioned whether the MIP is driving action and change, and whether we are missing an opportunity to allow the MI Pack to guide development?

2.11 HG committed to give this real management time to improve the MIP. She noted that the board has given a great deal of input on development of the pack, and she would like to bring a finished product to guide actions. HG was confident CDPS could produce a final style MIP which may then be iterated to improve.

2.12 Members questioned whether the ratings in the MIP show CDPS’s impact on live services? E.g. feedback from training is great, but what is the impact coming from the training? HG agreed and noted that we are setting up new ways to evaluate and track what the training has achieved. Without pre-empting that assessment, this would probably involve a change in metric from delivery of courses to impact.

2.13 HG noted that CDPS cannot rate everything e.g. the question of whether there is “distributed but aligned leadership across sectors in Wales” is beyond our ability to RAG. CDPS cannot RAG whether the whole of Wales is Digitally native. GJ agreed CDPS can only RAG our activities. 

2.14 The Board suggested we should be able to measure the impact CDPS has had on each intervention. The CEOs agreed, noting that this would require a baselining of a service before CDPS begins Discovery on each project. Members further asked whether the MIP is missing massive impacts we have been involved with historically, e.g. e-prescribing? HG recognised we do need to capture the impact across the piece, but the Pack needs to be a wider picture of how CDPS is “changing the weather” in Wales.

2.15 Directors questioned how the MIP cuts across our Strategic Risk Register? Should both docs be read in tandem or isolation? HG welcomed the input and confirmed all reports should be complimentary, each informing part of a complete picture of governance. 

3.1 GJ thanked the Board for their contributions with the Tailored Review. He confirmed WG and the CEO have now had sight on the report. GJ asked CEO to be mindful of how they share the report given how it can be perceived by staff and stakeholders. There is no plan to share the report externally in its current format but may trail summary with stakeholders and Boards.

3.2 GJ explained that the Board’s December away day was a good opportunity to start to discuss the report and CDPS’s response to it, and will want to pick up with Chair and CEO ahead of time, in the next two/three weeks. GJ asked NEDs to share their experience of the review process with him. SG offered to collate feedback for GJ.

Action: NEDs to share feedback on the experience by Wed 20 Nov with SG. SG to collate and submit to GJ by 22 Nov.

3.3 GJ stated the action plan to be developed in response to the review is formally owned by the partnership team, but would seek to work collaboratively on it. GJ confirmed the 2025-26 roadmap development may continue before the action plan is confirmed, and will pick up details with CEO and Chair shortly.

3.4 The Board noted that the challenge of any gateway review team is to review organisations as they generally specialise in programmes and projects. Questioned whether the report is useful and fair. GJ & HG confirmed it helpfully condensed questioned around when CDPS was set up – e.g. are the goals right and useful? It didn’t challenge on anything we weren’t aware of but is a useful focussing tool.

3.5 From her experience reviewing other ALBs, MH described the differences in structure between Programmes and ALBs, stating that CDPS cannot be described as a programme. GJ confirmed the scope for the review was as an ALB rather than a programme. 

4.1 GJ presented a verbal update on Board recruitment and the recent experience with bringing JP in to CDPS’s Board. GJ’s team are recommencing work on recruitment this month, looking to advertise in Jan for four weeks, ready to appoint in May for an end of June start.

4.2 Following on from the discussion at July’s Board meeting, SG asked about the concept of shadow boards. GJ agreed to pick this up with his team for investigation.

Action: GJ to investigate possibilities with shadow boards and development opportunities. GJ to investigate how Board, shadow Board and Advisory Panel can work together effectively.

4.3 Members discussed the Advisory Panel’s wish to increase their engagement with Board, as they have met only once. 

5.1 PB presented the service manual and demonstrated its features. He explained that the service manual was developed in-house with input from the user research and design communities. It focuses on unique aspects of building digital public services in Wales, such as the Welsh Language and WFGA.

5.2 PB demonstrated the service manual's features, including sections on user research, bilingual research, and design principles. The manual includes a feedback form and metrics to track performance and iterate the product.

5.3 The Board discussed the approach taken by GDS whereby if departments did not follow their published standards they would not receive funding. GJ and HG described that in Wales we do not have the same levers, especially considering we are engaging with the whole public sector rather than just civil service departments. Both described that the important focus from CDPS must be to show the benefits of complying and embedding the standards and engaging across Wales’ CDOs to promote.

5.4 Members questioned whether the current version supports other languages than Welsh and English? PB described that the current version is a minimum viable product, and does not cover provision of services in other languages, just Welsh and English. PB confirmed that if identified as a requirement, this may be included in future iterations.

5.5 SA offered to affect introductions into Cwmpas as an opportunity to link into Minimum Digital Living Standards piece.

5.6 MH noted that service manual is an ongoing comms campaign where we need to keep the conversation going and link into multiple areas. She highlighted the need to ensure the standards are seen as an enabler rather than another task or hurdle to cross. 

5.7 PB discussed the service assessment offer, which provides assurance for digital services. It has been tested with organisations including Natural Resources Wales and Stats Wales but needs more promotion and capacity building to increase uptake.

5.8 GJ described the importance of agreeing the programme of rollout, capacity and training up public sector assessors. Board members were in complete agreement, and reiterated the importance of creating evangelists to drive engagement with the standards. 

5.9 MH noted that this is very much our first steps to learn and test what is possible. She noted that CDPS needs to decide what we are willing to commit to the assessments. MH noted the possibility of running service assessments as a loss leader to increase engagement with our message. GJ noted the importance of the CDO group and suggested each CDO could commit resources to perform service assessments to spread the resource cost. 

6.1 PK and PE introduced the EDI paper and progress made since the externally completed EDI audit completed in April, and updated the board on the progress of the EDI working group. The group is setting manageable quarterly objectives and involving staff in the process.

6.2 Board members noted that the reports were comprehensive and in-depth. They queried if there was anything the staff hadn’t expected. PK noted the high proportion of staff who identify as neurodiverse and the importance to make sure their support needs are being met.

6.3 The Board commended the quality of the report and the fact the data is being used to inform continuous improvement. Members questioned why there has been a delay in the report coming to Board given it was published in April. PK explained there had been a delay in creating and agreeing the action plan. Members felt that these kinds of reports can be distributed outside the normal Board meeting cycle, and that Board members can add value to EDI conversations or pieces and support.

6.4 GJ noted R&R mention on roadmap and welcomed a discussion on any proposals. He also noted the findings of WG’s Copilot trial, with emphasis on its benefits for neurodiverse folk.

Action: PK to liaise with WG Copilot trial team to understand potential benefits and crossover for CDPS.

6.5 HG noted EDI information is outside the scope of Tailored Reviews but is it critically important that WG-funded bodies demonstrate best practice across the board. She also noted that this is not the end of the story, and that CDPS is using this as a base to build on.

7.1 PK explained a number of training opportunities for Board members being explored by WG, and asked members to confirm their interest via email. 

Action: PK to email training opportunities to Board members and confirm their interest to WG 

7.2 Review of Board meeting – The board found the session helpful, productive and enjoyable. They particularly enjoyed the insight given by staff attending for speciality items. Overall opinion was that this had been a well-timed agenda which gave space for in-depth discussion.

The meeting closed at 17:00